Sailboat collisions - Can responsibility be shared?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Deltasailor

He should have raised the D for Delta flag I am manoevering with difficulty.

Is that where your CF name comes from?

[robbievardon]

Stu this also weighed heavily against the one Captain who ignored Radar info as he was plotting his course!!! Instruction to Watchkeeper was to keep an eye on fishing vessel nearby. Ships visible by eye.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

Jim Cate, I appologise for the misspelling of dockheads name. I like any other person hate my name being misspelt. If I was it would most certainly not be an e.
So in your opinion I am Nit picking, whereas StuM and Dockhead despite using the word in a post above to describe their conversation are not? Am I to assume that you will not be replying to this as you "are not obliged to"

Nahh, Robie, I'm not substantively responding because your post does not make any sense, and it did not respond to my point about your referring to a non-existent post.

See, I can do it too!

Jim

[robbievardon]

Jim you have completely lost me, which is the non existent post you refer to please?

[robbievardon]

Lodesman,My question to you/everyone. True story but I was not on the ship, it was a friend.
Narrow channel approx half mile wide, bordered on Port and stb side by shallow water (20ft to 30ft) Both sides regularly used by yachtsmen up to boundary of channel. Ship proceeding up starboard side of channel yachts tacking back and forth up to imaginary boundary line. One yacht approx 15ft/18ft long ,with less than half mile ahead of ship decides to continue into the narrow channel at roughly right angles (course change) presumably to meet rule 10c! Having cleared the ships bow by a small margin it then turned to stb so as to fall within the arc of the stern light, not night time but easiest way to describe its course It then tacked back and forth up the channel. Apparently there was an element of Panic on the bridge briefly (no insult intended to the crew), hard astern called for to take off way, time limited by the effects of transverse thrust so I am interested to know who does what and when after that? I forgot to say the sailboat would disappear under the bows at times. Whether this was a disgruntled sailor proving in his mind that he had preference over power or he was just a bit crazy,who knows.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by carstenb

A clarification here please.

"In sight of each other" So this means physical sight? eyeball?

Radar, AIS, crystal ball (just kidding on this one) don't count?

Assuming fog, both vessels outfitted with AIS and radar - are they not "in sight of each other"?

That would be my interpretation. Fog horn doesn't count either.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Deltasailor

He should have raised the D for Delta flag I am manoevering with difficulty.

Yeah, like the flag is discernible at any distance and one knows its meaning. (Not I.)

[robbievardon]

Can anybody out there translate Jim Cates post to me No 33 as it would seem he is not going to reply to me, particularly "See, I can do it too," or is that just a very childish remark?

[robbievardon]

To ALL It would seem that the source of Jims annoyance with me is because of a post in another thread I made. If someone wants the full details I will come back with link and post No's on request. Meanwhile I will detail but not word for word my post.
If someone who purportedly is intending to write a book on the Collision Regulations openly admits to ignoring them, then I believe I am making a reasonable request when I ask why. If I get a response which does not make sense to me because a legal and valid choice was available, then I believe again it was not unreasonable to point out the legal option open to him. His post stated "I could not voluntarily alter course to stb during the phase when I was obligated to stand on".Post 305.Having pointed out to him that he could change course to stb legally, I received a post stating he changed course to starboard and passed round the stern of 1 vessel. As a sailing vessel he had precedent over power so why had he raised an (illegal signal) when no signal was required particularly as he has frequently stated that his rule for maneuvering is from 4 to 6 miles out so his action should have easily been interpreted well before a risk of collision occurred. Was it unreasonable for me to ask the question? I would like to hear others views.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

I do not see how anybody could apply the term from the regs "When not in sight of one another" as being applicable to two vessels (UNDER SAIL} big pole in the sky, lots of white canvas.

I agree that Section II should apply if vessels CAN see each other, not just if they DO, but Stu made a good argument. I will do some reading and start a new thread.

Originally Posted by robbievardon

Deckhead any chance of a reply to my last post, plus of course some detail from your forthcoming book as requested?

Which last post? Isn't this your first post in this thread? If you'll post your question, I'll be glad to reply. If it's not relevant to this thread, you can start a new one.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

To ALL It would seem that the source of Jims annoyance with me is because of a post in another thread I made. If someone wants the full details I will come back with link and post No's on request. Meanwhile I will detail but not word for word my post.
If someone who purportedly is intending to write a book on the Collision Regulations openly admits to ignoring them, then I believe I am making a reasonable request when I ask why. If I get a response which does not make sense to me because a legal and valid choice was available, then I believe again it was not unreasonable to point out the legal option open to him. His post stated "I could not voluntarily alter course to stb during the phase when I was obligated to stand on".Post 305.Having pointed out to him that he could change course to stb legally, I received a post stating he changed course to starboard and passed round the stern of 1 vessel. As a sailing vessel he had precedent over power so why had he raised an (illegal signal) when no signal was required particularly as he has frequently stated that his rule for maneuvering is from 4 to 6 miles out so his action should have easily been interpreted well before a risk of collision occurred. Was it unreasonable for me to ask the question? I would like to hear others views.

Ah, this question. About the motoring cone. I answered it in detail in the other thread. In short -- I had no right to alter to starboard "voluntarily", because I had no "precedence" -- I was stand-on until I raised the cone. Being stand-on is NOT any kind of "precedence" -- as we have discussed over and over again. This maneuvering took place 4 or 5 miles out (initially), so when the obligation to stand-on had already arisen.

If you're not satisfied with the answer, or you want to discuss it in more detail, I will be happy to participate, but please start a separate thread on it, as it has no relevance to this one.

[markpierce]

The answer is simple, we are all responsible for avoiding a collision, whether burdened or stand-by.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by markpierce

The answer is simple, we are all responsible for avoiding a collision, whether burdened or stand-by.

Burdened? Stand-by? I would have thought that we had got past such misleading and irrelevant terms.

What do you understand these two terms to mean?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by markpierce

The answer is simple, we are all responsible for avoiding a collision, whether burdened or stand-by.

The answer is correct! And I think it's the heart oc the matter. But I doubt that it is simple, considering how much misunderstanding persists.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ah, this question. About the motoring cone. I answered it in detail in the other thread. In short -- I had no right to alter to starboard "voluntarily", because I had no "precedence" -- I was stand-on until I raised the cone. Being stand-on is NOT any kind of "precedence" -- as we have discussed over and over again. This maneuvering took place 4 or 5 miles out (initially), so when the obligation to stand-on had already arisen.

If you're not satisfied with the answer, or you want to discuss it in more detail, I will be happy to participate, but please start a separate thread on it, as it has no relevance to this one.

Possibly Rule 2(b) is relevant to your situation:

Rule 2(b):
In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and 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.