What can happen when you cut off a ferry

[ozskipper]

Oh I love a good Colregs thread!

To quote southpark "rabble rabble rabble rabble"

Lets toss some guns and anchors into the thread and really set it on fire. Hmm I am going to need more popcorn.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

" I heard a loud crunch. Turning around I saw the ferry hull coming over my stern "

IOW, " I heard a loud crunch. I thought, time sure flies when you're farting around "testing" your electronics.

Gee, I guess I should have kept an eye on that ferry...

Darn tootin' he should have! We have been overtaken from astern by a vessel that did not see us, (a fishing vessel on autopilot, someone asleep below, no one on radio watch to answer us), and had we not been watching astern as well, would not have been able to get out of his way in time. So yes, EVEN THOUGH this ferry overtook from astern, SOME responsibility is borne by the guy in the Fisher.

I am so glad he's okay. It'd be a tragedy to die from a moment's inattention.

Ann

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Go read the CoiRegs and see if each rule doesn't reflect that comment.

And, BY THE WAY, I don't come in here and "make things up." I think people who think others do it may do so themselves, however. (SWEET smile)

This is going to sound a bit blunt, but it is important not to leave this point unaddressed, for the sake of any newbees reading this who might be confused by this -- there is no other word for it -- nonsense.

There are actually several layers of nonsense in this.

First of all, there is no such thing as the "right of way" in the Colregs. This is not some "old fashioned way" of talking, but a different concept from giving-way and standing-on.

Second, it is pernicious nonsense, dangerous nonsense to suggest that "more maneuverable" vessels are required to always give way to "less maneuverable" vessels -- this is not what the rules say at all. And could not be -- how would that be determined? So a 35,000 DWT tanker will give way to a 40,000 DWT container vessel? But what if the container vessel is in ballast and has a more power? Are the helmsmen going to interview each other on each other's vessel's characteristics and then work it out on computers before they know who gives way? Ludicrous. What if a 100,000 DWT Panamax vessels is barrelling along at 20 knots, and runs right up the stern of a 31 foot sailboat or a 40 foot motorboat -- so the sailboat or motorboat, as "more maneuverable", is supposed to give way?

Third, there is also a fundamental misunderstanding of maneuverability here. A large commercial vessel moving slowly and constrained in a channel is going to be less maneuverable than a small motor boat. (But probably not less maneuverable than a sailboat running off under spinnaker in a F6.) But in open water, a large commercial vessel running at higher speeds is much more maneuverable -- that is, much more able to change a forming close quarters situation, than a much smaller, much slower sailboat. Which is why large commercial vessels in open water usually don't stand on, if that is required by the Colregs, in encounters with small, slow pleasure vessels -- they alter course by a couple of degrees 10 miles out, so as to pass so far ahead or behind that the sailboat doesn't even know there was ever a risk of collision at all.


So, please people, banish phrases like "the least maneuverable vessel has the right of way, always" from your vocabularies. Read and understand the Colregs. Get some instruction.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Darn tootin' he should have! We have been overtaken from astern by a vessel that did not see us, (a fishing vessel on autopilot, someone asleep below, no one on radio watch to answer us), and had we not been watching astern as well, would not have been able to get out of his way in time. So yes, EVEN THOUGH this ferry overtook from astern, SOME responsibility is borne by the guy in the Fisher.

I am so glad he's okay. It'd be a tragedy to die from a moment's inattention.

Ann

This is not the correct response under the COLREGS. There is a clear responsibility on the ferry to keep clear , both as an overtaking ferry and as its a boat under sail ( I believe ). Furthermore in reduced visibility there is a clear requirement to run at a safe speed.

There is no evidence that the skipper of the boat was in attentive , he clearly saw the ferry closing to contact from astern

I'm sorry, if the facts are as stated the Vast vast majority of the blame lies with the ferry captain , who unfortunately may loose her ticket.

I mean what would you suggest the sailboat does , which way to turn, at the reported speed it would have made no difference

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is going to sound a bit blunt, but it is important not to leave this point unaddressed, for the sake of any newbees reading this who might be confused by this -- there is no other word for it -- nonsense.

There are actually several layers of .........


..............

a couple of degrees 10 miles out, so as to pass so far ahead or behind that the sailboat doesn't even know there was ever a risk of collision at all.

So, please people, banish phrases like "the least maneuverable vessel has the right of way, always" from your vocabularies. Read and understand the Colregs. Get some instruction.

+100 Spot on old boy spot on. Raku was way off the mark

Dave

[psneeld]

didn't see a good reference to the exact location on a nautical chart...could the collision have happened in what would be considered a "narrow channel" by the COLREGS/NAVRULES?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by psneeld

didn't see a good reference to the exact location on a nautical chart...could the collision have happened in what would be considered a "narrow channel" by the COLREGS/NAVRULES?

Normally a narrow channel is so designated on the appropriate charts

Note that even in a narrow channel , the sailboat must not impede , bit only if the other vessel does not have room to manoeuvre

" (b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway "

To be effective there must be no room for the impeded vessel , this doesn't seem the case here



Dave

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is going to sound a bit blunt, but it is important not to leave this point unaddressed, for the sake of any newbees reading this who might be confused by this -- there is no other word for it -- nonsense.

There are actually several layers of nonsense in this.

First of all, there is no such thing as the "right of way" in the Colregs. This is not some "old fashioned way" of talking, but a different concept from giving-way and standing-on.

Second, it is pernicious nonsense, dangerous nonsense to suggest that "more maneuverable" vessels are required to always give way to "less maneuverable" vessels -- this is not what the rules say at all. And could not be -- how would that be determined? So a 35,000 DWT tanker will give way to a 40,000 DWT container vessel? But what if the container vessel is in ballast and has a more power? Are the helmsmen going to interview each other on each other's vessel's characteristics and then work it out on computers before they know who gives way? Ludicrous. What if a 100,000 DWT Panamax vessels is barrelling along at 20 knots, and runs right up the stern of a 31 foot sailboat or a 40 foot motorboat -- so the sailboat or motorboat, as "more maneuverable", is supposed to give way?

Third, there is also a fundamental misunderstanding of maneuverability here. A large commercial vessel moving slowly and constrained in a channel is going to be less maneuverable than a small motor boat. (But probably not less maneuverable than a sailboat running off under spinnaker in a F6.) But in open water, a large commercial vessel running at higher speeds is much more maneuverable -- that is, much more able to change a forming close quarters situation, than a much smaller, much slower sailboat. Which is why large commercial vessels in open water usually don't stand on, if that is required by the Colregs, in encounters with small, slow pleasure vessels -- they alter course by a couple of degrees 10 miles out, so as to pass so far ahead or behind that the sailboat doesn't even know there was ever a risk of collision at all.


So, please people, banish phrases like "the least maneuverable vessel has the right of way, always" from your vocabularies. Read and understand the Colregs. Get some instruction.

So you don't like how things were worded. You would have worded it differently so the other person is an idiot. The Colregs pretty much do come down to the most maneuverable boat getting out of the way. NO IT'S NOT WORDED THAT WAY, but go ahead and show us one place where that wouldn't be true.

Shrimpers have the right of way over sailboats. Why? They're less maneuverable. Big heavy arms hanging over both sides with nets catching the shrimp. What are they supposed to do -- dump their catch so I don't have to change course? Nope. There are few places where the boats are reasonably equal and the rules are set down so that each person knows what to do, but for the big issues, the least maneuverable boat has the right of way. The overtaking sailboat has to give way to the slower boat in front of it. Etc.

THAT'S REALLY ALL WE CAN SAY ABOUT THIS SITUATION because no hearing has been held yet. Anyone who thinks they can figure it out from what they've read/seen in the media -- they're just playing mind games.

And yes, we get it. There is no "right of way." That isn't how boating work. 'Right of way" involves intersections on land, not boats moving on the water. One will have to change course -- "give way." We get it. However, it used to be a marine term and it really isn't the end of the world if it gets used, and the person jumping up and down shouting 'SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!" doesn't automatically get the A.

When we talk about smaller vs. larger, we're not talking about 30' vs 40' and I think you know that very well. A ferry is MUCH bigger than a sailboat, but that can impede the ability to maneuver. Current will have a bigger effect on a great big ferry than a smaller pleasure craft.

I know it's great fun to jump out of one's seat and rightously shout 'THAT PERSON IS WRONG!" Add to it "AND IN FACT THAT'S DANGEROUS!!!" -- and wow -- what a rush!

In fact any sailor who doesn't look over his shoulder to see what might be coming up from behind is an idiot. I looked over my shoulder once to see a sailboat, on autopilot, gaining on my stern, while its skipper stood on the cabin top untangling lines -- in one of the busiest parts of Boca Ciega Bay. Since that same skipper had hit my boat not two weeks before while he was on autopilot, with no one at the helm, I got out of the way. It didn't really matter that I had right of way. I wasn't interested in being hit twice in two weeks by the same idiot.

I think you knew very well that no one here, including me, meant 35 vs 40 tons. Sheesh.

That's just a game, you know. Read a post, draw an illogical absurdity from it, and then present it as what the person "really" said.

It's not what I said. Sit back down in your desk, please.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Normally a narrow channel is so designated on the appropriate charts

Note that even in a narrow channel , the sailboat must not impede , bit only if the other vessel does not have room to manoeuvre

" (b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway "

To be effective there must be no room for the impeded vessel , this doesn't seem the case here



Dave

please show me one example of a "designated narrow channel" I for the life of me have been looking and have never found one so "posted", "labeled", "designated"...etc..etc...

Seriously...have yet to find it in any literature also....

after looking at the charts I would tend to agree that the areas don't look like narrow channels unless there's something in Washington State rules that prevent the ferry from deviating from a "specific and narrow route"...and that's a stretch.

[goboatingnow]

When we talk about smaller vs. larger, we're not talking about 30' vs 40' and I think you know that very well. A ferry is MUCH bigger than a sailboat, but that can impede the ability to maneuver. Current will have a bigger effect on a great big ferry than a smaller pleasure craft.

This is simply nonsense. A large fast moving ferry is hardly affected by current a slow sailboat is hugely affected.

The COLREGS is not based on a simple " rule of tonnage" as you seem to think nor a simple hierarchy of manoeuvrability. The COLREGS clearly and unambiguously puts the onus on a mechanically powered vessel to avoid one under sail , if you don't agree , petition the IMO .

Dave

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

So you don't like how things were worded. You would have worded it differently so the other person is an idiot. The Colregs pretty much do come down to the most maneuverable boat getting out of the way. NO IT'S NOT WORDED THAT WAY, but go ahead and show us one place where that wouldn't be true.

Shrimpers have the right of way over sailboats. Why? They're less maneuverable. Big heavy arms hanging over both sides with nets catching the shrimp. What are they supposed to do -- dump their catch so I don't have to change course? Nope. There are few places where the boats are reasonably equal and the rules are set down so that each person knows what to do, but for the big issues, the least maneuverable boat has the right of way. The overtaking sailboat has to give way to the slower boat in front of it. Etc.

THAT'S REALLY ALL WE CAN SAY ABOUT THIS SITUATION because no hearing has been held yet. Anyone who thinks they can figure it out from what they've read/seen in the media -- they're just playing mind games.

And yes, we get it. There is no "right of way." That isn't how boating work. 'Right of way" involves intersections on land, not boats moving on the water. One will have to change course -- "give way." We get it. However, it used to be a marine term and it really isn't the end of the world if it gets used, and the person jumping up and down shouting 'SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!" doesn't automatically get the A.

When we talk about smaller vs. larger, we're not talking about 30' vs 40' and I think you know that very well. A ferry is MUCH bigger than a sailboat, but that can impede the ability to maneuver. Current will have a bigger effect on a great big ferry than a smaller pleasure craft.

I know it's great fun to jump out of one's seat and rightously shout 'THAT PERSON IS WRONG!" Add to it "AND IN FACT THAT'S DANGEROUS!!!" -- and wow -- what a rush!

In fact any sailor who doesn't look over his shoulder to see what might be coming up from behind is an idiot. I looked over my shoulder once to see a sailboat, on autopilot, gaining on my stern, while its skipper stood on the cabin top untangling lines -- in one of the busiest parts of Boca Ciega Bay. Since that same skipper had hit my boat not two weeks before while he was on autopilot, with no one at the helm, I got out of the way. It didn't really matter that I had right of way. I wasn't interested in being hit twice in two weeks by the same idiot.

I think you knew very well that no one here, including me, meant 35 vs 40 tons. Sheesh.

That's just a game, you know. Read a post, draw an illogical absurdity from it, and then present it as what the person "really" said.

It's not what I said. Sit back down in your desk, please.

current has EXACTLY the same effect on a big boat as it does on a little boat...leeway is a different story...and that's about windage to a degree.

set/drift calculations are about speed...not the size of the vessel.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by psneeld

please show me one example of a "designated narrow channel" I for the life of me have been looking and have never found one so "posted", "labeled", "designated"...etc..etc...

Seriously...have yet to find it in any literature also....

after looking at the charts I would tend to agree that the areas don't look like narrow channels unless there's something in Washington State rules that prevent the ferry from deviating from a "specific and narrow route"...and that's a stretch.

Many charts have " fairway" marked on them. Many charts have " lanes" marked ( which differ from TSS )

In general the COLREGS view a narrow channel as one where the vessel does not have sea room to avoid a smaller craft , in open water , constrained by draught would be the only normal case where a conventional vessel would be avoided. The mere existence of a common route in itself does not define a narrow channel

Dave

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Many charts have " fairway" marked on them. Many charts have " lanes" marked ( which differ from TSS )

In general the COLREGS view a narrow channel as one where the vessel does not have sea room to avoid a smaller craft , in open water , constrained by draught would be the only normal case where a conventional vessel would be avoided. The mere existence of a common route in itself does not define a narrow channel

Dave

my point is that it is "interpretable" by the skipper whether or not there is sufficient room...many narrow channels are not "designated" ...they are just merely what they are.

Just like a tug and tow are not automatically RAM...it's up to the skipper of the tow to determine his situation and notify others of his now declared "RAM"...I'm guessing much the same would be true if a skipper thought he was "in a narrow channel and chose to invoke rule 9"...it would fall upon him/her to declare and inform...and to take appropriate action if unable to have unimpeded flow.

Of course all other traffic should try and see if a narrow channel situation may exist and also adhere to the principle....communicating when in doubt....or if able just pull over and let the big vessel have the middle if water is available off to the side.

[goboatingnow]

In fact any sailor who doesn't look over his shoulder to see what might be coming up from behind is an idiot. I looked over my shoulder once to see a sailboat, on autopilot, gaining on my stern, while its skipper stood on the cabin top untangling lines -- in one of the busiest parts of Boca Ciega Bay. Since that same skipper had hit my boat not two weeks before while he was on autopilot, with no one at the helm, I got out of the way. It didn't really matter that I had right of way. I wasn't interested in being hit twice in two weeks by the same idiot.

Your personal experiences don't invalidate the colregs. Nor have we any evidence to indicate what sort of lookout the sailboat was habitually maintaining . These ferries travel fast.

If you find yourself with a very fast ferry closing close astern , you actually need to stay on your course , turning could cause you to direct yourself into a broadside as he may turn at the last minute. Yes in extremis you have to do something but options are very limited , relating your experience with another sailboat is not relevant to the fast closure issues of this incident. Avoiding other sailboats is trival and collisions are rarely serious anyway.

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

So you don't like how things were worded. You would have worded it differently so the other person is an idiot. The Colregs pretty much do come down to the most maneuverable boat getting out of the way. NO IT'S NOT WORDED THAT WAY, but go ahead and show us one place where that wouldn't be true.

Shrimpers have the right of way over sailboats. Why? They're less maneuverable. Big heavy arms hanging over both sides with nets catching the shrimp. What are they supposed to do -- dump their catch so I don't have to change course? Nope. There are few places where the boats are reasonably equal and the rules are set down so that each person knows what to do, but for the big issues, the least maneuverable boat has the right of way. The overtaking sailboat has to give way to the slower boat in front of it. Etc.

THAT'S REALLY ALL WE CAN SAY ABOUT THIS SITUATION because no hearing has been held yet. Anyone who thinks they can figure it out from what they've read/seen in the media -- they're just playing mind games.

And yes, we get it. There is no "right of way." That isn't how boating work. 'Right of way" involves intersections on land, not boats moving on the water. One will have to change course -- "give way." We get it. However, it used to be a marine term and it really isn't the end of the world if it gets used, and the person jumping up and down shouting 'SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!" doesn't automatically get the A.

When we talk about smaller vs. larger, we're not talking about 30' vs 40' and I think you know that very well. A ferry is MUCH bigger than a sailboat, but that can impede the ability to maneuver. Current will have a bigger effect on a great big ferry than a smaller pleasure craft.

I know it's great fun to jump out of one's seat and rightously shout 'THAT PERSON IS WRONG!" Add to it "AND IN FACT THAT'S DANGEROUS!!!" -- and wow -- what a rush!

In fact any sailor who doesn't look over his shoulder to see what might be coming up from behind is an idiot. I looked over my shoulder once to see a sailboat, on autopilot, gaining on my stern, while its skipper stood on the cabin top untangling lines -- in one of the busiest parts of Boca Ciega Bay. Since that same skipper had hit my boat not two weeks before while he was on autopilot, with no one at the helm, I got out of the way. It didn't really matter that I had right of way. I wasn't interested in being hit twice in two weeks by the same idiot.

I think you knew very well that no one here, including me, meant 35 vs 40 tons. Sheesh.

That's just a game, you know. Read a post, draw an illogical absurdity from it, and then present it as what the person "really" said.

It's not what I said. Sit back down in your desk, please.

The post about "The least maneuverable vessel has the right of way, always" was the rare case which actually made me tremble for the people reading it, and so, yes, required me to speak up.

The human brain has several gears, among which are "spout off", and "read, listen, think". It really pays to pull the gear lever out of the first one of these from time to time, and leave it in the second one. The Colregs can be understood by any person with average intelligence and education -- and I say this not just as a lawyer but as a former law professor. There is no mumbo-jumbo in Colregs -- they are exceedingly plainspoken.

If you actually read them with your brain in the right gear, you will see that they have nothing to do with which vessel happens to be more or less maneuverable at any given time. The Colregs cannot and must not be simplified to this kind of misleading banality. Just because the order of maneuvering to avoid a collision (which is what giving-way and standing on is all about, so different from "right away" on the road) might have been formulated based on some idea of the rough maneuverability of different classes of vessels, doesn't mean that you can skip over the processes and procedures in the Rules and just decide for yourself -- that is, just make up -- your own order of maneuvering. Because the Colregs very often require a larger or less maneuverable vessel to give way to a smaller or more maneuverable one.

Particularly in the case of overtaking, which is what was operative in the original post. The rule that an overtaking vessel gives way to an overtaken vessel trumps all others -- it is at the top of the hierarchy of maneuvering order. It is true, as Ann Cates says, that a vessel being run down from astern has some responsibility to avoid, if possible, in reality this is pretty minimal and theoretical. It doesn't matter whether you are power, or sail, constrained by draft, or not, fishing, dredging, or whatever -- the Colregs require you to avoid any other vessel of whatever class or navigational status when you are overtaking. So all this talk about maneuverability is doubly inapplicable in this particular case.