Did I have to give way? Plus short-long blast.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by ohthetrees

She was coming out of Elliot bay, and going surprisingly close by Magnolia Bluff. Neither of us was in the TSS. At least not according to my reading of Navionics and Gov charts.

Out of curiosity, was your radio on? Was there a sécurité announcement? There usually is....

[sgrimm]

Wow, that is the best response I've seen in this lengthy, interesting and sometimes condescending thread! Thank you for putting the time into that response!

[OOW]

Originally Posted by sgrimm

Wow, that is the best response I've seen in this lengthy, interesting and sometimes condescending thread! Thank you for putting the time into that response!

Assuming that was to me: I learn best by teaching. I'm currently studying. Thus... that post! It helped me a lot to try to work it out!

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by OOW

I may be late to the party but here's my interpretation (from 7 years aboard commercial vessels navigating busy ports with plenty of recreational sailors about.)

Firstly, it looks like there IS a TSS where you say there isn't. See the image below.



So this means you are the "do not impede" vessel as per rule 10(j), assuming the cruise ship is heading directly to the TSS. She has nowhere else to go. She MUST use the TSS in this situation and therefore would be contravening the law if she did not do so. She was probably hugging Magnolia Bluff to do her best to join the TSS "at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable" as per rule 10(b)(iii).

My interpretation of the sound signals made:

Given she was exiting Elliott Bay Marina and hugging Magnolia Bluff, she would have been traveling north and thus to her starboard. Her sound signals COULD have been simply too close together (people make mistakes, or the OOW/Master felt it safer to sound both than to wait until they were individually distinguishable as separate signals.)

One short blast followed by one prolonged blast is indeed Morse Alpha. I think we can all agree she would not have a diver down whilst underway possible making way in a busy port...

Separate those then:

One short blast: altering course to starboard. Check! Makes sense.
One prolonged blast: power driven vessel underway, and/or approaching a bend in an obscured fairway. Check! Also makes sense!

So... it's all starting to come together!

She exited the port, sounded one short for her turn to starboard and one long for her PDV underway approaching an obscured corner.

Questions to ask: are you 100% sure you did not see a cylinder atop her mast? Rule 18(d)(i) comes into play here and you must not impede her safe passage as she is constrained by her draught.

Just how close was she to the TSS? She could well have been in it. In which case you are still the vessel not to impede.

From experience, large vessels are exceptionally slow to manoeuvre. Although there is no distinct "law of gross tonnage" (it's ******** basically), there is distinct mention of good seamanship. In this instance I and many others at the helm would agree that we'd expect you, as the highly manoeuvrable sail yacht, to be courteous to the big ugly ship (worth noting it takes upwards of 10s to engage propellors from the bridge). Relying on the cruise ship to alter course for a small sail yacht is quite frankly ridiculous and things like this cause national/international pollution disasters as well as deaths.

tl;dr?

You're in contravention of rule 10(j), possibly 18(d)(i) (if she is indeed constrained by draught). You admittedly (good work by the way, you seem to know your stuff for a WAFI ) abided by rule 17(a)(ii) when you realised that what you believed to be the give-way vessel was not abiding by the rules.

Last but not least: rule 2(b).

From your perception you did a good job: thank you. If only all recreational sailors had such a regard for safety as you did.

Your advice to the OP was wrong.

I think we all agree that prudence when faced with a collision course with a large vessel dictates the the OP should have and did avoid the collision. His query was, "Was I really the stand-on vessel?"

Your conjecture that the cruise ship was within the VTS and that she was required to be there and was therfore the stand on vessel is incorrect. The OP was not the "do not impede" vessel. It is not good to make statements which are factually incorrect and which may cause vessel operators to operate in error.

The location described by the OP is:

Not a Vessel Traffic System Lane.

Not a Safety Zone

(There is a Safety Zone, the Elliot Bay Safety zone 165.1340 the area of which is defined with specific locations within and at the mouth of the Duamish waterway which may be closed upon notice. It does not include the shoreline off Magnolia Bluff.)

Not a Precautionary Area

Not a VTS Special Area

Not a Regulated Navigation Area

However it IS included in the VMRS system.

This area is is included in the Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) and as a power-driven vessel of 40 meters (approximately 131 feet) or more in length, while navigating in the VMRS, the cruise ship is a VMRS User.

"VMRS User shall:
(1) Not enter or get underway in the area without prior approval of the VTS;"

So, presumably, the cruise ship had received permission from the VTS center to get underway from it's berth and proceed adjacent to Magnolia Bluff toward the VTS system. (the cruise ship was probably operating legally)

The rule does state, "Before meeting, crossing, or overtaking any other VMRS User in the area, the cruise ship is required to communicate on the designated vessel bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone frequency, intended navigation movements, and any other information necessary in order to make safe passing arrangements."

However, the sailing vessel, by virtue of it's length is not a VMRS user. (so, no communication is required by this regulation, other than sound signals as approproate)

Further, "A vessel following the TSS may not exceed a speed of 11 knots through the water." (but, the cruise ship had not yet entered the TSS, so this restriction does not apply, anyhow we don't know how fast she was going.)

COLREGS APPLY

"No requirement of the VMRS relieve's a vessel of any duty prescribed by the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) or the Inland Navigation Rules"

If the cruise ship was in an area where she was constrained by depth and unable to turn to starboard because of the nearby shoreline, I'd say that was unsafe operation since, due to COLREGS, she might have been required at any time to make a movement to avoid stand-on vessels.

The correct answer to the OP's question is that he was the stand on vessel and the sound signals he heard were unclear, however he took the appropriate action.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by OOW

She exited the port, sounded one short for her turn to starboard and one long for her PDV underway approaching an obscured corner.

Questions to ask: are you 100% sure you did not see a cylinder atop her mast? Rule 18(d)(i) comes into play here and you must not impede her safe passage as she is constrained by her draught.

.

There is no way that would be considered an obscured corner, and it's quite clear from the OP's description that they were not in the TSS - so "do not impede" would not be a factor. Even if it did, "do not impede" does not actually trump the steering and sailing rules.

On constrained by draught, rule 3 makes is quite clear:

The term vessel constrained by her draught means a power-driven vessel that, because of the vessel’s draught in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water, is severely restricted in the vessel’s ability to deviate from the course the vessel is following

There is no way that a vessel could be considered to be constrained when most of the harbour is extremely deep.

What sort of commercial vessel did you work on, and in what capacity?

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by OOW

I may be late to the party but here's my interpretation (from 7 years aboard commercial vessels navigating busy ports with plenty of recreational sailors about.)

Firstly, it looks like there IS a TSS where you say there isn't. See the image below.



So this means you are the "do not impede" vessel as per rule 10(j), assuming the cruise ship is heading directly to the TSS. She has nowhere else to go. She MUST use the TSS in this situation and therefore would be contravening the law if she did not do so. She was probably hugging Magnolia Bluff to do her best to join the TSS "at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable" as per rule 10(b)(iii).

My interpretation of the sound signals made:

Given she was exiting Elliott Bay Marina and hugging Magnolia Bluff, she would have been traveling north and thus to her starboard. Her sound signals COULD have been simply too close together (people make mistakes, or the OOW/Master felt it safer to sound both than to wait until they were individually distinguishable as separate signals.)

One short blast followed by one prolonged blast is indeed Morse Alpha. I think we can all agree she would not have a diver down whilst underway possible making way in a busy port...

Separate those then:

One short blast: altering course to starboard. Check! Makes sense.
One prolonged blast: power driven vessel underway, and/or approaching a bend in an obscured fairway. Check! Also makes sense!

So... it's all starting to come together!

She exited the port, sounded one short for her turn to starboard and one long for her PDV underway approaching an obscured corner.

Questions to ask: are you 100% sure you did not see a cylinder atop her mast? Rule 18(d)(i) comes into play here and you must not impede her safe passage as she is constrained by her draught.

Just how close was she to the TSS? She could well have been in it. In which case you are still the vessel not to impede.

From experience, large vessels are exceptionally slow to manoeuvre. Although there is no distinct "law of gross tonnage" (it's ******** basically), there is distinct mention of good seamanship. In this instance I and many others at the helm would agree that we'd expect you, as the highly manoeuvrable sail yacht, to be courteous to the big ugly ship (worth noting it takes upwards of 10s to engage propellors from the bridge). Relying on the cruise ship to alter course for a small sail yacht is quite frankly ridiculous and things like this cause national/international pollution disasters as well as deaths.

tl;dr?

You're in contravention of rule 10(j), possibly 18(d)(i) (if she is indeed constrained by draught). You admittedly (good work by the way, you seem to know your stuff for a WAFI ) abided by rule 17(a)(ii) when you realised that what you believed to be the give-way vessel was not abiding by the rules.

Last but not least: rule 2(b).

From your perception you did a good job: thank you. If only all recreational sailors had such a regard for safety as you did.

This area, I believe, is subject to the US inland colregs. If it is, then I also believe there is no such thing as a "Vessel constrained by her draught" . That simply doesn't exist in teh inlands colregs.

I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if I am - Im from Europe and am more familiar with the international regs

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by carstenb

This area, I believe, is subject to the US inland colregs. If it is, then I also believe there is no such thing as a "Vessel constrained by her draught" . That simply doesn't exist in teh inlands colregs.

I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if I am - Im from Europe and am more familiar with the international regs

All of Puget Sound and even Lake Washington behind the locks are under International rules.

Interestingly enough San Francisco bay is all inland rules.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by cal40john

All of Puget Sound and even Lake Washington behind the locks are under International rules.

Interestingly enough San Francisco bay is all inland rules.

Ah - well I don't have a chart of the area - my bad and my apologies

[StuM]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Ah - well I don't have a chart of the area - my bad and my apologies

Discussed upthread. Specifically post #300 quoted the ruling that makes it come under COLREGs.