When is a Boat Passing from Behind not Overtaking? Narrow Channel Part II

[sparrowhawk1]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I've always found that to be highly confusing. BoatUS published this explanation years and years ago and it's far easier to remember:

one sound: leaving to MY port side

two sounds: leaving to MY starboard side

# of blasts = # of syllables in the words

I've always remembered it 1 I'm going right, two I'm going to left, 3 I'm going in reverse. 5 holy caramba. And of course of its inland it is: I intend to. if it's international its I am

[markpierce]

Racing boats dead ahead. Please, please, maintain your course:



(They popped up from behind a bridge pier, to my starboard.)

[goboatingnow]

I actually agree with ex-Calif, leaving aside issue of chivalery

The fact is in a narrow channel rule 9 applies, and that "burdens" the vessel with ensuring it does not impede others, clearly where it cannot proceed up the narrow channel near to its starboard side.

Hence its clear to me that you just can't sail( tack) up a narrow channel, without considering others.

If you accept rule 9 applies, that the OP should have ensured that his tacks did not impede another vessel in the channel from progressing up the channel. Luffing, etc could be used to facilitate this

Now, onto the other vessel, In all cases Rule 13 applies. That vessel should ensure it can safely pass the sailing vessel, if it cannot then it CANNOT overtake. The simplest case being that the overtaking vessel passes the stern of the vessel ahead just after it completes a tack, thereby giving itself the time of two tacks to get clear ahead. If that isn't sufficient time, the Rule 9 applies to the vessel being overtaken and it needs to co-operate to ensure it doesn't unnecessarily impede.

Doesn't seem complicated to me.

people seeking a definition of the COLREGS to prove they are right , usually are not.!

dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Racing boats dead ahead. Please, please, maintain your course:

I presume you are joking , if so

dave

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I presume you are joking , if so

dave

Why would you think that? Racing boats are more likely to make erratic course changes and focusing more on competing boats than on other boat traffic. Many are also faster and more maneuverable than my motorboat.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I actually agree with ex-Calif, leaving aside issue of chivalery

The fact is in a narrow channel rule 9 applies, and that "burdens" the vessel with ensuring it does not impede others, clearly where it cannot proceed up the narrow channel near to its starboard side.

Hence its clear to me that you just can't sail( tack) up a narrow channel, without considering others.

If you accept rule 9 applies, that the OP should have ensured that his tacks did not impede another vessel in the channel from progressing up the channel. Luffing, etc could be used to facilitate this

Now, onto the other vessel, In all cases Rule 13 applies. That vessel should ensure it can safely pass the sailing vessel, if it cannot then it CANNOT overtake. The simplest case being that the overtaking vessel passes the stern of the vessel ahead just after it completes a tack, thereby giving itself the time of two tacks to get clear ahead. If that isn't sufficient time, the Rule 9 applies to the vessel being overtaken and it needs to co-operate to ensure it doesn't unnecessarily impede.

Doesn't seem complicated to me.

people seeking a definition of the COLREGS to prove they are right , usually are not.!

dave

My understanding of this situation is that the cat needed to turn to enter its slip, right about the place the OP would need to tack.

Sailing upp a narrow channel does not b itself construe impediment. It is perfectly allowable to sail up a channel - of course if you are going upwind, it is not possible to stay inthe starboard side.

From reading, it sounds to me as if the cat actually DID NOT want to overtake, rather it wanted to turn in front of the OP. If that interperatation is correct, then the boat impeding was the cat, not the OP.

Regardless of these interpertations, it seems as if we are all in agreement that both skippers should get a taste of the lash.

[OldFrog75]

To the OP could you please tell us which Marina you are talking about here? San Diego harbor is so large I can't get a very good fix on my charts as to where the incident occurred. Hazarding a guess from your diagram it would be the East Basin but maybe you could provide the specifics.


https://maps.google.com/maps?sll=32....classic&dg=ntv

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by carstenb

could get you into a nasty spot of trouble if you think the red buoy should be to port when sailing inwards, since over there it is the other way round

For the first year while living here (US), I'd always mentally chant the mnemonic, "Red Right Return" when coming into a channel entrance to a harbour (harbor )

[goboatingnow]

Sailing upp a narrow channel does not b itself construe impediment. It is perfectly allowable to sail up a channel - of course if you are going upwind, it is not possible to stay inthe starboard side.

of course, the colregs do not prevent you from sailing anywhere. what they do , is ensure that in certain circumstances you can't simply use the fact of "being a sailing vessel" to force all others to give way to you.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, I never said it was ok for the cat skipper to go barging ahead. I think it's very obvious that he was wrong, and was violating several rules.

But I think if you can prevent a difficult crossing situation by luffing up and letting traffic go by, rather than tacking in close quarters and requiring other boats to maneuver to avoid you, in my opinion this is a clear violation of Rule 2. Likewise -- if you are being overtaken, and you change course to create a crossing situation, especially in close quarters -- I think that's a big violation of Rule 2.

Rule 2 is obviously much harder to apply since doesn't specify exactly what is prudent or seamanlike, but I think whenever you have a choice between doing one thing which is safe and smooths out traffic -- like luffing up and letting someone else go by -- or, on the other hand, doing something which inconveniences other vessels and creates more difficult and hence more dangerous crossings, which causes traffic to back up, and especially if it means forcing other vessels into sudden maneuvers to avoid you -- I think Rule 2 requires you to choose the first. But whatever choice you make in no way relieves the other skipper of his own obligations, including his own obligations under Rule 2.

Don't you agree?

I agree that rule 2 does impose an expectation that common sense, courtesy and "the ordinary practice of seamen" should prevail over a strict and hard literal interpretation of the rules. It's funny that you keep suggesting rule 2 imposes a requirement on the OP alone; I see rule 2 as applying equally to the cat. This wasn't a through channel - it was a dead end with a speed limit. The OP may not have been going max allowable speed, but it appears he was making reasonable progress, and not unduly delaying anyone. All in keeping with ordinary practice. If the cat needed more room to pass, then I maintain he should have used the 9(e) signal, or since he was in earshot, called over and asked the OP to make room.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I agree that rule 2 does impose an expectation that common sense, courtesy and "the ordinary practice of seamen" should prevail over a strict and hard literal interpretation of the rules. It's funny that you keep suggesting rule 2 imposes a requirement on the OP alone; I see rule 2 as applying equally to the cat. This wasn't a through channel - it was a dead end with a speed limit. The OP may not have been going max allowable speed, but it appears he was making reasonable progress, and not unduly delaying anyone. All in keeping with ordinary practice. If the cat needed more room to pass, then I maintain he should have used the 9(e) signal, or since he was in earshot, called over and asked the OP to make room.

I totally agree, and I actually referred to the catamaran skipper's Rule 2 duty.

Which was most blatantly violated when he charged ahead creating a close quarters situation out of pure aggression, which is most horrendously unseamanlike.

As I said a few times, if the OP had certain fault, the catamaran skipper had a whole lot of it. As Carsten said, both need a good flogging, but I'd give the cat skipper the greater part of the cat for sure, maybe three times the lashes .

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The fact is in a narrow channel rule 9 applies, and that "burdens" the vessel with ensuring it does not impede others, clearly where it cannot proceed up the narrow channel near to its starboard side.

Hence its clear to me that you just can't sail( tack) up a narrow channel, without considering others.

If you accept rule 9 applies, that the OP should have ensured that his tacks did not impede another vessel in the channel from progressing up the channel. Luffing, etc could be used to facilitate this

9(b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel [which | that] can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

A 38 ft cat is less than 20 metres. And neither vessel was constrained at all by draught across the entire breadth of the channel, so this is a pissing contest between two vessels equally confined to safely navigating within the channel. Neither can impede the other, so it is a moot point.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

A 38 ft cat is less than 20 metres. And neither vessel was constrained at all by draught across the entire breadth of the channel, so this is a pissing contest between two vessels equally confined to safely navigating within the channel. Neither can impede the other, so it is a moot point.

The constraint by draught is not central to the definition of a narrow channel.

The channel was (a) 55 yards wide, I think thats narrow enough in any mans thinking.

There was ( as I read it) no opportunity to sail "outside " that channel.


Clearly rule 9 and rule 13 apply respectfully to the Op and the Cat motoring up this channel.


I would attribute more blame to the CAT then the OP though

Dave

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The constraint by draught is not central to the definition of a narrow channel.

The channel was (a) 55 yards wide, I think thats narrow enough in any mans thinking.

There was ( as I read it) no opportunity to sail "outside " that channel.


Clearly rule 9 and rule 13 apply respectfully to the Op and the Cat motoring up this channel.


I would attribute more blame to the CAT then the OP though

Dave

You don't think a 38 ft cat can manage to squeeze past a 17 ft dinghy in a channel that's 55 yards wide?
Clearly neither vessel would be unduly constrained in this channel.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You don't think a 38 ft cat can manage to squeeze past a 17 ft dinghy in a channel that's 55 yards wide?
Clearly neither vessel would be unduly constrained in this channel.

Both vessels are under 20 meters and of similar draft. I don't think Rule 9 applies at all here! If it did, it would apply equally to both, which seems absurd to me.