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

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

Proper procedure is to respond with the other vessel's signal if you agree and 5 if you don't. it's not ambiguous its simple communication

5 blasts signifying "I do not understand your intentions". This sound signal is NOT ambiguous. It clearly lets the other skipper konw that you are in doubt as to what he intends to (or is ) doing.

Many on this forum seem to think it is an "attention-getting " signal. It is not. It has a clear meaning and when sounded should be responded to accordingly, either by return signal or by making a totally unambiguous maneuver in combination with a signal.

[Ex-Calif]

OK Tacoma it appears you didn't like the answers in the other thread so you started a new one in hopes of a more sympathetic audience?

You aren't getting off that easy so..... if we are really going to have a COLREG chat I have pasted all of 9b below for reference.

9(a)(i) - You did not stay as far left of the channel as possible. You can't because you are sailing - that's not my fault, that's yours. I would like to approach you from the stern signal my intention to pass and pass to your port - I can't because you are tacking back and forth because you must - but that's not my fault. You therefor are a sailing vessel impeding me with your constant tacking. You are impeding my ability to plan and execute a passing maneuver - I do not have this impediment with all the boats under power - just you.

9b - Because I simply cannot pass you normally in the channel, you are a sailboat that is impeding me. You violated 9b.


9d - You violated 9d - If as you state on one tack its more than 22.5 abaft the beam and on the other it is less then you are crossing the channel and you violated 9d - I can only navigate safely in that channel. There are rocks on one side and a dock on the other.

9e - I find it interesting that the inland rule specifically only talks about 2 power boats - It is as if the regulators decided that 9a, b and d had sailing boats covered and only the most stubborn would not understand that a maneuvering sailboat in a channel is almost always an impediment.

Isn't it just easier to plan ahead and let the traffic through?

Sory to be blunt but that's my interpretation. In this post I am making no mention of the other guy and using myself as the first person example - this is only an opinion of your actions. If he (or I busted regs) it relieves you of none of the above.


"Rule 9 - Narrow Channels Return to the top of the page
(a) (i) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(i) and Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel operating in narrow channels or fairways on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner and place of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate. The vessel proceeding upbound against the current shall hold as necessary to permit safe passing.

(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.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing [may | shall] not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.

(d) A vessel shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the [sound | danger] signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel.

(e)

International
(i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking can take place only if the vessel to be overtaken has to take action to permit safe passing, the vessel intending to overtake shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(i). The vessel to be overtaken shall, if in agreement, sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(ii) and take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she may sound the signals prescribed in Rule 34(d).
Inland
(i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking, the power-driven vessel intending to overtake another power-driven vessel shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c) and take steps to permit safe passing. The power-driven vessel being overtaken, if in agreement, shall sound the same signal and may, if specifically agreed to take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt, she shall sound the danger signal prescribed in Rule 34(d).
(ii) This rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation under Rule 13.

(f) A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a narrow channel or fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening obstruction shall navigate with particular alertness and caution and shall sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(e).

(g) [Any | Every] vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

Proper procedure is to respond with the other vessel's signal if you agree and 5 if you don't. it's not ambiguous its simple communication

Your original statement was.....

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

Dock head. I think that's the best explanation of proper seamanship I've ever heard. Just want to add that you should return the overtaking vessel´s sound signal if you agree. And five short blasts if you don't

The highlighted statement is utter bs!

a vessel intending to overtake another shall in compliance with rule 9(e)(I) indicate her intentions by the following signals on her whistle...

- two prolonged blasts followed by one short blast to mean "I intend to overtake you on your starboard side"

or....

- two prolonged blasts followed by two short blasts to mean "I intend to overtake you on your port side"

the vessel about to be overtaken when acting in accordance with rule 9(e)(I) shall indicate her agreement by the following signal on her whistle..

- one prolonged blast, one short blast, one prolonged blast and one short blast, in that order.

Again! the statement "you should return the overtaking vessel´s sound signal if you agree" is bs and ambiguous at best.........

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by carstenb

5 blasts signifying "I do not understand your intentions". This sound signal is NOT ambiguous. It clearly lets the other skipper konw that you are in doubt as to what he intends to (or is ) doing.

Many on this forum seem to think it is an "attention-getting " signal. It is not. It has a clear meaning and when sounded should be responded to accordingly, either by return signal or by making a totally unambiguous maneuver in combination with a signal.

You missed what exactly was ambiguous in my post, read my reply above.........

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

Again! the statement "you should return the overtaking vessel´s sound signal if you agree" is bs and ambiguous at best.........

In the inland rules, you return the same signal.
Beyond that Islandhopper, you are being less than helpful in this discussion. There are few rules on this board, but the big one is "be nice." So why doncha try to be a bit nicer?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

However, when I tacked to port and headed to the right side of the channel the other boat was clearly not overtaking but rather crossing and had the right of way because he was to my starboard.

Him - power; you - sailing? Rule 18 applies - he has to stay clear of you.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Agree completely with your "right of way" comment - ain't no such thing on the water.

Actually in the Inland Rules, "right of way" is used in rule 9. It's not applicable to this case, but it is there.

[sparrowhawk1]

Island Hopper. Rule 9(e)(i) says to use the sound signals prescribed in rule 34. Inland rule 34(ii) states that apon hearing the one or two blast single of the other shall, if in agreement sound the same whistle signal and take the steps necessary to effect a safe passage. For the vessel overtaking, Inland rule 34(i) states one short blast to mean I intend to leave you on my port side, two short blasts to mean I intend to leave you on my starboard side. Edit: back to rule 9(e)(i) if in doubt she shall sound the danger signal prescribed in rule 34(d)( at least 5 short and rapid blasts on the whistle)

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

Does 13b mean that when I tacked to port and headed for the right side of the channel the other boat was no longer overtaking me and I had to stay clear of him because he now became the starboard boat?

I know the easy thing to do is just tack away from him as I did. But, I would like to understand the application of Rule 13 in a tacking situation within a confined channel.

If I get what you describe, while on port tack, the other vessel was still abaft your beam, but not quite 22.5º. I don't imagine the other captain could have determined with absolute accuracy, the angle between your bow and him. Rule 13(c) states that if doubt exists, then an overtaking situation exists. Rule 13(d) also states that changes in bearing do not change an overtaking situation to a crossing. Presuming he saw you tacking back and forth, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on. You said he was a professional captain - I wonder what facility you have to bring your concerns about his professionalism to his licensing authority?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Him - power; you - sailing? Rule 18 applies - he has to stay clear of you.

Lodesman, what do you make of this part of Rule 13:

"(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear."

Do you think it means that a tack executed by the vessel being overtaken, which puts the bearing of the overtaking vessel less than 22.5 degrees abaft his beam, would amount to "any subsequent change of bearing", in the meaning of this paragraph?

I'm thinking that it would not, as a tack is a big change of course which fundamentally changes the situation. Do you agree?

But I also think that a tack which changes an imminent overtaking situation into a crossing situation is inherently unseamanlike, as it changes an easier crossing into a much more dangerous one. It brings to mind dinghies tacking under the bows of larger vessels in harbors. I think that all such maneuvers are violations of Rule 2. Do you agree?

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Actually in the Inland Rules, "right of way" is used in rule 9. It's not applicable to this case, but it is there.

HI Lodesman,

I cheerfully admit I do not know the US inland rules. i have not sailed in Inland US waters and therefore have not had the necessity of studying them. My comment applied to the International Rules and you are correct - I should have so stated.

My apologies to the thread

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

My apologies to the thread

No apology is necessary. I though it was an interesting aside for all of us students of colregs.

[weavis]

I hope I dont meet any of you in the inland channel
bottom line is for those that know the rules for USA they do it that way. For those that dont know the rules they do it another way.

Personally, I only knew bits of USA rules and a little more of international rules so if it had been me in the sailboat, my decision would have been to allow the motor vessel to pass me and get out of the way. Its not worth the fight over repair or funeral costs. I dont know what size boat it would take to sink me but Im sure he had what it took.

MOST rules are common sense. Big heavy vessels with limited steering capacity need to be avoided.

Another coffee?

[Stu Jackson]

A couple of possibilities:

1. Either the catamaran WAS or was NOT a sailboat

--- If it was a sailboat, that skipper is a jerk, 'cuz he should know how small sailboats need to tack upwind

2. Either the catamaran WAS or was NOT a "local"

--- If it was a local, that skipper is a jerk, 'cuz he should know exactly how small sailboats without engines need to tack upwind (regardless of whether he was a mobo or not)

While I understand the application of Colregs in all cases, quoting "burdened" vessels and "narrow channels" and those issues usually applied to traffic separation schemes appears a tad over the top. Dockhead, I know you are a master at the application of appropriate R&Rs, their meaning and interpretation, and I applaud you for it and helping to explain them to us all, in this and many other threads. However, in this case, IIRC, the original post and this one applies to a relatively short channel to a marina, a fairway if you will.

Yes, the OP could have fallen off and avoided the whole sticky mess.

Yes, so could the catamaran.

But if the catamaran was a mobo and didn't "understand" how sailboats "work" and/or was new to the area, it's still no excuse for being a jerk, as evidenced by his actions post-event.

Every summer I read on this and other boating forums these very same kind of issues between sailboats still sailing (powered or un-powered) and mobos, particularly back east, and mostly in the Chesapeake (although LIS and FL come to mind also).

I sail in & out of an estuary here that is 300 yards wide. Many times there are small sailboat races going on in the juniors programs at a yacht club. Just about every sailboat that comes through that fleet gives the kids a wide berth. Not because they're afraid of getting hit (!) , but because it's just the right thing to do. The mobos? They usually plow right on through, throwing up huge wakes even though the first 6 MILES of this estuary is a NO WAKE zone!!! Think they even have a clue???

It's a matter of simple courtesy.

And I think the OP has a perfect right to post his situation as many times as he wants to do so.

The catamaran stopped, created a completely unnecessary situation, and berated the sailboat skipper without cause.

The catamaran could have stopped or slowed down much earlier. As I said in the last post, the sailboat skipper could not have known that the catamaran was going into a slip. Boats don't have turn signals.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

In the inland rules, you return the same signal.
Beyond that Islandhopper, you are being less than helpful in this discussion. There are few rules on this board, but the big one is "be nice." So why doncha try to be a bit nicer?

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

Island Hopper. Rule 9(e)(i) says to use the sound signals prescribed in rule 34. Inland rule 34(ii) states that apon hearing the one or two blast single of the other shall, if in agreement sound the same whistle signal and take the steps necessary to effect a safe passage. For the vessel overtaking, Inland rule 34(i) states one short blast to mean I intend to leave you on my port side, two short blasts to mean I intend to leave you on my starboard side. Edit: back to rule 9(e)(i) if in doubt she shall sound the danger signal prescribed in rule 34(d)( at least 5 short and rapid blasts on the whistle)

Apologies to you both for my bluntness but the OP makes no mention of inland rules, but does quote 13b from COLREGS, so to my way of thinking the inland rules are irrelevant to the discussion......