Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[goboatingnow]

The point of this sub thread was to deal with the contention that a small vessel could not sail in TSSas to do so was to automatically cause an impediment,

I think we can fairly summarise the position that no such prohibition is in place, sailboats can proceed in a TSS as well as crossing it, and there remains a requirement not to impede the passage of larger vessels. Whether that occurs will be something a admiralty court would decide based on the circumstances.

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Good summarization Dockhead. Unfortunately in ad. 1 you note that if you are in a small boat, you are required to leave the TSS when a big boat appears. This is not true (and the whole point of this thread). A small boat is allowed to sail in the TSS, also when other ships are present. They are not, however, allowed to impede the safe passage of the larger vessel.

Which with your legal training, you will probably admit is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I didn't say anything about a TSS, I was talking about a channel, and specifically, where you can navigate outside it. I believe that you are required to get out of the channel in such a case where it is practical, although I recognize that there are two sides to the debate, so well dissected in this thread, about whether requiring the larger vessel to maneuver or not is per se impeding.

But my post was not addressed to this fine point, but to much more basic principles of collision avoidance.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The point of this sub thread was to deal with the contention that a small vessel could not sail in TSSas to do so was to automatically cause an impediment,

I think we can fairly summarise the position that no such prohibition is in place, sailboats can proceed in a TSS as well as crossing it, and there remains a requirement not to impede the passage of larger vessels. Whether that occurs will be something a admiralty court would decide based on the circumstances.

Dave

The Swiftsure International Yacht Race takes place in Juan de Fuca Strait which has a TSS.

Swiftsure 2013 Race Tracker

Select a few boats and re-run the race.

[s/v Beth]

I can't' imagine racing down the strait for fun, but whatever turns them on. How's the foot Jack?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by s/v Beth

I can't' imagine racing down the strait for fun, but whatever turns them on. How's the foot Jack?

Vic Maui also heads out of the Strait. The Van Isle 360 has a leg through the Strait as well.

The foot looks weird; the little toe shrink back and flops around as it is no longer connected by bone to the rest of the foot.

I did start golfing again, but squash is limited to practice until after New Years when I will start playing competitively again - I hope.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

So whilst we may feel that it is ok for a big ship to have to change course when overtaking us whilst we are in a TSS - the Colregs say that any such maneuver by a big ship means the sailboat has "impeded".

If a 100,000 tonne tanker is proceeding down a narrow channel at 20 kts and comes up on a 100m coaster doing 12 kts, and there isn't enough room to get around then he will have to slow down. He has been impeded, but the rules don't forbid the coaster from impeding, as there is nothing the coaster will be able to do about it. A small vessel, being able to navigate close to the shore and into the shallow areas, has no compelling reason to stay in the middle of the deep channel, causing a deep-draught vessel to slow down, so has been held to not impede. This was codified in previous versions of the rules, and carried on into the current rules with the "not impede" terminology.

Taken to a traffic lane - if I drive my 100,000 tonne tanker at 22 kts (keeping to the right side as is good practice) and come up on a 100m coaster doing 12 kts (also keeping to the right) - I am able to alter course a couple degrees and pass the coaster to port, staying in the lane and not consider myself impeded. Now let's magically turn that 100m coaster into a sailboat or a PDV less than 20m and I'm suddenly impeded? That appears to be the opinion of the USCG and DMA. Do you not see that as absurd?
Taking it further, what would you expect the small vessel to do? Moving to the left side of the lane wouldn't make much sense, so the only option would be for it to exit the lane. Does that make any sense to anyone?
Feel free to poll Chris Llana, the USCG or DMA, 'cause it makes no sense to me.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If a 100,000 tonne tanker is proceeding down a narrow channel at 20 kts and comes up on a 100m coaster doing 12 kts, and there isn't enough room to get around then he will have to slow down. He has been impeded, but the rules don't forbid the coaster from impeding, as there is nothing the coaster will be able to do about it. A small vessel, being able to navigate close to the shore and into the shallow areas, has no compelling reason to stay in the middle of the deep channel, causing a deep-draught vessel to slow down, so has been held to not impede. This was codified in previous versions of the rules, and carried on into the current rules with the "not impede" terminology.

Taken to a traffic lane - if I drive my 100,000 tonne tanker at 22 kts (keeping to the right side as is good practice) and come up on a 100m coaster doing 12 kts (also keeping to the right) - I am able to alter course a couple degrees and pass the coaster to port, staying in the lane and not consider myself impeded. Now let's magically turn that 100m coaster into a sailboat or a PDV less than 20m and I'm suddenly impeded? That appears to be the opinion of the USCG and DMA. Do you not see that as absurd?
Taking it further, what would you expect the small vessel to do? Moving to the left side of the lane wouldn't make much sense, so the only option would be for it to exit the lane. Does that make any sense to anyone?
Feel free to poll Chris Llana, the USCG or DMA, 'cause it makes no sense to me.

It's important to realise all these " expert" opinions have no legal case to cite to backup their views , a position Cockcroft for example seems to be more accurate on. Hence unless we see a court case , involving no collision , but a claim of impediment , all these claims have little standing.

You are innocent till proven guilty, hence it's a " well see u in court" answer. In my view a sailboat in a TSS keeping to the extreme right of the lane and ensuring where ever possible it was not getting the way , would have a very strong defence against the claim of impeding.

COLREGS are not on the spot fine type laws, it must be proven and history has shown such court cases very rarely apply the blame solely to one party.

Dave

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So to summarize: If you are approaching avoiding collisions with big ships, the same way you would avoid a collision with an 18-wheeler in your car, you're doing it wrong. You need to bone up on collision avoidance at sea. Among other things, you need to learn and follow the rules.


I apologize for repeating things which have been written before in this and other threads.

Well, I haven't hit anything or anybody in 40 years, so maybe it works better than you think.

I know plenty of captains, who can't say the same thing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It's important to realise all these " expert" opinions have no legal case to cite to backup their views , a position Cockcroft for example seems to be more accurate on. Hence unless we see a court case , involving no collision , but a claim of impediment , all these claims have little standing.

You are innocent till proven guilty, hence it's a " well see u in court" answer. In my view a sailboat in a TSS keeping to the extreme right of the lane and ensuring where ever possible it was not getting the way , would have a very strong defence against the claim of impeding.

COLREGS are not on the spot fine type laws, it must be proven and history has shown such court cases very rarely apply the blame solely to one party.

Dave

Nicely said.

I asked friend who is in the Office of Boating Safety here in Canada about inverted cones. He said it would be a court case AFTER an incidence. I think that this is true in all ColRegs cases.

[carstenb]

Lodesman,

I do not disagree with you. however when both the USCG and the DMA and considering Jackdales quote, all say that it would be considered impeding, I suspect most courts would rule that.

But, of course we will never know until a court case comes along.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If a 100,000 tonne tanker is proceeding down a narrow channel at 20 kts and comes up on a 100m coaster doing 12 kts, and there isn't enough room to get around then he will have to slow down. He has been impeded, but the rules don't forbid the coaster from impeding, as there is nothing the coaster will be able to do about it. A small vessel, being able to navigate close to the shore and into the shallow areas, has no compelling reason to stay in the middle of the deep channel, causing a deep-draught vessel to slow down, so has been held to not impede. This was codified in previous versions of the rules, and carried on into the current rules with the "not impede" terminology.

Taken to a traffic lane - if I drive my 100,000 tonne tanker at 22 kts (keeping to the right side as is good practice) and come up on a 100m coaster doing 12 kts (also keeping to the right) - I am able to alter course a couple degrees and pass the coaster to port, staying in the lane and not consider myself impeded. Now let's magically turn that 100m coaster into a sailboat or a PDV less than 20m and I'm suddenly impeded? That appears to be the opinion of the USCG and DMA. Do you not see that as absurd?
Taking it further, what would you expect the small vessel to do? Moving to the left side of the lane wouldn't make much sense, so the only option would be for it to exit the lane. Does that make any sense to anyone?
Feel free to poll Chris Llana, the USCG or DMA, 'cause it makes no sense to me.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Lodesman,

I do not disagree with you. however when both the USCG and the DMA and considering Jackdales quote, all say that it would be considered impeding, I suspect most courts would rule that.

But, of course we will never know until a court case comes along.

Isn't that the point , everyone's view is merely just that. Even farwell is just that. His citation was based on a vase where a collision did occur. To my knowledge no such case has ever occurred claiming impeding , just on its own.

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Group9

Well, I haven't hit anything or anybody in 40 years, so maybe it works better than you think.

I know plenty of captains, who can't say the same thing.

If you would stand on the bridge of a commercial vessel, or spend some time talking to those who sail them, you would soon realize that watchstanders on commercial vessels think much further ahead than we do.

For them, the point of awareness of a risk of collision is usually 10 miles or so, the decision point is no less than five or six miles. They have a great advantage over us, of course, in that they have powerful radars with ARPA. Only with AIS do we start to level the playing field a little.

What that means is that what usually happens is that they have figured out the situation, worked out a solution, and taken action, long before we ever even know they are there.

It means that we are like toddlers wandering across a busy street -- the cars, moving so much faster than we do, have dodged us long before we have any idea what is going on.

It doesn't mean that just bumbling along like a toddler is a good strategy Not running into anything is most likely 100% the result of good seamanship on the part of the watchstanders on the ships you have encountered

Just like in the case of the toddler wandering across the busy street, what we imagine to be a collision situation is already long not one. Our dodges are meaningless from the point of view of the ship's bridge because they occur far after the situation has already been resolved.


If you actually want to be a full participant in traffic, you need to think much further ahead than you imagine. It's pretty hard to do from a small boat unless you have AIS and keep a close watch on it.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Lodesman,

I do not disagree with you. however when both the USCG and the DMA and considering Jackdales quote, all say that it would be considered impeding, I suspect most courts would rule that.

But, of course we will never know until a court case comes along.

I doubt the USCG's/DMA's interpretation of "impede" would survive a court case, as it is so easily shown to be logically flawed. Moreover, I doubt that it is likely to be tested in court, as no sensible captain (who wants to keep his ticket and his job) would come to a stop and cry "I've been impeded!", instead of following the S&S rules and going around a small vessel.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I doubt the USCG's/DMA's interpretation of "impede" would survive a court case, as it is so easily shown to be logically flawed. Moreover, I doubt that it is likely to be tested in court, as no sensible captain (who wants to keep his ticket and his job) would come to a stop and cry "I've been impeded!", instead of following the S&S rules and going around a small vessel.

I also doubt that a captain would cry "foul", just because he had to alter course. However, certain coast guard units might. There are several court cases cited in my Colregs, where a coast guard ship (one swedish, one german), cited pleasure boats for either sailing the in the wrong direction in a TSS or not crossing a TSS in a as near 90 degree angle as possible. Indeed, in the one case, the sailboat owner admitted that he had not taken windage and current into account (as he should have) when crossing, which resulted in a much less than 90 degree course.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I also doubt that a captain would cry "foul", just because he had to alter course. However, certain coast guard units might. There are several court cases cited in my Colregs, where a coast guard ship (one swedish, one german), cited pleasure boats for either sailing the in the wrong direction in a TSS or not crossing a TSS in a as near 90 degree angle as possible. Indeed, in the one case, the sailboat owner admitted that he had not taken windage and current into account (as he should have) when crossing, which resulted in a much less than 90 degree course.

Maybe you're supposed to take leeway (is that what you mean by "windage"?) into account, but you are definitely not supposed to take the current into account. A compass heading 90 degrees to the direction of the TSS lane will get you across faster than 90 degrees COG.

If a court thought otherwise, the judges were wrong. This is in the instructions for the Channel TSS's somewhere.