Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Did you see the video of the sailboat that was dismasted by a freighter during a race? That was clearly the sailboat's fault.

The incident is currently at court and not likely to finish before this Wednesday, how come you know who was at fault before the jury has decided?

Pete

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Pete7

The incident is current at court and not likely to finish before this Wednesday, how come you know who was at fault before the jury has decided?

Pete

By never allowing the facts to get in the way of an opinion. How else?

[Wraith_Mac]

Originally Posted by carstenb

By never allowing the facts to get in the way of an opinion. How else?

Samo, Samo...

Mac

[monte]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Of course. It actually isn't enough to follow the COLREGS, because the captain of the ferry doesn't know you're familiar with them. Your moves have to be timely and obvious.

That's what I've always said, and anyone who distorts it is just making ship up.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? We should assume the captain thinks we don't know COLREGS and..?
it isn't enough to follow the COLREGS? The COLREGS state course changes should be timely and obvious, so, what exactly is it you are trying to add or say?

...On second thought, never mind, I understand, thanks,
now where were we..

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Thanks for taking the time to post this.
c

The instructor gave me a contact at USCG HQ who is their "final authority" on colreg questions. This morning I called and asked what the formal definition and implication of "impede" was. He asked for my e-mail address and said he would send me an "official" answer . . . But that it might take sometime because of the government shutdown and that he would have to pass it around to several people for approval. I will post whenever our government gets back into operation and I get the answer.

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Of course. It actually isn't enough to follow the COLREGS........

By the way, the cowes incident is not quite a simple as it looks in the YouTube video. The ships normally take a 120 degree turn (around a sand bank) just before where this incident occurred, and the ship had made sound signals that they were going to make that turn, but then a small power boat was disabled in their way preventing them from making the turn where they planned to so they continued streight. The sailboat skipper anticipated they would make their turn and planned his course based on that anticipation.

It was still a bonehead move on the sailboat skippers part, but he did have reasons to believe that the ship would turn and be out of his way.

[El Pinguino]

"how come you know who was at fault before the jury has decided?"

It's in the Southampton Magistrate's Court... no jury.... the Magistrate simply hears the evidence and decides how long you are to be sent down for...don't ask me how I know this.

I see his defence is arguing that the ship was 'borderline speeding' ... I think that is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

Detail of the moving exclusion zone follows..... he was 1000 metres inside it....




Area of Concern – Notice to Mariners No. 33/2003

...........

3 Moving Prohibited Zone (MPZ)

The Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (No 11) enforces the requirement that all vessels over 150 metres in length when navigating within the Precautionary Area referred to in this notice are automatically allocated a Moving Prohibited Zone (MPZ). The MPZ is an area extending 1000 metres ahead and 100 metres either side of any vessel greater than 150 metres within the Precautionary Area.

The master of a small vessel (less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel) shall ensure that his vessel does not enter a Moving Prohibited Zone.

For the purpose of indicating the presence of the Moving Prohibited Zone the master of any vessel of over 150 metres length overall shall display on the vessel, where it can best be seen, by day: a black cylinder, and by night: 3 all round red lights in a vertical line.

When operationally possible the Southampton Harbour patrol launch (VHF Call Sign ''SP'' Channel 12) will precede these vessels within the 'Precautionary Area' showing, in addition to the normal steaming lights a blue fixed light. The absence of the patrol launch will not invalidate the implementation of the moving prohibited zone."

I pinched this bit from PBO...
'Wilson is charged with contravening three Colregs - Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea:
Rule 5; He did not keep an adequate lookout.
Rule 9b; He impeded a large vessel in a narrow channel.
Rule 18; He impeded a vessel constrained by its draft.
Additionally he is accused of breaching Rule 7 by failing to adequately determine a risk of collision and Rule 8d as his actions did not result in his vessel passing a safe distance from the ship.'

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Pete7

The incident is currently at court and not likely to finish before this Wednesday, how come you know who was at fault before the jury has decided?

Pete

Obviously I'm not judge or jury on this case. I didn't realize I had to state that I was expressing my opinion. I have seen the video, and IN MY OPINION the sailboat is at fault. How could it have been anything but an opinion?

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The instructor gave me a contact at USCG HQ who is their "final authority" on colreg questions. This morning I called and asked what the formal definition and implication of "impede" was. He asked for my e-mail address and said he would send me an "official" answer . . . But that it might take sometime because of the government shutdown and that he would have to pass it around to several people for approval. I will post whenever our government gets back into operation and I get the answer.



By the way, the cowes incident is not quite a simple as it looks in the YouTube video. The ships normally take a 120 degree turn (around a sand bank) just before where this incident occurred, and the ship had made sound signals that they were going to make that turn, but then a small power boat was disabled in their way preventing them from making the turn where they planned to so they continued streight. The sailboat skipper anticipated they would make their turn and planned his course based on that anticipation.

It was still a bonehead move on the sailboat skippers part, but he did have reasons to believe that the ship would turn and be out of his way.

Well, this is why we have trials. I saw that video some time before it was posted again and wondered why a sailing race course took the boats so close to, or perhaps through, commercial traffic. Maybe they really had no choice about that, I don't know. It's just something I wondered about.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

"how come you know who was at fault before the jury has decided?"

It's in the Southampton Magistrate's Court... no jury.... the Magistrate simply hears the evidence and decides how long you are to be sent down for...don't ask me how I know this.

I see his defence is arguing that the ship was 'borderline speeding' ... I think that is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

Detail of the moving exclusion zone follows..... he was 1000 metres inside it....




Area of Concern – Notice to Mariners No. 33/2003

...........

3 Moving Prohibited Zone (MPZ)

The Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (No 11) enforces the requirement that all vessels over 150 metres in length when navigating within the Precautionary Area referred to in this notice are automatically allocated a Moving Prohibited Zone (MPZ). The MPZ is an area extending 1000 metres ahead and 100 metres either side of any vessel greater than 150 metres within the Precautionary Area.

The master of a small vessel (less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel) shall ensure that his vessel does not enter a Moving Prohibited Zone.

For the purpose of indicating the presence of the Moving Prohibited Zone the master of any vessel of over 150 metres length overall shall display on the vessel, where it can best be seen, by day: a black cylinder, and by night: 3 all round red lights in a vertical line.

When operationally possible the Southampton Harbour patrol launch (VHF Call Sign ''SP'' Channel 12) will precede these vessels within the 'Precautionary Area' showing, in addition to the normal steaming lights a blue fixed light. The absence of the patrol launch will not invalidate the implementation of the moving prohibited zone."

I pinched this bit from PBO...
'Wilson is charged with contravening three Colregs - Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea:
Rule 5; He did not keep an adequate lookout.
Rule 9b; He impeded a large vessel in a narrow channel.
Rule 18; He impeded a vessel constrained by its draft.
Additionally he is accused of breaching Rule 7 by failing to adequately determine a risk of collision and Rule 8d as his actions did not result in his vessel passing a safe distance from the ship.'

The other thread specifically about this collision easily led to such information, but I wasn't going to start another bickerfest here. I have read that, and IMO those are searious breaches, and IMO he will be found guilty. Whether some blame will be given to the freighter I don't have an opinion on.

At least one person apparently sustained serious head injuries. In the US, if the skipper of the sailboat is found to be responsible for the accident, that person with the head injury can then sue him for a lot of money, and would have a decent chance of winning.

The first time I saw this video I was afraid I was going to see the sailboat disappear under the freighter.

[Cotemar]

Regardless of the rules, only common sense will tell you who will win against the laws of tonnage.

--------------------------------
A racing sailor who ran into an 853-foot tanker in calm seas and excellent visibility was in court last week and denied negligence at the helm.

Roland Wilson, 32, a lieutenant in Britain’s Royal Navy, was racing in Cowes Week in August 2011 when he sailed Atalanta of Chester — a 33-footer belonging to the Royal Naval Sailing Association — into the path of the 120,000-ton Hanne Knutsen, which was making 7 knots.

Former Royal Navy officer denies flouting maritime law after crashing yacht into bright red 120,000-tonne oil tanker | Mail Online

[El Pinguino]

Hmmmmm.... 7 knots.... hardly borderline speeding.... more like 'slow ahead' on a big ship.

Getting back to the original impede thingo .... the rule actually says '(j) A vessel of less than 20m in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

If I can safely make a small alteration of course to avoid a yacht my safe passage has not been impeded..... if by making an alteration to avoid a yacht I am at risk of smacking a rock my safe passage has been impeded......

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Well, this is why we have trials. I saw that video some time before it was posted again and wondered why a sailing race course took the boats so close to, or perhaps through, commercial traffic. Maybe they really had no choice about that, I don't know. It's just something I wondered about.

The S coast of the UK is an extremely busy area commercially so all races invariably cross TSS lanes/areas restricted by draft etc... trouble is that racers tend to not give a **** about what they do... to busy looking at the competition to find fault with them and cry foul and score ..
Feel really sorry for the Poole/Cherbourg ferry skippers on summer w/ends when the Lasers, Hobies etc are out racing...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Regardless of the rules, only common sense will tell you who will win against the laws of tonnage.

--------------------------------
A racing sailor who ran into an 853-foot tanker in calm seas and excellent visibility was in court last week and denied negligence at the helm.

Roland Wilson, 32, a lieutenant in Britain’s Royal Navy, was racing in Cowes Week in August 2011 when he sailed Atalanta of Chester — a 33-footer belonging to the Royal Naval Sailing Association — into the path of the 120,000-ton Hanne Knutsen, which was making 7 knots.

Former Royal Navy officer denies flouting maritime law after crashing yacht into bright red 120,000-tonne oil tanker | Mail Online

The so-called "law of tonnage" is not part of the question here. No one ever said that the yacht skipper expected the tanker to give way, or was playing chicken with the tanker, or anything else like that.

You cannot see at all what happened from a YouTube clip filmed with a telephoto lens, which therefore shows no perspective at all. You people rushing to judge the skipper as an idiot are doing so without knowing anything about what really happened.

This place is my own backyard, so to speak -- just sailed through the very spot a couple of times yesterday. It is very crowded with heavy ship traffic in and out of Southampton and with up to thousands of sailboats out at any given time -- Cowes, the world's urheimat of yacht racing -- is just opposite the entrance to Southampton Water, with the Hamble -- another great center of sailing -- just on the other side of the Bramble Bank. Just yesterday I had to deal with two giant cruise ships, a gigantic container ship of 330 meters LOA (!), a number of smaller coasters, a high speed Red Jet ferry, a couple of slower Red Funnel ferries, and countless sail and power boats -- and that's just one transit of the area. To make things even more interesting, there is a huge shoal in the middle of it (the infamous Bramble Bank), and the tide rips at up to 4 knots. It is no place for the faint of heart, and "just running away" is not a valid plan for collision avoidance, as doing that will inevitably -- in such a place -- put you under the bows of a different vessel, or aground. Naturally you stay out of the shipping channels as much as possible, but you will have to at least cross them three or four times in a typical transit, and at low tide you have no choice but to use the shipping channel over much of a typical transit. AIS is enormously helpful, I have discovered this year. See: http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admi...%20No%2023.pdf

The collision incident took place in a special Precautionary Area where small vessels are required to observe a Moving Prohibited Zone around vessels 150 meters long and over. There was no question here about the sailboat standing on, which it certainly was not doing (and the skipper of the yacht was a serving officer in the Royal Navy, and certainly no idiot).

The word around here is that what happened was this: The tanker gave a signal for making its starboard turn up the Thorn Channel, but at that very moment noticed a powerboat with a disabled engine. In order to avoid this situation, the tanker made an unexpected port turn. The yacht skipper heard the signal for the starboard turn, and plotted his course to pass safely to the West of the turning tanker. Besides hearing the sound signal, he most likely simply knew where ships going into Southampton go, when they are coming from the East, and plotted his course to stay away from the usual path. This by itself is not unreasonable. But the tanker was turning the other way, contrary to what he signaled, and was moving into an area where ships generally don't go, putting them on a collision course. By the time the yacht skipper noticed that the tanker was turning opposite to the way it had signaled that it would turn, it was impossible to maneuver out of the way.

I am guessing that the yacht skipper is guilty anyway -- I don't think he could have performed the crossing he planned without violating the MPZ. And the whole purpose of the Cautionary Area and the MPZ's is to prevent this exact type of situation.

However, I think those of you who have rushed to judgement that the yacht skipper is a just a blithering idiot, and that such a thing could never happen to you, are way off base. You can't tell anything from the YouTube video, especially if you have never sailed in the area where the incident occurred.


In particular, the interesting thing about what seems to have happened is this -- it is hellaciously difficult to identify a collision course unless you have AIS which you know how to interpret and are watching with intense concentration. By the time a collision course is obvious to the naked eye, it is usually too late to do anything about it. That is why it is absolutely essential to do collision avoidance systematically, rather than just assuming you'll see it coming and can just dodge out of the way. There is no easy, shortcut way to do collision avoidance, and it cannot be done by feel or by eyeball. It is a science.

The other lesson is that ignoring or bending the rules can get you killed. The yacht skipper assumed that the tanker would turn the way he signaled. He assumed that the tanker was proceeding up the Thorn Channel the way most ships do. He was unable to recognize with his bare eyes that the ship was not doing those things, which he assumed it was doing. If he had only observed the MPZ as he was required to, the situation probably could have been avoided. The same is true for the Colregs.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

By the way, the cowes incident is not quite a simple as it looks in the YouTube video. The ships normally take a 120 degree turn (around a sand bank) just before where this incident occurred, and the ship had made sound signals that they were going to make that turn, but then a small power boat was disabled in their way preventing them from making the turn where they planned to so they continued streight. The sailboat skipper anticipated they would make their turn and planned his course based on that anticipation.

It was still a bonehead move on the sailboat skippers part, but he did have reasons to believe that the ship would turn and be out of his way.

Oops, sorry, I've just repeated a lot of what you just said here. I hadn't seen it.

Anyway, your information corresponds exactly to what I heard from the Cowes harbourmaster yesterday

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Where I live, following rule 9 is a slam-dunk as the water around the merchant channel is plenty deep enough. There could be no justification for a leisure boater staying in the channel, much less doing that and then expecting a big freighter to give way (only by slowing up) -- even if under sail power.

The rules are clear, and there are very good interpretations of the rules in print and on line that sensible people can read.

Whether you beleive me or people like the head of Dover straits CNIS , it is that not impeding has never been defined as " get out if the way ". The rules are actually NOT clearly defined , bit are certainly not defined as you see it.

Dave