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

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I actually tend to agree with you onthis. A sailboat, under sail in a narrow channel may be considered to be restricted in its ability to maneuver. i argued this earlier on in either this or the other thread on this subject.

I still feel that this is true, but of course, if the sailboat wants to claim this status (thereby forcing rule 18 into play), it should be showing the day signal for restricted ability, to wit: Ruel 27(b)2; three shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen. The highest and lowest of these shapes shall be balls and the middle one a diamond.

Since the sailboat was not showing these (by own admission) it cannot claim such status

An interesting question, and I'd like to know what the commentators say about it, but I seriously doubt that a sailboat can hoist dayshapes and claim to be restricted in ability to maneuver just because it's a sailboat under sail.

The rule says "due to the nature of her work", not "due to the characteristics of the vessel". Work. And all the specific examples are laying cable, laying pipe, dredging, towing (and not all towing!), etc. Just because the different types of work are not listed exhaustively ("including but not limited to") doesn't mean necessarily that any reason at all for relatively less maneuverability could come under the Rule.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

An interesting question, and I'd like to know what the commentators say about it, but I seriously doubt that a sailboat can hoist dayshapes and claim to be restricted in ability to maneuver just because it's a sailboat under sail.

The rule says "due to the nature of her work", not "due to the characteristics of the vessel". Work. And all the specific examples are laying cable, laying pipe, dredging, towing (and not all towing!), etc. Just because the different types of work are not listed exhaustively ("including but not limited to") doesn't mean necessarily that any reason at all for relatively less maneuverability could come under the Rule.

Ahhh Dockhead - we can certainly discuss this for a couple of hundred more posts. I brought the subject up because I can think of several cases where it can be applied. I noted one of a boat with an emergency rudder, unable tosteer properly. I think we all would agree that a boat inthis situation is probably restricted in its ability to maneuver

2nd case - how about a long sailboat beating up against the wind in a very narrow channel? Say a 54 foot moody (18 meters long) in a 30 meter wide channel. Not much room for maneuvering, as soon as this moody gets underway on one tack, he has to start preparing for going about.
I would argue that the Moody is also restricted in his ability to maneuver (albeit most would ask what the hell he was doing in the channel in the first place - and rightly so).

I'm with you - anyone out there an expert and care to comment? Both in general and on my (farfetched) examples?

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

One of the interesting questions that this thread has uncovered is this one about Rule 9.

I am still puzzled about whether Rule 9 has any application to this case at all. Since both vessels are under 20 meters, and both vessels can't operate outside the channel, then both vessels would be obligated to not impede the other, if the Rule applies.

<snip>

So some have stated that the regs are founded on common sense - debatable but let's say they are.

Wouldn't it make sense that two boats less then 20m in a channel should not impede each other?

I mean both these vessels have no choice - they must use the channel - there is no other water.

Wouldn't a common sense rule read, "9(h) Boats less than 20m under power or sail should share the channel and not get in each others way. Should a vessel make a mistake and get in your way apply rule 2, play nice and don't hit each other or you are both to blame"

Originally Posted by carstenb

I'm with you. I fail to see where rule 9 comes into play. Here is the complete text:

Rule 9 : Narrow channels

<snip>
(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

See above - I will continue to believe this applies to both boats.

Both boats are not in open water - They have no other water. The rules "have" to be different in the context of restricted area to roam around in and where, presumably, the boats are headed "ultimately" in one of two directions - in or out.

[OldFrog75]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

One of the interesting questions that this thread has uncovered is this one about Rule 9.

I am still puzzled about whether Rule 9 has any application to this case at all. Since both vessels are under 20 meters, and both vessels can't operate outside the channel, then both vessels would be obligated to not impede the other, if the Rule applies.

I don't think the Rule was intended to say that one vessel under 20 meters is to "not impede" another vessel under 20 meters, particularly not if both vessels are burdened in the same way. This seems absurd. I think that the Rule was intended to regulate interactions between vessels under 20 meters (and vessels under sail) with vessels over 20 meters which unlike the burdened vessel cannot operate outside the channel. But the Rule does not say that specifically!

So it seems to me that Rule 9 cannot apply to this case, but you can't really say that for sure from the text of the Rule.

+1

I'll take it a step further and say I think the rule was intended to prevent small recreational boats from impeding commercial ships confined by their design or nature to operate only within a narrow channel designated for their passage.

I do not believe rule 9 was meant to apply to two recreational boats heading up a marina fairway to return to their docks.

But as you say, the text of the rule does not specifically say any of this so it's just my interpretation.

Either way, the bottom line is, do what must be done to avoid a collision.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by weavis

You didnt read what I wrote.
I said: "Most rules are common sense".
It a rule. A requirement. NOWHERE did I say use your OWN common sense.

You're correct and I read into it that you implied using one's own judgment.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So it seems to me that Rule 9 cannot apply to this case, but you can't really say that for sure from the text of the Rule.

Does anyone have any insight into this? Lodesman? Is there anything in Cockcroft about it?

Unfortunately Cockcroft is aimed at a big ship readership, so doesn't get into the nitty gritty of little boats entering marinas. Other than the snippet I posted earlier (post # 101) there's little to give a definitive answer. If I distill it down further to this:

Small vessels should take the width and depth of the
channel into account and, if in doubt, keep clear of vessels likely to
be restricted.

it says that if the channel is wide enough and there are no depth restrictions, then there is no requirement for the small vessel to keep clear. In other words, the small vessel is not impeding if there is adequate safe water for the other vessel to get past.
Obviously I don't think rule 9 applies in this case and think Oldfrog summed it up nicely (post#109).

[BigBoater917]

A sailboat can not be RAM unless it's due to her work. It's the first line of the rule. If as some are arguing you have an exceptional circumstance (ie jury rigged rudder) then Not Under Command would apply. Also neither can be constrained by draft, this doesn't exist in inland rules, which we all seem to agree are the correct Colregs to apply. The rules are clear and unambiguous in this case. In all this is a rule 13 case, the OP was being overtaken.

[OldFrog75]

For those interested in voting on the poll question, it is multiple choice so you have the option to vote for more than one rule...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Unfortunately Cockcroft is aimed at a big ship readership, so doesn't get into the nitty gritty of little boats entering marinas. Other than the snippet I posted earlier (post # 101) there's little to give a definitive answer. If I distill it down further to this:

it says that if the channel is wide enough and there are no depth restrictions, then there is no requirement for the small vessel to keep clear. In other words, the small vessel is not impeding if there is adequate safe water for the other vessel to get past.
Obviously I don't think rule 9 applies in this case and think Oldfrog summed it up nicely (post#109).

The COLREGS make no distinction , hence Rule 9 cannot be ruled put simply because the boat is small.

It is a narrow channel and its clear that there isn't any water outside the Chanel

Hence the sailing boat processing up the channel is subject to rule 9 as equally the other overtaking is subject to rule 13.

That doesn't mean there is an automatic impediment being created. It merely means that the boat tacking back and forth be aware that it cannot cause an impediment. Ie it " cannot block" progression up or down the channel by others.

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The COLREGS make no distinction , hence Rule 9 cannot be ruled put simply because the boat is small.

It is a narrow channel and its clear that there isn't any water outside the Chanel

Hence the sailing boat processing up the channel is subject to rule 9 as equally the other overtaking is subject to rule 13.

That doesn't mean there is an automatic impediment being created. It merely means that the boat tacking back and forth be aware that it cannot cause an impediment. Ie it " cannot block" progression up or down the channel by others.

Dave

It's not clear from the text whether or not small vessels are also not be impeded and so as a matter of statutory interpretation you cannot make this conclusion. Sources for interpretation: (a) evidence of actual intention of the drafters; (b) reasonably likely intention; (c) commentaries by authorities.

I don't have access to anything falling under (a); in my opinion (b) tilts towards "no", since small vessels simultaneously not impeding each other seems far from the core idea, and somewhat absurd, to boot; of (c) I have only Cockcroft who mentions in passing that only large vessels are intended. That's not yet a complete picture, but in my view Rule 9 probably does not apply here.

[carstenb]

Just to throw an aspect in that has not been discussed

Is this really a narrow channel? "narrowness" is dependent on the size of hte boats involved.

a 400 meter wide channel might very well be fined as narrow if the boats are really big.

A 17 foot sailbaot and 36 foot cat would have oodles of room in the 400 meter wide channel.

My personal definition of a "narrow" channel is one where a boats maneuvering room is constrained by its size and the boats maneuverablility.

This channel would seem to me to wide enough to accomodate both boats easily, even when one is tacking across the entire channel.

If that is the case, rule 9 doesn't apply at all (amongst many other reasons)

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

That doesn't mean there is an automatic impediment being created. It merely means that the boat tacking back and forth be aware that it cannot cause an impediment. Ie it " cannot block" progression up or down the channel by others.

This is the point - even tacking back and forth the dinghy could not cause an impediment when the safe channel is 55 yds wide. This is borne out by the simple fact that the cat safely passed the dinghy. The problem only arose after he was past, and chose to slow down.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Is this really a narrow channel? "narrowness" is dependent on the size of hte boats involved.
...
This channel would seem to me to wide enough to accomodate both boats easily, even when one is tacking across the entire channel.

If that is the case, rule 9 doesn't apply at all (amongst many other reasons)

Absolutely agree!

[Uricanejack]

Having read the thread I have almost forgotten the original situation
Lets see if I can remember.

A sailing vessel sailing along a channel in the general direction of the channel not about to tack and not having jus tacked even though going to windward.

A power driven vessel approaching from astern presumably more than to points abaft the beam.

A very simple overtaking situation. power driven vessel should give way.

If the power boat fails to give way. The sail boat should take action to avoid a collision or best aid to avoid a collision as required by a stand on vessel when in doubt about the actions of the give way vessel.

The OP seams to have done just that.

Just to join in the rule citing and quoting.

Rule 11 the rules in this part apply to all vessels in sight of each other.

The only time an overtaking vessel is not the give way vessel is when they are not in sight of each other.

Nothing in the rules from 1 to 18 changes this simple situation, not TSS, not narrow channels, not restricted in the ability to manoeuvre not even NUC.

Rule 19 does.

For those interested in inland rules they don't apply in this case.
Even though I state above back to the over quoted rule 2 Nothing in these rules shall exonerate yadda yadda yadda

When all said and done the rules presume you can always reduce speed or stop.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Just to throw an aspect in that has not been discussed



Is this really a narrow channel? "narrowness" is dependent on the size of hte boats involved.



a 400 meter wide channel might very well be fined as narrow if the boats are really big.



A 17 foot sailbaot and 36 foot cat would have oodles of room in the 400 meter wide channel.



My personal definition of a "narrow" channel is one where a boats maneuvering room is constrained by its size and the boats maneuverablility.



This channel would seem to me to wide enough to accomodate both boats easily, even when one is tacking across the entire channel.



If that is the case, rule 9 doesn't apply at all (amongst many other reasons)

Using your " personal definitions" you can arrive at any conclusion you like. But read Cockcroft and others for an an accepted definition

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk