Narrow Channel Overtaking and Sailing

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

I think You are generally right, except some situations.
Some twenty years ago the Maritime Court here ruled, that COLREGS are applicable for determination of responsibility even if collision didn't happen, but the damage actually resulted from infringement.
It was the case of the vessel put on the shallow sandbank as an effect of avoidance action forced by the other vessel, obliged to give the way.

Cheers,

Tomasz

Yes sorry I should have been more specific. What I meant was there was no damage resulting. Hence opinions on the COLREGS are just that

Dave

[markpierce]

The passing motoring catamaran should have been on the starboard side of the channel (not the center) and adjusted his speed to pass the sailboat when it was on the port edge of the channel.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by markpierce

The passing motoring catamaran should have been on the starboard side of the channel (not the center) and adjusted his speed to pass the sailboat when it was on the port edge of the channel.

Yes hence rule 9 and rule 13 , equally rule 9 applies to the sailing boat.

I don't believe rule 2 has any real bearing

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Having read the first post and a few after, and the last few, I am wondering why this has so much mileage.

It has been an interesting dialog and I have enjoyed it - I think it takes a real world conflict and exposes something fundamental - Many people want to look at one chapter of the regs and decide "right" and "wrong" - The consensus (and we will know more by the voting) is that multiple regs are in play and both skippers were wrong.

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

The 3.5 knots was VMG - speed up the channel, I was sailing at 3 - 5 knots once I finished a tack.

I know you don't have instruments (maybe gps?) and I don't want to be picky but if you have 3-5 SOG (average 4?) you must point pretty high to get 3.5 VMG...

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes sorry I should have been more specific. What I meant was there was no damage resulting. Hence opinions on the COLREGS are just that

Dave

What I have relearned is that what happens on the water is immediate and requires decisions to be made.

Sitting in our armchairs for a week bantering back and forth is why the regs are used in court not on the water.

Like road rage, taking any of this crap to shore, seeking out the other skipper and having a dockside debate and or heaven forbid getting the marina manager to arbitrate the debate is lunacy! Life is too short.

No offense meant to Tacoma but I have no issues meeting him on the water - I would stay clear and let him argy-bargy along. I'd be more concerned about meeting him in the bar where he bends my ear about how the latest guy "wronged him" on the water while I wanna talk about bikini chicks...

Oh and my rule of internet debates stands, No one has changed their opinion that I can tell.

[JPA Cate]

Sociologically, all the pressure was put on the "new guy", even though TS hasn't been in SD all that long, if I remember correctly. So, here we have a new guy, and he's wanting to enter his slip for the first time, there are people around, and he really wants to get it right. I actually have been wondering, while all you guys were creating this interesting exposition on Colregs , why did not the catamaran guy respond verbally if they were 15 feet apart? Deaf? Concentrating, wanting to get it right?

Just saying conflicting egos doesn't really explain the incident and its sequelae, does it? Well, maybe so. It seems from what we've been reading that both men just really bugged the heck out of each other, then sought to defend their outrage. How easy it is to fly off the handle and stay self justifying. This is not intended as an insult to anyone. I'm just reflecting, because I had something happen yesterday, where I got stubborn and felt extremely indignant and behaved self-justifyingly. It's baffling how strong the feelings can run, sometimes.

Ann

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

What I have relearned is that what happens on the water is immediate and requires decisions to be made.

Now I have myself quoting myself (idiot) but another thought came to mind about this sentence.

When TS tacked he was now standing on the cats port quarter aimed directly at the cat.

The cat guy was likely looking off his port bow - his intended direction of travel.

TS was now aimed directly at the cat and immediately should have recognized a risk of collision was imminent - regardless of who caused it.

At that point the regs are crystal clear to me. TS must take immediate action to avoid. Especially if the cat's intentions were unknown or suspect.

To attempt admiralty speak - "The Dinghy's actions in continuing on course while attempting a verbal negotiation was unseamanlike and reckless. The cat skipper slowing in the channel makes him culpable. Having observed the dinghy tacking he should have projected that the dinghy's next tack would create a risk of collision. 60/40 appointment of blame! cat skipper wins 6 to 4. Let's all go the bar and drink some rum!"

Case closed - (yeah, right - LOL)

Looks like TS may be getting more lashes than the cat soon - LOL...

[markpierce]

Thankfully, there was no physical damage, only bruises of people's egos. Take it easy, it's supposed to be fun out there.

[TacomaSailor]

I can find nothing to object to in the summary by ex-Calif except (that is just how I am; there is always one more thing I want to say)

- the meeting with the marina manager was at the insistence of the other guy, the catamaran captain. After learning so much here, I had decided to drop the whole issue and just get on with my life.

- I did not ask the witness captain to get involved but he was pretty steamed about what he witnessed and wanted to talk to the others involved

- After I tacked I was on a course ahead of the catamaran and he was still off my starboard stern quarter. I posted a diagram on the other thread showing the relative positions at five points in time. The other skipper, looking to his port, saw my starboard stern quarter

- I did take immediate action as soon as I realized the other skipper saw things differently than did I - after my 2nd attempt to communicate with him and determine his intentions

should I bare my back fat for the lashes?

Can I have a shot of rum before the lashes?

Two shots of 151 after the lashes?

I have learned a great deal here, I recognize I could have handled things better, and I now understand that things are not so clear as I assumed.

Can we just leave it at me admitting that I should have asked the other guy, as soon as I tacked, if I could pass ahead? And, if he had said NO - then I could either slow way down or bear off to go behind him and let him have the channel centerline?

Thanks

[Ex-Calif]

TS - You have been a great sport about this.

It is tough to bare your soul around here and all that.

I take back my comment about meeting you in the bar. Now that I know you are a rum drinker, I'll buy the rum and bring the cat 'o nine - You bring the handcuffs - Arr, me hearties!

Although if we start talking regs and not bikini chicks I will probably hit you with the bottle -

[BandB]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

I have learned a great deal here, I recognize I could have handled things better, and I now understand that things are not so clear as I assumed.

Thanks

As I criticized you, now I applaud you. I'm not sure you realize that one sentence is all we were really trying to make as a point. It's easy for one to be too unaware of rules, but equally a problem sometimes to get so hung up on the rules that we miss part of what is taking place. And, in my experience, those most inclined to do that are some of the smartest technical people I know. I hear Economists make statements that in theory are brilliant. Just one flaw and that is they assume all people are economists or at least act like economists. Instead people make emotional decisions.

When someone pulls in front of me or otherwise does something they shouldn't on the roads, I think a moment. I then realize that there have been times I screwed up on the roads, missed a sign or didn't see a car. And others who were totally in the right looked out for me. I hope when I do something like that on the water (and I know at some point in my life I will as I'm certainly not perfect) that someone else is looking out for me.

At the end of the day I don't care who did what during the day if we were all fortunate enough to end up safe and unhurt at the end of the day.

You're obviously very smart, not the regs very well. You opened yourself up here to a barrage of comments and criticism. Was some tough and even perhaps overboard, including mine? Yes. But if somehow that helped your perspective, then ultimately good came out of this. We all have room to learn and hopefully continue to every day. This entire thread was a royal pain and annoyance but ultimately constructive and informative for many of us. We learned the perspective of others. We discussed how to respond to different situations.

[Andrew B.]

I would assign it %90 the cat skips fault, %10 TS.

The cat skips impatience created the situation.
Forcing the pass then turning almost immediately to head for his slip.

TS maybe could have just held up a little sooner. Then chalk up his
good deed for the day for showing extra courtesy to someone who
really didn't deserve it. Kill 'em with kindness.

And I betcha he would have waited until TS cleared
where he needed to turn if TS had been wearing some kind of Police , CG, or other authority uniform.

TS took the needed evasive action to avoid trading paint. Of course when
your the smaller boat it's almost always a given to who's going to take
evasive action first.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

And I betcha he would have waited until TS cleared
where he needed to turn if TS had been wearing some kind of Police , CG, or other authority uniform.

TS took the needed evasive action to avoid trading paint. Of course when
your the smaller boat it's almost always a given to who's going to take
evasive action first.

Hypotheticals can be fun.

What if the other boat was a 50 foot motor yacht, not hugging the right side but near the centerline doing 3 knots?

There is no way the cat driver would pass on the right, slow in front and turn to the left in front of that guy regardless what the regs say. He would have slowed and waited (probably getting pissed off) - But we already established the cat guy was a D$ck.

In this specific case I agree with you - no one hit no one so arguably the "system" worked.

[TacomaSailor]

Ec-Calif said:
"I take back my comment about meeting you in the bar. Now that I know you are a rum drinker, I'll buy the rum and bring the cat 'o nine - You bring the handcuffs - Arr, me hearties! Although if we start talking regs and not bikini chicks I will probably hit you with the bottle"

Whoops - I misunderstood!

I thought the rum was the punishment and the lashes were the fun.

I've been married 40 years to the same woman - I know less about the rules of the road for who I can talk to in a bar than I do about who I can tack in front of so... I will stick to non-controversial topics like anchors, solar panels, and Mexican import regulations.

Andrew B said:
"I would assign it %90 the cat skips fault, %10 TS."

Whoa - that is about 80% less fault than I am usually assigned - as I said before - I've been married for 40 years in October and five of them have been onboard a 40 foot sailboat. Fault is easily assessed and I have broad, if not uncomplaining, shoulders.

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And you simply cannot have a conflict over a crossing situation at sea with only one jackass at the helm of only one boat.

This sums it up ...

If TacomaSailor (TS) as a stand-on vessle had opportunity to avoid a collision after JackAss (JA) captain as give-way vessel bungled, TS shares some responsibility for a successful completion of a collision initiated by JA.

Sorry TS ... you would've gotten some demerit points too ... it takes two to collide at sea.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Richard_W

Sorry TS ... you would've gotten some demerit points too ... it takes two to collide at sea.

Sometimes math is funny. It takes two to collide but only one to avoid a collision.