Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[transmitterdan]

Tacking back and forth across a TSS lane is just well ... tacky ... and in my opinion it violates one or more rules as well. I don't believe the TSZ rules and COLREGS give sailors the right to do this. Similarly, running dead downwind in the middle of a lane is bad form. Better to stay outside the lanes. When it's time to cross fire up the engine and when it's safe then get across at a reasonable and consistent speed.

We sailed around Puget Sound for several months with numerous lane crossings between Shilshole and Port Madison. It's not that hard to avoid problems but one does have to keep a lookout, listen to VHF designated for local traffic and use common sense.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

From the rules:


Your second scenario is one where the yacht "pinches" the ship, as I indicated before should be considered impeding as it makes the ship contravene subpara (ii).

I agree, but I suspect Dave does not.

But we can further scenario 2 by saying the TSS is quite wide (let's say 2nm), so the yacht is in the middle of the lane and the ship must change course to go to one side or the other, but the lane is wide enough that the ship does not feel "pinched". It is just forced off its planned route down the middle. " Impeded " or not in that scenario?



In your third scenario, a tacking sailboat tends to contravene subpara (i). While I believe a sailboat can use a traffic lane, I feel that if unable to make a course that is in the direction of the lane, it should either exit the lane or motor-sail (at least when a ship is overtaking).

let's say its a race boat that can sail 40 degree true angles. I guess it's undefined whether that meets the "general direction" specification. But I would have thought that find in fact qualify fir "general direction". The only time I have heard someone being told/fined for not going in the "general direction" was when the French took one of their g class cats in the exact 180 degree direction.

Regarding motoring . . . It's not the panacea you might think in open ocean waves, with an under powered sail boat ( rather than a stronger motor sailor). We come to essentially a stop if trying to motor dead into ocean waves with more than 25kts true. Our best motor sailing vmg into ocean waves is to motor sail at about 25 degrees apparent (let's say 35 true angles) with the main up, so we would be back to the tacking option.

Dave says a sail boat is fully allowed in a TSS. Sailboats tack upwind, and many gybe downwind, so following his theory these would actions would seem to be fully allowed. I think they are impeding.

........

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

But we can further scenario 2 by saying the TSS is quite wide (let's say 2nm), so the yacht is in the middle of the lane and the ship must change course to go to one side or the other, but the lane is wide enough that the ship does not feel "pinched". It is just forced off its planned route down the middle. " Impeded " or not in that scenario?

Not. IMO causing the ship to alter course is not in itself impeding; if it had to move to the side of the lane to overtake another ship, it wouldn't be considered to be impeded, so why would it be impeded by a small vessel?

I take your point on the motorsailing - not a guaranteed solution. I wouldn't think there would be a problem zig-zagging across a lane if there were no approaching ships, but doing so in front of a ship is more likely to be considered an imposition. Perhaps if VHF comms are established early and both parties are happy with the passing plan, then a sailboat could continue tacking.

[nigel1]

Some useful publications can be found here, you can download the 4 pdf files.
One is on collision avoidance, but the other publications will also be of interest.

The Navigator

[conachair]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Some useful publications can be found here, you can download the 4 pdf files.
One is on collision avoidance, but the other publications will also be of interest.

The Navigator

Great link, thanks!

[Tonyjay]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Tacking back and forth across a TSS lane is just well ... tacky ... and in my opinion it violates one or more rules as well. I don't believe the TSZ rules and COLREGS give sailors the right to do this. Similarly, running dead downwind in the middle of a lane is bad form. Better to stay outside the lanes. When it's time to cross fire up the engine and when it's safe then get across at a reasonable and consistent speed. We sailed around Puget Sound for several months with numerous lane crossings between Shilshole and Port Madison. It's not that hard to avoid problems but one does have to keep a lookout, listen to VHF designated for local traffic and use common sense.

+1 see attached video. http://www.soundingsonline.com/dispa...eo-crash-court

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

if it had to move to the side of the lane to overtake another ship, it wouldn't be considered to be impeded, so why would it be impeded by a small vessel?.

Because ships are not covered by the TSS rule 10 j "not impede" clause . . . Only "a vessel of less than 20m or a sailing vessel".

[avb3]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Some useful publications can be found here, you can download the 4 pdf files.
One is on collision avoidance, but the other publications will also be of interest.

The Navigator

Thanks. Good resource even for us WAFI users.

[estarzinger]

Ok, so here is the official USCG answer (from their "final authority" at HQ):

"Greetings -
According to Farwell's Rule of the Nautical Road (pg 334), "If the small craft or sailing vessel follows a course that requires another vessel following the lane (TSS) to alter course or speed, the small craft or sailing vessel is guilty of impeding the safe navigation of the other vessel.... If collision results, the vessel's breach of her duty not to impede will be a basis for allocating fault for the collision".


We hope this answers your inquiry and we exhort you to always navigate safely,

U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Navigation Systems
Washington, DC 20593-7851"

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Ok, so here is the official USCG answer:

"Greetings -
According to Farwell's Rule of the Nautical Road (pg 334), "If the small craft or sailing vessel follows a course that requires another vessel following the lane (TSS) to alter course or speed, the small craft or sailing vessel is guilty of impeding the safe navigation of the other vessel.... If collision results, the vessel's breach of her duty not to impede will be a basis for allocating fault for the collision".


We hope this answers your inquiry and we exhort you to always navigate safely,

U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Navigation Systems
Washington, DC 20593-7851"

Wow! That is unexpected.
So according to them the definition of 'impeding' is anything that results in the vessel in the TSS lane to change course!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Wow! That is unexpected.
So according to them the definition of 'impeding' is anything that results in the vessel in the TSS lane to change course!

They say according to Farwell. I don't have a copy to hand; maybe someone can have a look.

But I think it's logical. Forcing to maneuver has always seemed like "impeding" to me, if if you have "sea room".


With the caveat, however, that in any case, the rules against impeding with their weird interaction with the regular steering & sailing rules are confusing and ultimately unhelpful, IMHO.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Because ships are not covered by the TSS rule 10 j "not impede" clause . . . Only "a vessel of less than 20m or a sailing vessel".

Another large vessel is normally considered to be similarly hampered with regard to the available depth of water and width of channel, such that passing in a narrow channel or lane would require both vessels to manoeuvre to effect the passing. Obviously if the channel or lane is so wide that the overtaking vessel can get around with her manoeuvre alone, then she is not impeded - regardless of whether it's a ship that she is avoiding or a small vessel.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Ok, so here is the official USCG answer (from their "final authority" at HQ):

"Greetings -
According to Farwell's Rule of the Nautical Road (pg 334), "If the small craft or sailing vessel follows a course that requires another vessel following the lane (TSS) to alter course or speed, the small craft or sailing vessel is guilty of impeding the safe navigation of the other vessel.... If collision results, the vessel's breach of her duty not to impede will be a basis for allocating fault for the collision".


We hope this answers your inquiry and we exhort you to always navigate safely,

U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Navigation Systems
Washington, DC 20593-7851"

I've read Farwell in the past and I recall that they discuss "not impede" at some length (much more than the little passage above) and there are numerous instances where it contradicts itself. I don't have Farwell to hand, but it clearly flies in the face of Rule 8.f.(iii):

A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this Part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

[transmitterdan]

I don't see a contradiction. The big vessel may have been impeded by a small vessel. When the big vessel has to alter course or speed then the stand-on vessel may indeed be the small craft.

[avb3]

In lieu of Farwell's book, perhaps this online interpretation of COLREGS may be appropriate.

http://navruleshandbook.com/Rule10.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I've read Farwell in the past and I recall that they discuss "not impede" at some length (much more than the little passage above) and there are numerous instances where it contradicts itself. I don't have Farwell to hand, but it clearly flies in the face of Rule 8.f.(iii):

When I went to law school, one of the first things they taught us was "banish the word 'clearly' from your vocabulary."

If Rule 8.f(iii) "flew in the face" of that, then it would mean that the obligation to not impede disappears as soon as a risk of collision exists such that the regular steering and sailing rules come into effect. Although it is confusing as to who is exactly supposed to do what, there is no inherent logical reason why one vessel could not have an obligation to "not impede" at the same time as another vessel has an obligation to "keep clear".

A certainty absurdity arises since it would seem to be impossible to stand on and not impede at the same time - the thing which really bothered me a couple of years ago. But I don't see any other way to interpret this. The Rules no where say that you are supposed to stop "not impeding" when a risk of collision arises.