Visit our Popular Forums

Captain Bill · 27-09-2012, 11:28

It seems to me that rule 9 is internally contradictory. (b) states that SV and <20 meters shall not impede, but (e) essentially repeats the rule 13 requirements for overtaking situations. I can't see how it can be both ways in an overtaking situation. The scenareo that I submitted a little earlier could also be problematic in a head on situation in a narow channel. At that point the overtake provision would not apply and we are back to having a problem with (b) and a safe passage.

Lodesman · 27-09-2012, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would suggest that the sailboat did impede if it cause the larger vessel to deviate from its course.

The crux of my argument is that this is not the case.

Quote:

8(f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

If there is sufficient sea-room, then he is not impeded.

cappy208 · 27-09-2012, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The crux of my argument is that this is not the case.

If there is sufficient sea-room, then he is not impeded.

This is the issue. YOU say there was enough 'sea room'. The other guy may feel differently. Not that this is anything to argue within the context of Colregs, but the perception of each is different.

I wish I could take a decent video of some of the near misses I have seen, had, or almost had. What I am looking at is often NOT what others see. Some see this as simple obeying Colregs/ Rule 18 (a)(iv) Sailing vessel stand on. But, there may be 2, 3, or more other vessels that are involved. But to the other guy the only issue is the 'My boat and Your boat' is the whole scenario.

The other thread about ships vs sailboats has a similar post. The guy says: The size difference between the vessels is part of the problem. (relating to sailing vessels of yore)

Different handling characteristics need to be realized by all. This is NOT an excuse for not following Colregs. But it does help explain why some boaters are confused about how these type of accidents happen.

It is like saying (post accident): I don't know why he didn't just stop. Or: He never got out of my way. Nonsensical expectation and understanding.

Lodesman · 28-09-2012, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by cappy208

This is the issue. YOU say there was enough 'sea room'. The other guy may feel differently. Not that this is anything to argue within the context of Colregs, but the perception of each is different.

Well as you say, we should have a reasonable understanding of the other guy. Sometimes logic applies - if he had to go through a 500-yard wide channel to get to the part of the channel that is 1 mile wide, where your 50-foot sailboat is crossing, then how can he be impeded by you?

**Dockhead** · 02-10-2012, 03:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well as you say, we should have a reasonable understanding of the other guy. Sometimes logic applies - if he had to go through a 500-yard wide channel to get to the part of the channel that is 1 mile wide, where your 50-foot sailboat is crossing, then how can he be impeded by you?

If it's 500 yards wide (about 2.5 cables), query whether it's a "narrow channel" in the definition of Rule 9.

But in any case, if he is forced to maneuver (in order to give way under Rule 18), then he's being impeded. We've seen quite a lot of commentary that "not impeded" means being able to navigate as if the other vessel is not there.

Lodesman · 02-10-2012, 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If it's 500 yards wide (about 2.5 cables), query whether it's a "narrow channel" in the definition of Rule 9.

But in any case, if he is forced to maneuver (in order to give way under Rule 18), then he's being impeded. We've seen quite a lot of commentary that "not impeded" means being able to navigate as if the other vessel is not there.

It's inevitable that any discussion of narrow channels will turn to what actually defines a "narrow" channel; that's why my previous example used traffic lanes.

If the colregs meant "stay out of the way", they would have said "stay out of the way." Instead they deliberately choose the phrase "not impede" and more or less defined it in rule 8 as allowing sufficient searoom for safe passage. While a case can be made for either point of view, imo as long as the large vessel can continue its passage, albeit with a small course and/or speed change, then it is no more impeded than if it had to alter for another large vessel or for the natural bends of the channel.

**Dockhead** · 02-10-2012, 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It's inevitable that any discussion of narrow channels will turn to what actually defines a "narrow" channel; that's why my previous example used traffic lanes.

If the colregs meant "stay out of the way", they would have said "stay out of the way." Instead they deliberately choose the phrase "not impede" and more or less defined it in rule 8 as allowing sufficient searoom for safe passage. While a case can be made for either point of view, imo as long as the large vessel can continue its passage, albeit with a small course and/or speed change, then it is no more impeded than if it had to alter for another large vessel or for the natural bends of the channel.

I think we've established pretty well that it really is a puzzle with seeming contradictions in the Colregs and no really clear right answer. I am waiting to see what the experts reply to my written query. I'll post as soon as I get something.

sealeopard · 14-10-2012, 11:45

I'm wondering how helpful skippers find an application like IMO IRPCS ColRegs Rules of the Road for Seafaring Sail and Power Vessels when they're trying to unravel the subtle complexities of ColRegs puzzles? I saw a similar one being discussed involving 2 vessels in a narrow channel in the Boston Harbor - does anyone have experience of an application such as this and how effective it can be in helping to determine the rule?

cappy208 · 17-10-2012, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by sealeopard

I'm wondering how helpful skippers find an application like IMO IRPCS ColRegs Rules of the Road for Seafaring Sail and Power Vessels when they're trying to unravel the subtle complexities of ColRegs puzzles? I saw a similar one being discussed involving 2 vessels in a narrow channel in the Boston Harbor - does anyone have experience of an application such as this and how effective it can be in helping to determine the rule?

What incident in Boston? I have not heard of any lately. The last I heard of was an 18 meter fishing boat ran into the port bow of a 200 meter ship out at sea.

Lodesman · 13-11-2012, 08:29

Bump

Dockhead - have you received any word yet? It's been over a month.

Pelagic · 13-11-2012, 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think we've established pretty well that it really is a puzzle with seeming contradictions in the Colregs and no really clear right answer. I am waiting to see what the experts reply to my written query. I'll post as soon as I get something.

The Elder Brethern are not Lawyers, but practical experienced mariners who would have advised early danger signals and safe speed of large vessels amongst sailing pleasure craft who have a limited appreciation of the primary Rule 2.

I believe they will remind all mariners of the basic premise of the Rules as Jackdale stated in Post 22

Quote:
The rules have to be considered in total.

Rule 2 - Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigationand collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Avoid collisions.

That is why is most cases of which I am aware, collisions result in shared responsibility / fault.
__________________ Unquote