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

[carstenb]

Actually, ifyou sail to the US, you need to understand their inland rules, otherwise you can end up in a hepa of trouble. additonally, you need to be aware that they use IAT(?)A B buoy placement where the rest of us use "A" placement.

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

[weavis]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Actually, ifyou sail to the US, you need to understand their inland rules, otherwise you can end up in a hepa of trouble. additonally, you need to be aware that they use IAT(?)A B buoy placement where the rest of us use "A" placement.

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

I sailed there quite a bit and got a few things right. That was one of them. Not sure about the waffles with egg though....

[IslandHopper]

I've sailed commercially to the US on numerous occasions as a Unlimited Master and am well versed in Buoyage A & B, but as I stated earlier, the OP made no mention of operating under inland rules but was quoting the COLREGS......

>>><<<

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Actually, ifyou sail to the US, you need to understand their inland rules, otherwise you can end up in a hepa of trouble. additonally, you need to be aware that they use IAT(?)A B buoy placement where the rest of us use "A" placement.

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

Most US people learn the phrase, "Red Right Return" to remember leave the red buoys on their right side to return home.

For B placement I invented (I think) - "The Green Green Grass of Home" to remember to leave the Green buoys on my Green (starboard) side when going Home.

Also another handy one is, "We have no red port left" to remember the left side of the boat is port and the light is red.

[sparrowhawk1]

Islandhopper. I guess I should reread the thread but I thought he said there was a marina at the end of the channel. which makes me assume that it's inland. But the bottom line is you should give at least five short and rapid blasts of the whistle if you don't understand the other vessels signals or are in danger of collision

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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?

Within the narrow confines of the channel, where the tack is made necessary to avoid going aground, then I think it is in keeping with rule 13(d), insofar that it is reasonably expected as per rule 2's "ordinary practice of seamen." In open waters, if a sailboat tacks back into the path of an overtaking boat, then that would be a failure of the sailboat to "stand on" as required. It doesn't change the situation to a crossing; at that point the rule book goes out the window, and the captain of the overtaking boat should do whatever is necessary to avoid having his paint marred by a WAFI.

As to violating rule 2 - I think it is fair to say in certain situations you have a point. One shouldn't sail their dinghy close under the bow of supertanker manoeuvring in a confined space. I don't think this is necessarily the case in the situation described here. If the OP was also in a 38 ft cat motoring at 3.5 kts in the channel, would the other captain have felt impeded because he couldn't go 5 kts? Of course not. We've all been there, and when you come in second, you sometimes have to slow down or stop until the guy ahead gets out of the way. The fact that it was an engineless dinghy sailing into the marina doesn't make it OK to go barging ahead.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

international rule34 says one short blast to mean I am altering course to starboard. two short blasts I'm altering my course to port

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

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

Oh well done, if the situation is not confusing enough then lets compound it by throwing out some ambiguous signals..............are you serious?

Can you please clarify what is ambiguous about those signals and why?

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

Islandhopper. I guess I should reread the thread but I thought he said there was a marina at the end of the channel. which makes me assume that it's inland.

Not all marinas, mine for instance is in a river but still comes under COLREGS to reach it......

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

I've sailed commercially to the US on numerous occasions as a Unlimited Master and am well versed in Buoyage A & B, but as I stated earlier, the OP made no mention of operating under inland rules but was quoting the COLREGS......

>>><<<

True, but his profile shows he's in San Diego, and Rule 13 looks the same in Inland Rules.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

Can you please clarify what is ambiguous about those signals and why?

Read posts 18 & 30......

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

True, but his profile shows he's in San Diego, and Rule 13 looks the same in Inland Rules.

Having just read the inland rules for the US I can honestly say I am thank full we only have the one rule book down here....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think there has been unanimous condemnation of the catamaran skipper. The more controversial (and interesting) question was the degree of fault of the OP.


As to the behavior of motorboat drivers -- this is thread drift, but it's funny that in the U.S. you often encounter aggressive mobo drivers, but not necessarily in other places. In the UK, the mobo drivers are more courteous than the sailors, going very far out of their way to avoid inconveniencing anyone, and displaying a high degree of skill and seamanship. Been sailing in UK waters for five years now and only one single time encountered a jerky mobo driver, whereas in the U.S. you can count on trouble from at least 10% of them. In the UK, sailors, especially racers, can be very aggressive sometimes, especially in the crowded Solent, in contrast to the mobo drivers.

I had a case a few years ago where a race boat in practice tacked right under my bows while I was motoring out of Southampton Water, which would have required a crash stop or desperate helm hard over to let him get by. I don't know why I did it -- it was wrong, unseamanlike, and I am ashamed of it -- but I looked the skipper in the eye, and did -- nothing. And he had to do a crash tack back to avoid having his hull split open by my Kevlar-skinned bows. Boy, was he cursing me a blue streak, once he got his boat back under control. Bad, bad, bad -- I was thinking right after -- why the hell did I do that?!

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I had a case a few years ago where a race boat in practice tacked right under my bows while I was motoring out of Southampton Water, which would have required a crash stop or desperate helm hard over to let him get by. I don't know why I did it -- it was wrong, unseamanlike, and I am ashamed of it -- but I looked the skipper in the eye, and did -- nothing. And he had to do a crash tack back to avoid having his hull split open by my Kevlar-skinned bows. Boy, was he cursing me a blue streak, once he got his boat back under control. Bad, bad, bad -- I was thinking right after -- why the hell did I do that?!

Been around Brits too long

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Within the narrow confines of the channel, where the tack is made necessary to avoid going aground, then I think it is in keeping with rule 13(d), insofar that it is reasonably expected as per rule 2's "ordinary practice of seamen." In open waters, if a sailboat tacks back into the path of an overtaking boat, then that would be a failure of the sailboat to "stand on" as required. It doesn't change the situation to a crossing; at that point the rule book goes out the window, and the captain of the overtaking boat should do whatever is necessary to avoid having his paint marred by a WAFI.

As to violating rule 2 - I think it is fair to say in certain situations you have a point. One shouldn't sail their dinghy close under the bow of supertanker manoeuvring in a confined space. I don't think this is necessarily the case in the situation described here. If the OP was also in a 38 ft cat motoring at 3.5 kts in the channel, would the other captain have felt impeded because he couldn't go 5 kts? Of course not. We've all been there, and when you come in second, you sometimes have to slow down or stop until the guy ahead gets out of the way. The fact that it was an engineless dinghy sailing into the marina doesn't make it OK to go barging ahead.

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?