Colregs Puzzle

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I will get in touch with Cockburn again and try again to get some response out of the RYA. I think I can formulate the question well enough now not to be ashamed.

The fact that even those who wrote the rules were puzzled by this question is also a certain consolation

It would be very interesting to see a response from the RYA, or for that matter the MCA.
The situation being discussed is quite ambiguous in many ways, and it will be a brave person from an organisation who will venture an opinion on how Rule 8 would be interpreted with regard to a SV standing on in a narrow channel.
Guess the only real answer would come from case law, so who is up for putting it to the test
I would think in any event, as with most collisions, both parties would be held at fault, the SV getting the larger portion.

In the case of the sailing vessel colliding with the tanker in the Solent last year, doe anyone know if the enquiry has been concluded. I have not seen anything on the case. Although local bye-laws were in effect, the Colregs would also have to be complied with.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by nigel1

In the case of the sailing vessel colliding with the tanker in the Solent last year, doe anyone know if the enquiry has been concluded. I have not seen anything on the case. Although local bye-laws were in effect, the Colregs would also have to be complied with.

I believe that collision occurred in a TSS which would mean that the sailing vessel was impeding. On another forum I saw a chart of the area in which the incident occurred.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Why was the term "Shall not impede" used? We already have good terms like keep clear and give way.

"Shall not impede" is used for narrow channel (9), TSS(10) and CBD(18) - all situations where the normally give-way larger vessel would be restricted by depth and narrowness of the navigable water. It is in effect in all conditions of visibility, unlike "give-way" and "keep clear".

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

IRule8.html


But now the rules (as officially interpreted) have changed -- the sailboat in our hypothetical case is definitely not the stand-on vessel. Lodesman is therefore not right today, if this article is right.


The fact that even those who wrote the rules were puzzled by this question is also a certain consolation

While I don't doubt Llana's and Wisneskey's credentials, I don't believe either has been party to the Conventions that crafted the colregs, so this remains their interpretation. I can't see how you can have a give-way vessel and not have a stand-on vessel - the whole point of rule 17 is you can't have one without the other.

17(a)(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

So you ask, 'then how can a stand-on vessel still manoeuvre to not impede?' C&L explain that any manoeuvre the stand-on vessel makes to avoid impeding the give-way vessel is akin to a rule 17.c manoeuvre.

Amen to your last point.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

While I don't doubt Llana's and Wisneskey's credentials, I don't believe either has been party to the Conventions that crafted the colregs, so this remains their interpretation. I can't see how you can have a give-way vessel and not have a stand-on vessel - the whole point of rule 17 is you can't have one without the other.

Huh? Au contraire.

Chris Llana is a former Coast Guard officer with a B.S. in naval architecture and marine engineering and advanced degrees in marine affairs (MMA) and law (JD). During his tenure as a civilian at Coast Guard Headquarters, he drafted the annexes to the Inland Navigation Rules and wrote other regulations implementing both International and Inland Navigation Rules.

George Wisneskey is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and holds a master's degree in education from the George Washington University. As chief of the Coast Guard's Rules of the Road Branch before his retirement in 1982, he oversaw the drafting of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Huh? Au contraire.

Inland rules vice the IMO conventions for the IRPCS (1972 et al). Like I said, they have credentials, but don't mention being involved in the IMO conventions.

[cappy208]

Regarding the mentioned example: Rule 9 is overarching rule 18. It says so right at the top of rule 18!

Rule 17 (c) does not apply here. This is NOT describing a crossing situation with two power driven vessels. It is describing a narrow channel, impeding, and a sailing vessel. (which makes it a Rule 9 scenario)

The dilemma about whether the SV or the large vessel is stand on, is already decided and made clear by the phrase on the top of rule 18 "except where rules 9,10,13 otherwise require."

A vessel under 20 meters, or ANY sailing vessel is prohibited from impeding any vessel that can only operate within a narrow channel. This is not constrained by draft, This is not RAM. It is simple: any vessel which can only operate IN a narrow channel has the right of way!


There is no confusion about when the impeded' vessel becomes the give way vessel. It is when the vessel UNDER 20 meters OR the sailing vessel has encroached so as to make the impeded vessel run the risk of grounding or otherwise having issues, THEN, the impeded vessel is JUST as responsible to evade and try to avoid collision as the encroacher is. This does not change the fact that the encroaching vessel never lost its give way status. But under Rule 9 both vessels then must take action to avoid collision.

Reading further down Rule 9
BTW, Did anyone catch that ANY sailing vessel is prohibited from impeding in a narrow channel? It is not just under 20 meter! Read 9 (b) VERY carefully.

The narrow channel conflict is very unusual, as most narrow channels are under inland rules (anyone care to enlighten a US mariner of the differences (if any) between your inland rules and ours? However, TSS and a few offlying channels do qualify.

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."

[Bash]

Originally Posted by cappy208

Regarding the mentioned example: Rule 9 is overarching rule 18. It says so right at the top of rule 18!

+1. If Rule 9 applies, Rule 18 does not.

Fairly simple. And the racing rules have evolved to make it even more simple. As far as race committees are concerned in my home waters, if the skipper of the big boat thinks Rule 9 applies, it applies. In other words, if he gives you five blasts, you're DSQ, even if you never technically impeded him.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by cappy208

The narrow channel conflict is very unusual, as most narrow channels are under inland rules (anyone care to enlighten a US mariner of the differences (if any) between your inland rules and ours? However, TSS and a few offlying channels do qualify.

I am with Bash on his response.

Canada does not have Inland Rules, we have Canadian Modifications. In the case where there is some shared responsibility like the Great Lakes, the Mod seem to match the Inland rules. We do not have demarcation lines; instead the phrase "within the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway" is used. Some rules do make reference to the Great Lakes.

We have one odd rule, which has taken some time for me to understand.

Vessels Constrained by their Draught — Canadian Modification
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the Canadian waters of a
roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, no vessel
shall exhibit three all-round red lights in a vertical line or a
cylinder.

Essentially all large vessels seem to be deemed CBD.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1416.pdf

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by cappy208

It is when the vessel UNDER 20 meters OR the sailing vessel has encroached so as to make the impeded vessel run the risk of grounding or otherwise having issues, THEN, the impeded vessel is JUST as responsible to evade and try to avoid collision as the encroacher is...

Run the risk of grounding? How the heck did you come up with that interpretation?

This does not change the fact that the encroaching vessel never lost its give way status.

It never had give way status - it was required to not impede - two different things.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Essentially all large vessels seem to be deemed CBD.

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

[cappy208]

Rule 9 specifically applies to vessels which 'can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway" Is there some other nuance of words you would like to trifle with to describe the outcome of a vessel that can only navigate WITHIN the channel that has been forced out? I don't think this is inferring or implying ANYTHING untoward. I don't suppose you could find better water outside the channel that the vessel must stay in, within this conversation.


At least come up with a better choice of words to articulate your argument, but why argue? I am only givng reparte`rather than riposte` when NO response, other than enjoinder is really helpful.

[cappy208]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It never had give way status - it was required to not impede - two different things.

Once the SV had impeded, it became giveway (as did the impeded vessel) There are two completely different sets of issues going on in this case. First is the determination of whether impedation(sic) is appropriate, and the second is when (as always seems to happen when a WAFI is loose) when the vessel has been impeded, and must take action to avoid, BOTH vessels must do so. Not just the big one.
This was stated about, oh I don't quite recall, 100 posts or so ago. I believe it was you who posted, but that is irrelevant.

The notion that rule 17 was somehow invoked to make a stand on and a give way as part of the equation is irrelevant. The mention earlier of the give way vessel, once not enough was being done by the 'do not impede' vessel makes the priviledged vessel in the narrow channel take avoiding action. It was mentioned that both vessels were the giveway vessels. Somewhere%2

[cappy208]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Essentially all large vessels seem to be deemed CBD.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._1416.pdf

In the US inland rules CBD does NOT exist. In inland waters all are supposed to be cognizant of draft in relation to available depth.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by cappy208

Is there some other nuance of words you would like to trifle with to describe the outcome of a vessel that can only navigate WITHIN the channel that has been forced out?

8f(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this Part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

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).