Phuket! I have "Right of Way"

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rwidman

I think it's most important to understand that unless you're dealing with a professional mariner (not a professional fisherman or crabber), it's most likely that the other boater will not be intimately familiar with the fine print of the COLREGS.

To me, that means to know what you are supposed to do and what the other boater is supposed to do but assume that he does not know it and will not do it.

Blindly heading towards a crash point, assuming the other boater will give way is stupid, just plain stupid.

Well, I almost agree with everything here

And I think everyone can agree on what you said here: "Blindly heading towards a crash point, assuming the other boater will give way is stupid, just plain stupid". Absolutely right, but it's not only stupid, it is also forbidden by the COLREGS. You are absolutely not allowed to assume the other vessel will give way, under any circumstances, under the COLREGS. Surely you've heard the old adage: "You must not stand on into danger", haven't you? It's an accurate statement of what the rules mean.

The only tiny point of disagreement I have is about "assuming that he does not know and will not do it" -- you have to give him a chance, if he's give-way. You have no choice. But the chance can be brief indeed, depending on the circumstances. And even with pros, you are obligated to be ready to smoothly move over to maneuvering yourself, if there's any doubt that the give-way vessel will make an adequate maneuver. So even here you're not "blindly" going ahead.

You have no right to engage in a "pissing contest" over who gives way -- which is just about the most jackass-ish, unseamanlike thing you can imagine. No pro (just about) would ever do it -- it's just alien to seamanship and sea-culture -- it's a kind of stupidity which comes from (low) land culture. A real seaman, on the contrary, feels a bit nervous about and doesn't really like standing on. He would rather be in control, and not in the passive role, which is what standing on is. Standing on is like being the girl in a dance -- it's passive (for a moment), not privileged in any way. For a moment, you are dependent on the other seaman to work out the situation. Giving way is the active role, and is actually more like a privilege, than standing on is. You at least have the "privilege" of deciding the best way to unwind the situation, and of maneuvering in a variety of different ways, unlike the stand-on vessel. The give-way vessel is "in the driver's seat", so to speak, in that phase of a crossing.


Only one other tiny point in your post -- the COLREGS have no "fine print"! It's all substance, and all important!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...

At 10 miles or more out, you simply cannot accurately determine a collision risk using only a hand bearing compass or recreational-grade radar set. That is why so many people think that ships "never maneuver to avoid recreational vessels" -- they are simply unable to detect these maneuvers at the range they are made.

If you have a radar with MARPA you can. My previous boat had one with the first relatively inexpensive MARPA system, my actual boat that is from 2007 does not have one.

In what refers heavy traffic situation and to determine quickly if a boat is on collision course, the speed of the other boat and to follow simultaneously several targets (including the direction they are moving regarding our boat), I would rate a radar with MARPA 80% more efficient then a traditional radar, specially if you have not a knowledgeable dedicated operator on the radar all the time. Not a problem to know if a boat is on a collision course or not.

For those that don't know what MARPA is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-au...r_plotting_aid

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

If you have a radar with MARPA you can. My previous boat had one with the first relatively inexpensive MARPA system, my actual boat that is from 2007 does not have one.

In what refers heavy traffic situation and to determine quickly if a boat is on collision course, the speed of the other boat and to follow simultaneously several targets (including the direction they are moving regarding our boat), I would rate a radar with MARPA 80% more efficient then a traditional radar, specially if you have not a knowledgeable dedicated operator on the radar all the time. Not a problem to know if a boat is on a collision course or not.

What kind of radar do you have?

I have never used recreational MARPA which gave accurate and consistent data. It is of course still very useful, if you don't have AIS, but I don't think you can get an accurate CPA from 10 miles out with recreational MARPA.

It works better in calm conditions, and if you have really good, gyro-stabilized heading data.

The root problem, I suspect, is that recreational radars have too much beam width to give you an accurate enough bearing. Clever processing can average out a wobbly bearing (and maybe Furuno is better than others in this), but when you get right down to it, I suspect you need something with a narrower beam, than a recreational domed radar scanner, for good MARPA. I think you need at least an open array.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Small boat use at sea and motorbike riding on roads share a common theme.... If you only rely on only the rules to protect you then will end up dead (even if right) - gotta use own brain to read situations as they develop.

Regarding Thai skipper pushing sailboat crew overboard that likely because witnesses around. As me late Thai missus said "stab one time no good - they angry you". I still miss her :-) .

Somchai fleeing the scene of an accident is a well established legal procedure on land in bus crashes. Lol. To be fair, it saves them getting beaten to death.

[captain465]

I used to teach sailing............the one thing I ALWAYS told my students is that "right of way" is something you ALWAYS give, but NEVER expect to get!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Small boat use at sea and motorbike riding on roads share a common theme.... If you only rely on only the rules to protect you then will end up dead (even if right) - gotta use own brain to read situations as they develop.

That is no less true for large ships. The rules require you to "use own brain to read situations as they develop" and apply good seamanship -- it's fundamental to collision avoidance.

By the way, speaking of the "rule of tonnage" -- this actually has two forms, one of which is wise and correct, and the other of which is dumb and harmful.

The harmful and wrong form of the "rule of tonnage" says that you don't need to know anything about the rules, or about techniques of collision avoidance -- just don't insist on your "rights" [what rights??] and everything will be ok. Johnny O'Day etc.

This is harmful and wrong in the first place because you don't have any rights, to not insist on, in the first place. Also, even if you had some rights to give up, this is not nearly enough knowledge to be safe and seamanlike. It's not obvious or easy to even recognize a potential collision in the first place -- you need knowledge and skills to do this, and then more knowledge and skills to be able to work out an effective, safe maneuver. Sometimes you can avoid getting into COLREGS situations in the first place -- which is good and seamanlike. Especially if you sail in coastal areas and harbors with defined channels and sea lanes -- just stay out of them. But one day, you'll encounter a ship in open water, and if you don't have the techniques, and/or you don't know the rules for the correct order of maneuvering, you're screwed. Johnny O'Day is not going to help you there.


The wise and good form of the "rule of tonnage" says to just keep out of the way of ships as much as possible. BEFORE you get into COLREGS situations. This is easy where there are defined channels -- stay out of them, and cross them only when there's no traffic. But it is wrong to think that you're doing anything special, or "giving up rights" to do this -- contrary to what some racers seem to think, you do NOT ever have the right to turn in front of a ship and make it maneuver to avoid you, and you don't have the right to navigate in a channel creating risks for larger traffic and forcing it to maneuver, if you can perfectly well navigate outside of it. So this version of the "rule of tonnage" is actually inside the COLREGS. It's implied in Rule 2, and other places.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Until 1972, you would have been right, so if you learned before then, you might have even been taught like that.

Before 1972, there was no concept of "stand on" and "give way" vessels -- it was called "privileged" and "burdened". These terms were abolished together with anything else which implied a right of way at sea -- specifically for this purpose. It was one of the main issues of the 1972 IMO conference in London which formulated the new rules.

Oh dear, I promised myself.. but here I am again..like a moth to the flame.....

There is no mention in the 1929 rules or the 1960s rules of 'stand on', 'right of way', 'burdened' or 'privileged'.

They simply say 'keep out of the way of' ... and in the old Rule 21 'Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. When, from any cause , the latter vessel finds her self so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the giving-way vessel alone , she shall also take such action as will best aid to avert collision ( see rules 27 and 29).

By the way, that is the only use of the expression 'giving-way vessel' in the entire rules.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Oh dear, I promised myself.. but here I am again..like a moth to the flame.....

There is no mention in the 1929 rules or the 1960s rules of 'stand on', 'right of way', 'burdened' or 'privileged'.

They simply say 'keep out of the way of' ... and in the old Rule 21 'Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. When, from any cause , the latter vessel finds her self so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the giving-way vessel alone , she shall also take such action as will best aid to avert collision ( see rules 27 and 29).

By the way, that is the only use of the expression 'giving-way vessel' in the entire rules.

LOL, welcome, Ping!

"Just when I t'ought I was out, dey pulllll me back in . ." (with apologies to the Sopranos ).

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by monte

Mate this is exactly Incorrect. A large component of the Coxswains course is learning and understanding collision and domestic regulations verbatim. Failure to understand and have the ability to answer any questions using the terminology found in the COLREGS would lead to failing the exam. Of course there's a difference between doing the course, understanding the course and also passing the final exam, which is a one on one verbal and practical examination with a ships master. Many people simply do the course and don't do the exam.
The COLREGS are international so there's no point claiming Tassie or anywhere else is exempt when sailing international waters and also no point slanging off at other mariners that have it right, regardless of their nationality. So by all means continue to argue blindly that you have 'right of way' but please don't claim that's it has anything to do with being Australian as it's embarrassing for the rest of us.

Don't be so hard on Rustic on this one, as their is an element of truth in what he is saying. I'm off today to do the practicals and exam for the a Coxswains Grade 1 over the next week and a half and I haven't had one assignment question on the COLREGS from what I recall for the duration of the 18 week course and the COLREGS component of the course is comparatively minor. It's incorporated into the MARI001 (Comply with regulations to ensure safe operation of a vessel up to 12 metres) unit which also covers a lot of other stuff to do with regulations and safety requirements. I'm obviously doing my quals in Qld, and there is a definite Qld flavour, but the course is run to national requirements. Does the small COLREGS component surprise me? Yes. I'm assuming they expect you to know most of it from lower marine quals e.g. recreational license. With such a low proportional content in the overall syllabus, it's entirely feasible that one could get all the COLREGS questions wrong and still pass the course depending on the format of the final examination process.

Having said that, it I were to use the "right of way" phrase on a COLREGS exam question, I wouldn't expect to get the red tick.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Oh dear, I promised myself.. but here I am again..like a moth to the flame.....

There is no mention in the 1929 rules or the 1960s rules of 'stand on', 'right of way', 'burdened' or 'privileged'.

They simply say 'keep out of the way of' ... and in the old Rule 21 'Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. When, from any cause , the latter vessel finds her self so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the giving-way vessel alone , she shall also take such action as will best aid to avert collision ( see rules 27 and 29).

By the way, that is the only use of the expression 'giving-way vessel' in the entire rules.

Here is some commentary, which is really trenchant, from the minutes of the 1948 SOLAS Conference:

"It is true that the doctrine of privilege and burden, to be found in the rules 17, 19, 20, 24, and 26, with sail meeting sail, power driven crossing power driven, power driven meeting sail, one vessel overtaking another, and a free vessel encountering a vessel fishing, respectively. All set up a relationship of privilege and burden, but one vessel in each case is bound to keep course and speed, as the other vessel is to keep out of the way, and there is equal responsibility of both. Being privileged is no privilege, but entails as serious duty on the part of the stand-on vessel as there is on the vessel required to keep clear of her."

Captain Farwell, U.S. Delegate.


This conference mostly discussed a wacky proposal of the U.S. to completely change the system of sound signals, which the UK fought against manfully.


This very fine statement of Farwell's in 1948 foreshadowed the 1972 conference, where much was made of getting rid of the whole idea of privilege and burden -- "being privileged is no privilege".

[SaucySailoress]

OK. Although I have been in and out, our boat has been based in Phuket for just over a year now. I have a couple of things I'd like to contribute as one of those people who have overstayed their 'tourist' / 'cruiser' status.

1. We were at anchor in Chalong Bay for quite a while. Tootling round on our little dinghy with our big dogs, never ONCE did a tourist boat not slow down and give way to us (I suspect that was largely so the Chinese tourists could take photos of us, but never mind the motive). The Thai drivers have always been courteous and civil to us.

2. I have heard of several cases this last year where these tourist boats have ploughed down smaller pleasure craft once a little offshore. Clearly a few attempted manslaughter charges are needed to change attitudes.

3. Attitudes can be changed. Songran deaths (re, post 14) are down significantly so far this year: Zero road deaths as Phuket enters day five of 'Seven Days of Danger'

4. Since we're being culturally frank, I have never met a Dane without a wicked temper. I would bet my money he did NOT jump onto the tourist boat because he was afraid of sinking, but because he was angry and determined not to let the people on the tourist boat get away with it.

These boats have three engines, on lightweight 40' hulls, they are designed to go FAST. Personally I don't know what the dude was doing reading a book when he's in a busy water way which is swarming with these boats.

Just my opinion.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Here is some commentary, which is really trenchant, from the minutes of the 1948 SOLAS Conference:

"It is true that the doctrine of privilege and burden, to be found in the rules 17, 19, 20, 24, and 26, with sail meeting sail, power driven crossing power driven, power driven meeting sail, one vessel overtaking another, and a free vessel encountering a vessel fishing, respectively. All set up a relationship of privilege and burden, but one vessel in each case is bound to keep course and speed, as the other vessel is to keep out of the way, and there is equal responsibility of both. Being privileged is no privilege, but entails as serious duty on the part of the stand-on vessel as there is on the vessel required to keep clear of her."

Captain Farwell, U.S. Delegate.


This conference mostly discussed a wacky proposal of the U.S. to completely change the system of sound signals, which the UK fought against manfully.


This very fine statement of Farwell's in 1948 foreshadowed the 1972 conference, where much was made of getting rid of the whole idea of privilege and burden -- "being privileged is no privilege".

That was simply an interpretation of the rules by some bloke at a conference.... nowhere in the rules were the words ever used.

Meanwhile , 5 short and rapid blasts ( introduced in 1929 ) was an expression of doubt... as in 'when a power driven vessel ...is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other vessel to avert collision she may indicate such doubt.......' Rule 28

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you were to exercise your "right of way" up here, you'd be run over within the week.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That makes no sense

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by monte

Mate this is exactly Incorrect.

Don't call me 'mate' and then respond with misquoting me.

A large component of the Coxswains course is learning and understanding collision and domestic regulations verbatim. Failure to understand and have the ability to answer any questions using the terminology found in the COLREGS would lead to failing the exam. Of course there's a difference between doing the course, understanding the course and also passing the final exam, which is a one on one verbal and practical examination with a ships master. Many people simply do the course and don't do the exam.

You cannot just 'do a course' and not the exam. I did the verbal exam as well as part of the course. And it was a professional course for my employment at the time.

The COLREGS are international so there's no point claiming Tassie or anywhere else is exempt when sailing international waters and also no point slanging off at other mariners that have it right, regardless of their nationality.

I at NOT TIME have claimed Tassie or Australia is 'exempt' from the COLREGS. What an absolutely stupid allegation. Read the thread before posting rubbish like this.

So by all means continue to argue blindly that you have 'right of way' but please don't claim that's it has anything to do with being Australian as it's embarrassing for the rest of us.

And again, I've not argued at all it's because I'm Australian. Nor am I arguing 'blindly' for 'my right of way'. Read the thread before you go mouthing off. or don't contribute at all. There are plenty of Australian's I don't agree with the current racists crap from bogans is one such thing, but that doesn't make it right. So, don't think that just because your Australian and unable to read a thread, that your in further progressed than I am.

[DeepFrz]

just because your Australian and unable to read a thread, that your in further progressed than I am.

Say what?