Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 25-09-2012, 06:52   #61
Moderator
 
carstenb's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Boat: Jeanneau Sun Fast 40.3
Posts: 4,939
Images: 1
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Well Don

The only other issues that can get everybody's blood boiling is (wait for it) Hunters!

yes friends hunters. Perhaps we can start a thread entitled

HAG Hunters, anchors and guns - opinions, facts myths and other assorted bilge.

It would easily become the longest thread ever.
__________________

__________________
I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted - Elmore Leonard
carstenb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 06:52   #62
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,635
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
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.


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.
You haven't quite got what I've been saying. The IMO guidance appears to be refering to the change from the original 72 colregs to the the 87 amendments - this is where they added that the not impeding vessel is still required to not impede even after a risk of collision occurs and the not impeded vessel is required to give way.

The point I have been trying to express is that within a regime where 'not impede' would be applied, you can have either of two situations occur:

1) risk of collision exists and the constrained vessel is being impeded; or

2) risk of collision exists and the constrained vessel is not being impeded.

In both cases, the constrained vessel is required to give-way. I contend that if you have a vessel that must give-way by the definition of rule 17a(i) the other must stand-on. This does not relieve the stand-on vessel of the requirement to not impede the give-way vessel - she must allow searoom (safe navigable water) for the give-way vessel to give way. In this case her manoeuvre would be in keeping with the principle of rule 17a(ii). This is described in Cockcroft.
__________________

__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 08:09   #63
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
You haven't quite got what I've been saying. The IMO guidance appears to be refering to the change from the original 72 colregs to the the 87 amendments - this is where they added that the not impeding vessel is still required to not impede even after a risk of collision occurs and the not impeded vessel is required to give way.

The point I have been trying to express is that within a regime where 'not impede' would be applied, you can have either of two situations occur:

1) risk of collision exists and the constrained vessel is being impeded; or

2) risk of collision exists and the constrained vessel is not being impeded.

In both cases, the constrained vessel is required to give-way. I contend that if you have a vessel that must give-way by the definition of rule 17a(i) the other must stand-on. This does not relieve the stand-on vessel of the requirement to not impede the give-way vessel - she must allow searoom (safe navigable water) for the give-way vessel to give way. In this case her manoeuvre would be in keeping with the principle of rule 17a(ii). This is described in Cockcroft.
It took me a long time, but I think I understand your argument. At the beginning of our argument (almost two years ago!) it went right over my head -- quite too deep and subtle for my understanding of Colregs at that point.

And the discussion of the delegates reported in one of the above links shows that this argument existed -- basically, that "not impeding" is such a different kind of obligation than giving way in a collision risk situation that it kind of disappears when the vessels get that close, or at least, don't change the giving way and standing on which is supposed to take place under Rule 18.

But you do agree that the phrase "except where . . . Rule 9 otherwise . . ." contradicts this argument, don't you? It contradicts it utterly, because if it really were the case that "not impeding" is so different then there would be no conflict between the obligations of Rule 18 and Rule 9, and there would be no need for such a phrase.

I think that the rest of the discussion of the delegates shows that your position was rejected, and they decided that neither my earlier position (that Rule 9 trumps Rule 18) nor your position (that Rule 18 is in full force, including that the sailing vessel must stand on, even while burdened with obligations of Rule 9) would prevail. They decided that both vessels must keep out of the way and thus -- give way to each other. The result is Rule 8(f).
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 10:17   #64
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
In both cases, the constrained vessel is required to give-way. I contend that if you have a vessel that must give-way by the definition of rule 17a(i) the other must stand-on. This does not relieve the stand-on vessel of the requirement to not impede the give-way vessel - she must allow searoom (safe navigable water) for the give-way vessel to give way. In this case her manoeuvre would be in keeping with the principle of rule 17a(ii). This is described in Cockcroft.
No, I did get that. And I think some things Cockcroft has written supports you. But I think it is clearly wrong and I'm betting Cockcroft himself will not now say that the constrained vessel is obligated to give way, plus I think the plain meaning of 8(f) contradicts this.

We shall see! I have Cockcroft's email address and I've been in touch with him.
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2012, 17:02   #65
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,635
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
And the discussion of the delegates reported in one of the above links shows that this argument existed -- basically, that "not impeding" is such a different kind of obligation than giving way in a collision risk situation that it kind of disappears when the vessels get that close, or at least, don't change the giving way and standing on which is supposed to take place under Rule 18.



I think that the rest of the discussion of the delegates shows that your position was rejected, and they decided that neither my earlier position (that Rule 9 trumps Rule 18) nor your position (that Rule 18 is in full force, including that the sailing vessel must stand on, even while burdened with obligations of Rule 9) would prevail. They decided that both vessels must keep out of the way and thus -- give way to each other. The result is Rule 8(f).
As I said before, this is just the interpretation of Llana and Wisniskey; it differs from Cockcroft's - including Cockcroft's interpretation of rule 8f.
Quote:
But you do agree that the phrase "except where . . . Rule 9 otherwise . . ." contradicts this argument, don't you? It contradicts it utterly, because if it really were the case that "not impeding" is so different then there would be no conflict between the obligations of Rule 18 and Rule 9, and there would be no need for such a phrase.
I agree the colregs are poorly worded - a condition no doubt of too many cooks. I don't think they are contradictory though - certainly not since 8f was included to define the relationship between the not impede rules and rule 18.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
I think some things Cockcroft has written supports you. But I think it is clearly wrong and I'm betting Cockcroft himself will not now say that the constrained vessel is obligated to give way, plus I think the plain meaning of 8(f) contradicts this.

We shall see! I have Cockcroft's email address and I've been in touch with him.
I am sitting on the edge of my seat. I bet Cockcroft wishes he had written a more comprehensive interpretation of 'not impede' and how it applies.
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 07:06   #66
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Re: Colregs Puzzle

I am re-reading Cockcroft's book ("You magnificent bastard! I read your book!") prior to bothering the great man with our petty arguments.

I just wanted to bring out this quote for anyone who still thinks that being the stand-on vessel is anything like having the right of way on land:

"Rule 8(a) does not give a vessel which is initially required to keep
her course and speed the right to take action at an early stage.
Rule 17(a)(ii) only permits such a vessel to maneuver when it
becomes apparent that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate
action. The stand-on vessel would probably not be justified in taking
action to avoid collision before giving the whistle signal prescribed
in Rule 34(d) (see page 108)."

A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, AN Cockcroft & JNF Lameijer, 7th Ed., 2011, page 50.

Standing-on is not a privilege -- it is an obligation.
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 07:21   #67
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Re: Colregs Puzzle

So here is my little paper, which I've now got down to 1 1/2 pages and in form not embarassing to show to professionals. Any comments before I send it (to the MCA, RYA legal dept, and to Mr. Cockcroft)? In particular, I would ask Lodesman to confirm whether I have fairly presented his point of view.





Situation:

A large commercial vessel is navigating in a narrow channel, and cannot safely navigate outside of it.

A sailing vessel is approaching on an intersecting course.

Rule 9(b) says that a vessel of less than 20 meters or a sailing vessel must “not impede” the passage of a vessel navigating in a narrow channel, which cannot navigate outside of it. Rule 9 applies in all conditions of visibility, and I think we know from various commentaries that the obligation to “not impede” means that the sailing vessel must maneuver in such a way to ensure that the situation does not develop to the point that a risk of collision arises in the first place.

But what happens if, for whatever reason, a risk of collision does develop? How does Rule 9(b) interact with Rule 18(a), which requires a motor vessel to “keep out of the way” of a sailing vessel, once the vessels are in sight of each other and a risk of collision exists? Does the obligation on the part of the sailing vessel to “not impede” negate the obligation of the motor vessel to “keep out of the way”? What is the priority between these obligations, or how do they interact?

Rule 18 starts with the phrase “Except where Rules 9 . . . otherwise require. . . .” That phase would seem to subordinate Rule 18 to Rule 9, so that the sailing vessel would not stand-on as would be otherwise required by Rule 18(a) (whether or not the motor vessel would nevertheless give way is a different question; discussed below). Instead, the sailing vessel would continue to attempt to avoid “impeding” the motor vessel, and would be obligated to maneuver out of the way. Maneuvering out of the way cannot be done simultaneously with standing on, so it would seem that the sailing vessel would at no point in such an encounter have any right or any obligation to stand on.

This interpretation is supported by Llana & Wisneskey, Navrules Handbook, Third Online Edition, http://navruleshandbook.com/index.html. In the commentary to Rule 9, they write:

Rule 8(f) "shall not impede" language is operative 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. Be mindful, however, that Rule 8(f)(iii) says that the general rules will apply to the vessel you are impeding.
http://navruleshandbook.com/Rule9.html

That the sailing vessel’s obligation to “not impede” would continue to exist after a risk of collision comes into being would also seem to be fairly clear from the plan text of Rule 8(f)(ii):

A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve the risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the Rules of this part.
Colregs, Rule 8(f)(ii)

But in A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, AN Cockcroft & JNF Lameijer, 7th Ed., 2011, page 60, it is written that:

Rule 8(f)(ii) establishes clearly that a vessel required not to impede does not lose that obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision. Although the other vessel may become the give-way vessel when risk of collision develops the vessel required not to impede is not relieved from the requirement to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel because of the application of Rule 17(a)(i). Early action in compliance with Rule 8(f) is compatible with Rule 17(a)(ii), which permits action by the stand-on vessel (see pages 106-8).[Emphasis added.]

This implies that, on the contrary, the sailing vessel in our hypothetical case is the stand-on vessel under Rule 8(f), notwithstanding the continuation of its obligation to “not impede” under Rule 9.

One member of our Forum suggested the following:

1. We know that according to Rule 8(f)(iii) the motor vessel is obligated to give way under Rule 18(a) despite the obligation of the sailing vessel to “not impede”. This is uncontroversial. There cannot be giving way without standing on, so logically, the sailing vessel must stand on to the extent it can consistent with its obligations under Rule 9 and under Rule 17(a)(ii).

2. Rule 9 requires the sailing vessel to give the motor vessel enough sea room to fulfill its obligations to give way under Rule 18(a).

Others consider the idea of “not impeding” and simultaneously standing on to be logically impossible and absurd.

Can you add any enlightening comments?
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 10:14   #68
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,635
Re: Colregs Puzzle

It looks as succinct as you are likely to get it.
Although, it should be clarified in para 2 that any manoeuvre that the sailing vessel must do to avoid impeding or stop impeding would be consistent with 17(a)(ii).

I might propose asking for a comment on a situation where risk of collision exists, but the vessel that is not to be imepeded, is not actually impeded. That is to say, if the larger vessel has sufficient room to manoeuvre around the sailboat within the narrow channel/traffic lane, then should the sailboat hold its course and speed?
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 10:25   #69
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
It looks as succinct as you are likely to get it.
Although, it should be clarified in para 2 that any manoeuvre that the sailing vessel must do to avoid impeding or stop impeding would be consistent with 17(a)(ii).

I might propose asking for a comment on a situation where risk of collision exists, but the vessel that is not to be imepeded, is not actually impeded. That is to say, if the larger vessel has sufficient room to manoeuvre around the sailboat within the narrow channel/traffic lane, then should the sailboat hold its course and speed?
Great; I will do that and send it out.
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 10:43   #70
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,048
Images: 1
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post

I might propose asking for a comment on a situation where risk of collision exists, but the vessel that is not to be imepeded, is not actually impeded. That is to say, if the larger vessel has sufficient room to manoeuvre around the sailboat within the narrow channel/traffic lane, then should the sailboat hold its course and speed?
I would suggest that the sailboat did impede if it cause the larger vessel to deviate from its course.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 11:08   #71
Senior Cruiser
 
Captain Bill's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat
Boat: Endeavourcat Sailcat 44
Posts: 2,313
Re: Colregs Puzzle

This all very interesting reading, but let me throw another complicating factor into the mix. Suppose the sailboat is also CBD. In some of the waters I travel large push barges travel in narrow channels that might be several miles long with water only a foot or two deep outside of the channel. Depending on the tidal currents a sailboat may not be making much headway in the channel and it is often the case that the tug/barge is not even in sight when the SV enters the channel. It seems to me that this is an overtake situation, but I would be interested in hearing other opinions.
__________________
Captain Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 11:16   #72
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: New England
Boat: Prairie 29
Posts: 201
Re: Colregs Puzzle

That sounds exactly like overtaking, Inland rules. The only issue I have seen, the yacht (sail or power) will stay in the exact center of the channel, leaving NO room to be overtaken. The rules state, the vessel being overtaken must hold course and speed. (In the middle of the channel!) But the issue is then: Should the yacht even BE in the center of the channel? Or should the yacht be on its own starboard side as practical?
__________________
cappy208 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 11:26   #73
Senior Cruiser
 
Cheechako's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Skagit City, WA
Posts: 19,363
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Does the power boat have the option to slow down or stop?
__________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted" - Elmore Leonard











Cheechako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 11:44   #74
Senior Cruiser
 
Captain Bill's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the boat
Boat: Endeavourcat Sailcat 44
Posts: 2,313
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappy208 View Post
That sounds exactly like overtaking, Inland rules. The only issue I have seen, the yacht (sail or power) will stay in the exact center of the channel, leaving NO room to be overtaken. The rules state, the vessel being overtaken must hold course and speed. (In the middle of the channel!) But the issue is then: Should the yacht even BE in the center of the channel? Or should the yacht be on its own starboard side as practical?
I think this applies to international rules as well. I am only aware of 2 channels on the east coast of the US where this might be a significant problem and the channels are outside of the colregs line, but there might be more, the rest are inland but not in the western rivers where special rules apply. The one channel I am thinking of in particular is pretty narrow, on the order of 100-150 feet with water only 1 foot deep outside the channel and about 5 miles long. I have a catamaran with a 20 foot beam, so the available channel is down to about 80 feet even if I'm at the extreme starboard edge of the channel, which is a bit dangerous because the edges of this channel tend to shoal up a bit. The barge/tug combinations I am referring to typically have about a 60 foot beam. In the best case it would require some pretty tight maneuvering on the part of the barge to get around me with only 20 feet of working room and he would definitely change course and speed. That is he can't take his 60 feet out of the center of the channel and still get around me without colliding with my port side so I would definitely be impeding him by the impeding standards. Even if I have my engines running I'm still less than 20 meters so the not to impede standard would seem to apply. Even if I stuck my starboard keel in the sand my port side would be about 20 feet into the channel. Are people of the opinion as the do not impede vessel am I obligated to wreck my boat to not impede? I think that the vessel in question is overtaking under rule 13 and is obliged to wait until they can safely pass. With my engines running my boat only does about 8.5 knots and these tu/barge combinations often are doing 10-11 knots so I cannot avoid impeding by speeding up.

I fully agree that the sailboat/small vessel should be on the starboard side of the channel.
__________________
Captain Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2012, 12:01   #75
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,750
Re: Colregs Puzzle

Oof! A superb point. Surely the "not to be impeded" vessel must obey Rule 13.

So why wouldn't it be the same with Rule 18? The only thing I can say is that Rule 13 does not have the phrase about "except as Rule 9 may otherwise require. . .", and Rule 18 does have this phrase . . .
__________________

__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.