Colregs Puzzle

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by cappy208

It was mentioned that both vessels were the giveway vessels. Somewhere%2

Yeah it was mentioned, but it's not necessarily fact - that's the whole bone of contention in this thread. The fact is the rules do not say that both vessels are give-way. The rules do say that where two vessels are involved and one is the give-way, the other must stand-on. Not impede does not require the vessel that is not to be impeded to maintain its course and speed. Not impede applies in all conditions of visibility; give way only applies where vessels are in sight. Hence not impede is not the same as give way.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Not correct - no vessel in Canadian waters is CBD. CBD is redundant as rules 9 and 10 do the same thing.

This is an email I received from a member of the CYA Cruising committee when I asked for clarifcation:

Ship Safety Bulletin 04/1977 clarifies ( <grin>) the situation. i.e.

" Rule 28 states that a vessel constrained by her draft may...exhibit where they can best be seen three all-round red lights In a vertical line, or a cylinder.

The Coast Guard has been requested to define more precisely what ships should comply and under what condition.

Only the courts can interpret legislation, therefore, the following comments should be regarded as the views of the Coast Guard and may not necessarily be those which would be taken by a court of law.

Many views were expressed during the course of the 1972 conference which devised the revised rules. However, there was general agreement that the purpose of the signal was to warn other vessels that the vessel exhibiting it was severely restricted in its ability to deviate from the course it was following in an area where other vessels may not fully appreciate these circumstances.

The North Sea is an example of such an area. Vessels not normally restricted by their drafts may not appreciate the manoeuvring restrictions that a larger vessel would give way when in fact It could not. This could have serious consequences.

In narrow channels or fairways within Canadian waters, the well established practice of skilful and careful persons engaged in navigation is to take into consideration the navigational factors related to these areas such as shoal water and current as limitations of the vessels involved.

In summary, mariners can expect as a matter of course that other vessels in narrow channels or fairways may be restricted in their ability to manoeuvre and comply with the rules, whereas in more open waters this is less likely to be apparent. It is for the latter areas that Rule 28 was established and prolific use of the signal would not appear to provide increased safety. "


In other words, in Canadian waters all large vessels are deemed to be constrained by their draft......

I have tried to get the original, but have been unsuccessful.

[cappy208]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Nope - don't see anything there about running the risk of grounding. Perhaps it's poorly worded, but your post seems to suggest that if the impeded vessel is not actually in danger of grounding, then it doesn't need to follow rule 8f(iii).

In this instance there are two obvious potential threats: The vessels colliding, or one or the other grounding.

The reason for rule 9 is to eliminate the vessel from impeding (or potentially causing an accident.)

Reading rule 8 shows that a vessel that is impeded must follow.... But first under rule 9 it should never BE impeded! Once it IS impeded, then rule 8 kicks in. What other risk is evident when operating in a narrow channel, that cannot be departed from? (other than allision)

This is like argueing about the chicken or the egg. In this case (narrow channels), rule 9 comes first. If rule 9 is violated, then rule 8 has to come into play so that both vessels take action to avoid. To put it another way, if rule nine is followed rule 8 will never come into effect.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This is an email I received from a member of the CYA Cruising committee when I asked for clarifcation:



I have tried to get the original, but have been unsuccessful.

The way I read the ship safety bulletin is that you should consider the ability of the other ship to manoeuvre with respect to depth of water and proximity of navigational hazards (hmm, where in the rules does it mention that...) - if it is reasonably considered to be confined to a narrow channel (ie. the dredged portion of a much wider body of water) then it must be considered to be protected by rule 9. It does not mean that all large vessels are CBD in all Canadian waters.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by cappy208

In this instance there are two obvious potential threats: The vessels colliding, or one or the other grounding.

The reason for rule 9 is to eliminate the vessel from impeding (or potentially causing an accident.)

Depending on the circumstances, it is sometimes possible that a vessel can be in a narrow channel, and able to manoeuvre to avoid a collision without going aground. Consider the scenario I posted about the sailboat and containership - I used TSS vice narrow channel to avoid the usual bickering - "is two miles really a narrow channel?"

The not impede vessel has to give enough searoom for the large vessel to pass safely, but the large vessel has to give way.

[cappy208]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

- that's the whole bone of contention in this thread. The fact is the rules do not say that both vessels are give-way. The rules do say that where two vessels are involved and one is the give-way, the other must stand-on.

One vessel starts out as do not impede and one vessel which cannot be impeded. That much is clear.

But when the impedement(sic) occurs and avoidance must occur, the impeder becomes the giveway vessel Rule 16, and if the larger vessel determines that the give way vessel is not responding appropriately, they must act under Rule17 (a) or (b) It is not give way, but take action, the same way the give way vessel must avoid.

And they must behave under the general guidelines of rule 8.

[jackdale]

Cappy and Lodesman

This interpretation might help.

The IMO Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation for a time had issued guidance on the meaning of the term "shall not impede." That guidance said that the "shall not impede" command meant to maneuver, when practicable, so far out of the way of the other vessel that risk of collision never develops, with the proviso that if risk of collision by some chance does develop, the more general Steering and Sailing Rules would take over (that is, the "shall not impede" rules would no longer be in effect).

The IMO subsequently decided that the guidance, if given at all, should be part of the Rules. During the course of the debate on the actual language, the delegates decided that the vessel that had been originally directed to not impede the other should retain that burden even after risk of collision arose. That does not mean, however, that the (usually larger) vessel that was not to be impeded continues to have the right of way. The new Rule provides that if the not-to-be-impeded vessel would be the give-way vessel under the general rules, it has the duty to stay out of the way of the impeding vessel after risk of collision arises. Under the new Rule, which changed the earlier official guidance in this respect, the impeding vessel also continues to have a duty to stay out of the way after risk of collision arises, and does not gain the stand-on status that the general rules might have given it. Both vessels would be obligated to stay out of the way.

Rule8.html

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by cappy208

...But when the impedement(sic) occurs and avoidance must occur, the impeder becomes the giveway vessel Rule 16, ...

It doesn't say that in the rules, nor in Cockcroft, nor Farwell's, nor just about any other guide to the rules. It says if risk of collision develops then the vessel not to be impeded shall follow the rules of this part, that is the steering & sailing rules. Regardless of risk of collision the not impeding vessel shall do what she can to not impede or stop impeding the other vessel and provide adequate searoom.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by cappy208

Think that is confusing? How about the phrase in Rule 13 (a) "Notwithstanding anything contained within part 1 and 2..." Any vessel overtaking is not relieved of the burden to give way! That means (to my limited mind, and experience) that a large vessel (impeded or not!), which is proceeding in a narrow channel but is OVERTAKING a SV, must give way! I can imagine the ruckus when that one goes to court! Just to try to squelch any sea lawyer, here is the definition for notwithstanding: "The legal definition of Notwithstanding is In spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things."

Hopefully the above situation is covered by Rule 9e. The overtaking vessel can request the vessel to be overtaken to move out of the way.
I did note that the US Inland Water rules restrict this to power driven vessels, whereas the International rules just state "vessel".
It would be a very brave (or foolish) sailing vessel that ignored the request to make room.

[Dockhead]

As I understand it, this is Lodesman's position:

"The IMO Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation for a time had issued guidance on the meaning of the term "shall not impede." That guidance said that the "shall not impede" command meant to maneuver, when practicable, so far out of the way of the other vessel that risk of collision never develops, with the proviso that if risk of collision by some chance does develop, the more general Steering and Sailing Rules would take over (that is, the "shall not impede" rules would no longer be in effect)."

Requoted from Jackdale's post above (I had also posted this a few dozen posts back).

However, the above principle has been abandoned, so Lodesman cannot be correct.

Here it is in black and white:

The IMO subsequently decided that the guidance, if given at all, should be part of the Rules. During the course of the debate on the actual language, the delegates decided that the vessel that had been originally directed to not impede the other should retain that burden even after risk of collision arose. That does not mean, however, that the (usually larger) vessel that was not to be impeded continues to have the right of way. The new Rule provides that if the not-to-be-impeded vessel would be the give-way vessel under the general rules, it has the duty to stay out of the way of the impeding vessel after risk of collision arises. Under the new Rule, which changed the earlier official guidance in this respect, the impeding vessel also continues to have a duty to stay out of the way after risk of collision arises, and does not gain the stand-on status that the general rules might have given it. Both vessels would be obligated to stay out of the way.

I think that's quite cut and dried -- it may be that "not impeding" is not philosophically the same thing as being a give-way vessel, as Lodesman says, but it does NOT mean that the obligation to "not impede" disappears when the risk of collision starts to occur.

And that's why the new Rule 8(f) was adopted. That rule says that when a power vessel which is not to be impeded under Rule 9 encounters a sailing vessel to which it should give way under Rule 18, that the sailing vessel is still burdened by Rule 9. It says that in black and white. It also says that the motor vessel is still burdened by Rule 18. So both vessels are obligated to manuever as they can to avoid a collision.

Some of you are taking my former position -- that Rule 9 has priority, because of the words "except where . . . Rule 9 otherwise . . ." in the preamble to Rule 18.

But I have to say that my former position is wrong, and Rule 8(f) answers the question. Lodesman is also wrong. Rule 9 does not trump Rule 18, and Rule 18 does not trump Rule 9. It's right there in black and white, in Rule 8(f).


I have to say, the Rules are horribly written. I used to teach legal writing; I would flunk a student turning in this kind of crap. The phrase "except where . . . Rule 9 otherwise . . ." contradicts Rule 8(f), which says, on the contrary, Rule 18 continues in force despite Rule 9. Rule 8(f) is later, and we have the remarks of the drafters, so we must resolve the contradiction in favor of Rule 8(f), which holds the answer to our Colregs Puzzle.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Originally Posted by cappy208 ......But when the impedement(sic) occurs and avoidance must occur, the impeder becomes the giveway vessel Rule 16, ...


It doesn't say that in the rules, nor in Cockcroft, nor Farwell's, nor just about any other guide to the rules. It says if risk of collision develops then the vessel not to be impeded shall follow the rules of this part, that is the steering & sailing rules. Regardless of risk of collision the not impeding vessel shall do what she can to not impede or stop impeding the other vessel and provide adequate searoom.

It does say so here:

"If your vessel is directed not to impede another, try to avoid causing the other vessel to change its course or speed. If you blunder into a risk-of-collision situation, the general Steering and Sailing Rules will not apply to you--you will continue to be obliged to stay out of the way."

Rule9.html

But I think that's wrong. The very same handbook has this contradictory language:

The IMO subsequently decided that the guidance, if given at all, should be part of the Rules. During the course of the debate on the actual language, the delegates decided that the vessel that had been originally directed to not impede the other should retain that burden even after risk of collision arose. That does not mean, however, that the (usually larger) vessel that was not to be impeded continues to have the right of way. The new Rule provides that if the not-to-be-impeded vessel would be the give-way vessel under the general rules, it has the duty to stay out of the way of the impeding vessel after risk of collision arises. Under the new Rule, which changed the earlier official guidance in this respect, the impeding vessel also continues to have a duty to stay out of the way after risk of collision arises, and does not gain the stand-on status that the general rules might have given it. Both vessels would be obligated to stay out of the way.

Rule8.html


I think that the second commentary reflects the new situation after the adoption of Rule 8(f). Note well that the phrase "stay out of the way" in Colregs is associated with "giving way".

Definitely no one stands on. I think this is absolutely clear.

[nigel1]

All the theorising is all well and good and leads to a better understanding of the Colregs, the real case in narrow channels and fairways is that the time lapse from "not to impede" until risk of collision exists can be a matter of minutes or less
On a recent tow up to Rotterdam, the amount of traffic was heavy, with all manner of vessels entering the main waterway from the numerous havens along the way, or crossing the main waterway to leave it.
Radar and AIS are not much use in this situation, far too much traffic to deal with and assessment is made by eyeball. You can quickly discount a lot of the traffic, pay heed to stuff which may give rise to concern, and if there is something close by on a steady bearing, take action. There is very little time to think that the other vessel is failing to not impede. By the time it has been noted, it has impeded, and you have to be ready to do whatever you can to avoid a collision.
On the other hand, most of these narrow channels and fairways are well managed, and really worrying situations are rare

[carstenb]

Rakuflames

Interesting that you note that you start your engine whenever you have to cross a channel.

Technically, you will still be under sail (even with a started engine) until you put it into gear. Then you are a power driven vessel.

Since you take the precaution of starting the engine, which I'm assuming you do so you can react quickly, do you also hoist the upside down triangle? Or do you wait until you put the engine into gear (which you have started in order to react quickly), then jump up on deck and hoist the triangle?

Interesting conumdrum. As soon as the engine goes into gear, you are power driven. until it is in gear, you are under sail.

Unless you are faster than Rocky Racoon - you'll waste valuable time running up on the deck.

I sometimes start my engine when I think I'm getting into at situation, but then i always hoist the triangle and thereafter act like a power driven vessel (since that is what others will think I am)

[nigel1]

Here's a short video illustrating how little time there is between not to impede and risk of collision.
The incident took place on the River Mersey, and led a tightening up of reporting procedures for the ferry's.

Near Collision - Mersey Ferry and Gas Tanker The Ramira - YouTube

[sailorboy1]

I wonder what would happen if you put the rules arguers into a room with a gun and anchor? I only read part of the thread to try to understand why it was as long as it was. The answer was given right away.

Really now is there really 3 pages of "discussions" needed in the original thread question?........ But then I guess so.