Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by 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......

I'm sure you're right, but somewhere in the charges wasn't there something about a narrow channel? Isn't that Rule Nine? We have a narrow channel here, and I have seen freighters go through it from not-extremely-far-away, and it looks to me as if they have very little maneuverability. I agree, 7 knots isn't nearly enough speed to be called "speeding." Frankly, that sounds like a defense argument to me. It's the sailboat that was going for broke, trying to win a race.

I wonder how much speed such a big freighter has to have to maintain steerage. On my boat, if I'm not fighting wind, currents, waves, etc., it's 1 1/2 knots. I'm thinking it might be considerably more for a freighter. But I AM speculating there (that's why I said things like "I'm thinking." I'm not pretending to some expertise about freighters; standard disclaimers apply; etc., etc., etc.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by boatman61

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...

I thought you might say that, and I agree with you about racers sometimes leaving judgment on the shore.

I am a pretty bold person but I would not race a Hobie or Laser in heavily used commercial waters. Nope, not me.

But I can see the problem. Sailing isn't what it is without races. It's part of the sport.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

People are NOT idiots for forming a preliminary opinion while awaiting the court findings. They're looking at what is shown and making a PRELIMINARY opinion. IMO, the person who is an idiot is the one who thinks people don't do that all the time.

We make preliminary judgments about all sorts of things all the time. Is that car going to see the stop sign and stop, or hit me? Decide yes and you might get hit. Slow down, and you annoy the driver behind you.Will that prepackaged bag of broccoli with cheese sauce taste good when it is cooked? If the ultimate answer is yes, you'll buy it again. If it's no, you'll throw it in the trash and try to find something else to go with your meal.

Moreover, we are often ASKED to make preliminary judgments, for instance, if you are witness to an accident. The police will ask you what happened before a court decision. So will both insurance companies.

This is like witnessing an auto accident. Anyone who sees it will make a preliminary judgment, and they're not idiots for doing so. They may not even change their mind after the court makes its judgment, because courts aren't always perfect. Just recently a journalist in a foreign country was charged and tried for the crime of being raped (can't make this stuff up!) In that country, the law is that women are behaving inappropriately if they're in a situation where rape could occur. Because she was a foreigner (and probably because they didn't want the explosion of condemnation that would come from the rest of the world, and YES I know that's a guess) -- they "forgave" her.

Is she guilty of anything just because a court said so? No. That's an extreme, but real, example. I can think of an infamous double murder where the suspected murder was found "not guilty." (trial in 1995) IMO he literally got away with murder, and I still hold that OPINION even though the trial has been held.

You went on for many paragraphs explaining the ins and outs of the applicable law even though you're not a lawyer. You are giving your opinion. One could argue that when a non-lawyer does that, he or she is an "idiot," but instead we read it and consider it. Then we wait for the court ruling, and explanations of it, and we STILL make up our own minds.

The whole world isn't full of idiots. There are a lot of thoughtful people who form preliminary judgments. Just because their preliminary judgment is different from yours does not make them an idiot. It just means they (apparently) don't agree with you.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;1365397](and the skipper of the yacht was a serving officer in the Royal Navy, and certainly no idiot). [QUOTE]

Speaking as a former 'Lower Decker' (RN)... I respectfully disagree..

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

You went on for many paragraphs explaining the ins and outs of the applicable law even though you're not a lawyer. You are giving your opinion. One could argue that when a non-lawyer does that, he or she is an "idiot," but instead we read it and consider it. Then we wait for the court ruling, and explanations of it, and we STILL make up our own minds.

The whole world isn't full of idiots. There are a lot of thoughtful people who form preliminary judgments. Just because their preliminary judgment is different from yours does not make them an idiot. It just means they (apparently) don't agree with you.

Actually Raku, Dockhead *is* a lawyer. He has stated that in this thread a number of times.

You may want to correct your statement and issue an apology to him.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes, the captain/instructor I chatted with mentioned the "sea room" issue, and I specifically asked "but what if the TSS is really wide and there is lots of sea room". His opinion was that we impeded (if we forced them to maneuver) in a TSS even if they had sea room to manouver.

He may not be "right" about this , because as as I said above he said they don't pay much attention to the impede clause, but that seems to be at least the US ship driver's/instructor's perspective/interpretation. So, it's at least useful for us to know what they are likely thinking on a US ship's bridge. It is certaintly possible that there is a difference in national interpretations on this

He is most definitely not "right ". As it applies to the COLREGS. Under certain US rules he is right

The fact is that the COLREGS clearly require the steering rules to be enforced in a TSS. Hence a faster ship overtaking a yacht in a TSS must change course and or speed . Nowhere is this defined as impeding

8 (f) clearly mentions sea room as the defining term


Of course courtesy applies and us yachties always try to avoid hassling others. But the rules are the rules.

[goboatingnow]

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 see, so that's justifies making up your own !!

Dave

[El Pinguino]

[QUOTE=boatman61;1365428][QUOTE=Dockhead;1365397](and the skipper of the yacht was a serving officer in the Royal Navy, and certainly no idiot).

Speaking as a former 'Lower Decker' (RN)... I respectfully disagree..

and not all hofficers are navigators , those navy boats have engines and guns and all sorts of fancy stuff....

Q. what is more useful on a yacht, a wheelbarrow or an admiral?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

People are NOT idiots for forming a preliminary opinion while awaiting the court findings. They're looking at what is shown and making a PRELIMINARY opinion. IMO, the person who is an idiot is the one who thinks people don't do that all the time.

We make preliminary judgments about all sorts of things all the time. Is that car going to see the stop sign and stop, or hit me? Decide yes and you might get hit. Slow down, and you annoy the driver behind you.Will that prepackaged bag of broccoli with cheese sauce taste good when it is cooked? If the ultimate answer is yes, you'll buy it again. If it's no, you'll throw it in the trash and try to find something else to go with your meal.

Moreover, we are often ASKED to make preliminary judgments, for instance, if you are witness to an accident. The police will ask you what happened before a court decision. So will both insurance companies.

This is like witnessing an auto accident. Anyone who sees it will make a preliminary judgment, and they're not idiots for doing so. They may not even change their mind after the court makes its judgment, because courts aren't always perfect. Just recently a journalist in a foreign country was charged and tried for the crime of being raped (can't make this stuff up!) In that country, the law is that women are behaving inappropriately if they're in a situation where rape could occur. Because she was a foreigner (and probably because they didn't want the explosion of condemnation that would come from the rest of the world, and YES I know that's a guess) -- they "forgave" her.

Is she guilty of anything just because a court said so? No. That's an extreme, but real, example. I can think of an infamous double murder where the suspected murder was found "not guilty." (trial in 1995) IMO he literally got away with murder, and I still hold that OPINION even though the trial has been held.

You went on for many paragraphs explaining the ins and outs of the applicable law even though you're not a lawyer. You are giving your opinion. One could argue that when a non-lawyer does that, he or she is an "idiot," but instead we read it and consider it. Then we wait for the court ruling, and explanations of it, and we STILL make up our own minds.

The whole world isn't full of idiots. There are a lot of thoughtful people who form preliminary judgments. Just because their preliminary judgment is different from yours does not make them an idiot. It just means they (apparently) don't agree with you.

This post is so confused that I am not really sure what is being said.

But just for the sake of clarity:

1. I never called anyone an idiot. Where did anyone get that? I was arguing against the rush to judgement that the skipper of the yacht was an idiot. My argument was that you can't judge anything at all just from seeing that YouTube video. I stand by that argument. "Oh, some sailboat ran into a tanker -- therefore, the skipper is an idiot." That statement is wrong -- you can't tell whether or not he is an idiot, just from the fact that he ran into a tanker. I took some trouble to explain why even a very smart person could run into a tanker, by making the wrong assumptions.

2. I do happen to be a lawyer, actually a former law professor, even. But the law had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was writing about in my post. I was writing about how the accident could have happened, and about practical collision avoidance process. Anyone who thinks it was a long discourse on the legality of the situation entirely missed the point.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually Raku, Dockhead *is* a lawyer. He has stated that in this thread a number of times.

You may want to correct your statement and issue an apology to him.

ROTFL I'm not going to apologize to him. To me that makes his judgment that anyone who doesn't see it his way all the more harsh. I have had good reason to not read all his posts.

I'm rather surprised, actually, because I know some lawyers socially and have never seen them go on so before a trial was completed. Lawyers know that a lot more happens in a courtroom than straight, hard law.

So now I will add that information -- that he is a lawyer -- to the other information and impressions I have formed, and let's just say that it doesn't need to be expressed here and would not move the topic along.

[Rakuflames]

"
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 see, so that's justifies making up your own !!

Dave

Why is it that you can't let it drop? I didn't make anything up, but you are now. Fiction writing abounds online.

[Rakuflames]

"
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 _____"


That's a very old post, and not part of what happened in the accident in the video, which most people have moved on to.

Sorry, Dave, but there is NO excuse for sailing or motoring in the shipping channel that runs out of Tampa Bay. There is plenty of good water all around it. The ONLY reasonable thing to do with the shipping channel coming out of Tampa Bay is to cross it -- not use it. There's just no need.

Taking people's words out of context from one conversation and then quoting them in a new one is not a nice thing to do, and it appears to me that you are trying to heat the flames up again.

Please do not do that, for everyone's sakes. I will ask you kindly to stop taking my words out of context from an entirely different dscussion and then inserting them into a new one. The result can only be disruptive.

[Jim Cate]

[QUOTE=El Pinguino;1365439][QUOTE=boatman61;1365428]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

(and the skipper of the yacht was a serving officer in the Royal Navy, and certainly no idiot).


Q. what is more useful on a yacht, a wheelbarrow or an admiral?

G'Day Frank,

Interestingly, ovet the years we've had one three star admiral (USN) and one about-to-be admiral and Naval Attache (RNZN) as guests on board our boat. They were both keen sailors and great to have aboard. I will have to admit that once the 3 star chap had the helm it was hard to get it back, though!

Oh... the way I heard that joke was "the 3 most worthless things on a sailing boat are a wheelbarrow, a pool table and a naval officer". There have been times when a wheelbarrow would have been useful, and the above pleasant experience with the naval officers tend to disagree, but the pool table is hard to view in a favorable way... maybe on a catamaran?

Cheers, and hope that all is well on board.

Jim

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I wonder how much speed such a big freighter has to have to maintain steerage. On my boat, if I'm not fighting wind, currents, waves, etc., it's 1 1/2 knots. I'm thinking it might be considerably more for a freighter. But I AM speculating there (that's why I said things like "I'm thinking." I'm not pretending to some expertise about freighters; standard disclaimers apply; etc., etc., etc.

'Dead Slow Ahead' on many big container ships is about 8 knots... or so I have been told....

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

The problem with making assumptions in a shipping lane is that it may get you killed 50% of the time.
The other 50% of the time you’re just lucky.

This captain may now loose his Captains license and his seafaring job.
He may qualify to captain some derelict ship transporting plastic dog sheet from china to the US. All that for assuming he could make it across the big ships bow when he should have just stayed clear.