Anchored Vessels' Etiquette

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is also worthwhile remembering that RAM, NUC, CBD, engaged in fishing are expected to show the appropriate dayshapes or lights, unless otherwise specified in the ColRegs, international or national.

For example a "commercial" fishing vessel with trolling lines, may not be deemed to be engaged in fishing, IF the lines do not restrict maneuverability.

Yeah -- my friend who fell asleep at the tiller with the windvane working who woke up in the MIDDLE of a shrimping fleet did not have the right of way. Oops!

[Bash]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Commercial shipping in open water does not have any sort of right-of-way.

And the good news is that they all know that.

I remember once being overtaken by a container ship at night in dense fog. I contacted him on VHF and asked whether he saw me on radar. He replied that I was a clear target on all three radars. I then asked whether he'd like me to alter course east or west. He replied that he'd prefer me to hold my current course and speed so that he could pass to the west of me.

In fact, the only ship I've ever encountered that was reluctant to yield to me in a crossing situation was a US Naval Vessel. (At night, running without lights during war games.) I was happy to go around.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

"Pleasure craft do not have a unlimited right of way.
The COLREG rules provide right of way for vessels that are constrained by draft or manoverability."

Freighters have limited maneuverability. They can neither turn nor stop rapidly. In addition, they have restricted vision.

Same thing is true for cruise liners.

The COLREGS definition of restricted maneuverability refers to vessels engaging in a particular type of work which restricts them so , like towing or dredging. It does not extend that definition simply to encompass relative size. A sailing boat running down wind , with preventers rigged and a big spinnaker May in fact be very restricted. The mere fact hat a vessel may have a poor turn rate does not make it restricted. Equally any such vessel must display the appropriate day shapse or lights.

And note the COLREGS PROVIDE FOR NO " right of way". I suggest you do a little reading of said COLREGS

Dave

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The COLREGS definition of restricted maneuverability refers to vessels engaging in a particular type of work which restricts them so , like towing or dredging. It does not extend that definition simply to encompass relative size. A sailing boat running down wind , with preventers rigged and a big spinnaker May in fact be very restricted. The mere fact hat a vessel may have a poor turn rate does not make it restricted. Equally any such vessel must display the appropriate day shapse or lights.

And note the COLREGS PROVIDE FOR NO " right of way". I suggest you do a little reading of said COLREGS

Dave

And I suggest you ask the coast guard -- or a freighter captain.

"Right of way" is a myth on the water most of the time (racing is one exception). The over-arching rule is to do everything possible to avoid a collision. Your example is accurate but incomplete -- it also includes freighters and cruise liners. You have to look *past* the colregs to the applied law to get the full picture.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

And I suggest you ask the coast guard -- or a freighter captain.

"Right of way" is a myth on the water most of the time (racing is one exception). The over-arching rule is to do everything possible to avoid a collision. Your example is accurate but incomplete -- it also includes freighters and cruise liners. You have to look *past* the colregs to the applied law to get the full picture.

Sorry what " applied law". Court judgements are not modifications to the COLREGS. On the high seas outside territorial waters what law do you refer to. The COLREGS are international law by treaty. The assigning of blame occurs because typically nether side complied fully. Not that the smaller boat is intrinsically in the wrong.


Where have you Seen that cruise liners are restricted. ( outside of fairways or shallows. ) I've yet to see one indicate so by day shape or lights.
I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about here.

[bobconnie]

Good Lord !!! This thread has gotten way out of hand !! Anybody who will quote Col Regs, instead of telling folks to keep there eyes open and expect everybody out there don't know anything!! Keep away from ships that can sink ya !! even a half wit can figure that out!! my boat is my home !! I will take as few chances as I can to protect my home and my family!! gosh how come so many folks on here like to show there VAST knowlage of every rule of the sea ?? the first guy asked about anchoring not the rules of the road LOLOL Come folks can't we all get along ??

[goboatingnow]

You miss the point. There are times when you as the smaller boat should stand on and correctly apply the rules. Equally you do not stand on into danger. , or as its known, the rule of gross tonnage. The bit I was countering the absurd notion that freighters or cruise liners have some sort of right , by being restricted , which they are not , in law or the COLREGS.

There are many that say the law of gross tonnage is wrong. And hat whatever the relative sizes the COLREGS should be followed as it is what the other party expects. The incident related between the sailboat under power and the power illustrate the situation where one party does not properly apply the rules.

Equally there are situations such as the English channel , where the get the hell outa there can't apply, you have to cross and a knowledge of the rules is very useful.

As to thread drift, been on CF long then !!!
Dave

[Ex-Calif]

I love these armchair lawyer threads. They are hilarious except for the fact that new sailors read them and get all confused.

I have to say without hubris that Singapore waters are the "masters" course of small boat big boat interaction with channels, fairways open water, moorings and all type of vessels. Tankers, containers, barges, bunkers, ferries, fast ferries, tugs etc.

Most situations I plan ahead and get out of the way if I can safely simply because I am out for pleasure and they are working. Getting out of the way includes a turn of at least 30 degrees so they can see the positive change in course.

But there are pitfalls.

We were sailing in and around the southern anchorage and a bunker ship (up to 100m) was heading dead on reciprocal to us down an "aisle" between the rows. Not a lot of tacking room for me nor maneuvering room for him. I was about to alter course but just before I tacked he altered to avoid and had I tacked I would have been on a new collision course with him. That would have made him really happy I am sure.

He was a commercial ship, he was not in a channel or fairway was not constrained or restricted. He was just a lot bigger than me. He and I both knew the rules - I almost made a bad call.

I did start the engine for safety as I often do in light winds and so technically we were both power boats but he had no way of knowing that.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Bash

And the good news is that they all know that.

I remember once being overtaken by a container ship at night in dense fog. I contacted him on VHF and asked whether he saw me on radar. He replied that I was a clear target on all three radars. I then asked whether he'd like me to alter course east or west. He replied that he'd prefer me to hold my current course and speed so that he could pass to the west of me.

In fact, the only ship I've ever encountered that was reluctant to yield to me in a crossing situation was a US Naval Vessel. (At night, running without lights during war games.) I was happy to go around.

In 1993, I had a similar experience with a tanker about 75 miles off the West coast of Northern California.
It was the middle of the night when I got a VHF call asking, Contact at such and such lat lon etc. (pre AIS)
I responded as soon as I realized he was talking to me.
He asked if I had a radar reflector to which I responded "yes".
He asked where I had it mounted because he was not sure if I was just sea clutter or not, but he had already changed course.
He added, "When you're out here with the big boys who travel at 30 knots or so, you need to have a good radar signature."
When I told him I had it mounted on the forward side of my mast under the radar dome, he politely suggested I move it to a spreader as soon as practical. I told him I'd move it asap.
I did that at my next port. (San Francisco).

[jackdale]

A real lawyer site

Home - News Announcements Recent Cases

I refer to it regularly - it is Canadian.

[cwyckham]

I stand on when legally required to do so by the colregs.

I don't do it because I'm a jerk on a power trip or because I'm naive and think that everybody knows the rules or a tanker is easy to turn.

I do it because it makes all of us safer, including me. With hundreds of boats out on a sunny day in English Bay, people need to know what to expect.

I also respect people who work on the water and will go out of my way not to set up a crossing situation with somebody who's out earning a living while I'm playing. But if I can't do that, or I just plain screw up and don't notice in time, I will stand on because that professional mariner will expect me to do so and we will both be safer if we both follow the rules.

The colregs also require me to not stand on into danger of collision, and I will do that as well. I've spent enough time on the water to have a pretty good idea of when I'm crossing the line into danger and the give-way vessel isn't taking appropriate action. I will have prepared to take action and assessed my surroundings so that when the time comes, I can make my move. But I won't make it early and confuse everybody around me.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A real lawyer site

Home - News Announcements Recent Cases

I refer to it regularly - it is Canadian.

Super cool website! Thank you. I've often wondered about vessels laying or picking up traps (the "vessel fishing" rule can be tough to figure out, many weekenders with a rod over think they have right of way over everybody).

Here's a useful one from the site showing that laying traps does not restrict maneuverability and doesn't count:

Collisions – Apportionment – Vessel Engaged in Fishing

Hogan v. Buote, 2012 PESC 10

The issue in this case was the apportionment of liability for a collision involving two fishing vessels. One vessel, under the command of Hogan, was in the process of laying lobster traps in a northerly direction while the other vessel, under the command of Buote, was proceeding westerly. Buote argued the collision was Hogan’s fault as Buote had the right of way pursuant to Rule 15 of the Collision Regulations. Hogan, on the other hand, said he had the right of way as he was a vessel engaged in fishing pursuant to Rule 3. The Court held that Hogan, although laying traps, was not restricted in his ability to manoeuvre and therefore Rule 3 did not apply. The Court ultimately found Hogan was 75% at fault and Buote 25% at fault.

[impi]

Originally Posted by rrranch

My wife an I went out this weekend on our boat for a brief escape. We sailed about 30 miles to mus island in Aransas bay near corpus christi and anchored for the night. The trip there was fun but uneventful. We set the anchor, attached the float ball to it, let out 80 feet of rode for a proper scope on it and settled in for a relaxing night. We were 100 yards off the edge of the shallows by the beach. 200 yards from shore. 2 other boats were already anchored when we got there so we stood off a half mile down the beach from them. I put my anchor ball up the mast and had our anchor light on all night obeying all the rules.

At 4 am my anchor alarm went off and said we dragged about 25 feet. I go topside to see a shrimp trawler between us and the beach. She must have snagged our anchor rope and moved it. What do I do. No one hurt. At 6 am a nut runs over my anchor ball in his flats boat going about 50 mph. 7 am some jerk flys by 20 feet off our bow in about a 50 foot hattaras. I can't believe he didn't snag us! A half hour later someone else does the same thing and they know darn well they are running over my anchor rope! By this point I am livid and that driver got cussed out real good. I think half the bay heard me. I was especially mad because when he did it the tide and wind eased up and our anchor rope was slack. I felt a jolt through our boat when he went over it like it snagged on his bow and somehow missed his props. I have no idea how!

Why are people so rude? So rediculously dangerous??? Does anyone read their colregs book that they are required by law to have onboard?

I feel your frustration here ... we have the odd situation too and unfortunately I am not always one to keep my mouth shut when an idiot is applying his lack of mind!

A word of advice here though ... your life will become a misery if you let this get too far under your skin. With every situation that frustrates you, it will become more intense for you and you will 'blow a valve'.

Try to 'let it slide a bit' ... get details and boat reg numbers where you can (report the situation to your local club or the local water authority and ask them to take it up for you) and where you cant ... let it go!

I was anchored off Sandy Spit the other day ... had a stunning view in front of me and left a bit of space close to the beach out of courtesy for day visitors who may want to snorkel there. A yacht pulled up and literally squeezed / wedged himself in ahead of me ... first thing he did was to light up the barbi which spewed smoke all over us. What does one do? In the past my dingy would have been in the water and I would have been right on over there sharing a bit of useless information with him.

Instead I calmly stood up ... walked to the bow and gazed into the back of his boat. The fella got the message and apologized about occupying my space asking if he should move ... politely I told him it was fine apart from the smoke ... suggested I would go inside for a beer and by the time I'm back up on deck he had got his fire sorted out so there was no smoke coming through us.

The whole situation ended up with us meeting on the beach and having a great chinwag ... we became great sailing mates and I was able to tell him what it was that frustrated me about the manner in which he anchored 'in my space'.

Now of course it's a different situation in your case with the shrimp boat, but sometimes there are things we just need to let slide so we do not allow idiots to rent space in our heads for free!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Super cool website! Thank you. I've often wondered about vessels laying or picking up traps (the "vessel fishing" rule can be tough to figure out, many weekenders with a rod over think they have right of way over everybody).

Back on topic - an interesting anchor decision.

Collision - Breach of Collision Regulations – Offence – Due Diligence

R. v. Bridle, 2008 BCPC 52,

This case arose out of a collision at night between two pleasure craft, one of which was at anchor. At the time of the collision the anchored vessel was not displaying the all-round white light required by the Collision Regulations. The accused was the owner/operator of the anchored vessel. The accused said that he only learned the anchor light was not working the night of the collision and attempted but was not able to repair it. He left an interior bathroom light illuminated in place of an anchor light. The Court found that the accused had not used due diligence in that the accused could have returned to a dock rather than stay anchored without a proper light. The accused was convicted.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Back on topic - an interesting anchor decision.

I've just finished going through the entire "collisions" section of the website. Some interesting stuff. There were a very large number of cases of boats speeding through anchorages and hitting anchored boats. If the anchored boat had an anchor light on it was fine. Otherwise it got part of the blame in all but one case where it was "a local custom not to exhibit anchor lights." Interesting.

There weren't any cases relevant to this discussion except one where a commercial vessel in a tight waterway was charged with hitting a pleasure vessel (also under power). It was determined that the commercial vessel had done all it could to avoid the situation and it was found to not be at fault. Not as relevant as we might think, though, since it seems the private vessel was circling in a channel with nobody at the helm and turned right in front of the freighter after the freighter had already taken evasive action and thought he was clear.

Really, really weird case, but nowhere did any of the witnesses or counsel argue that the fact that the vessel that got smucked should have given way because it was a pleasure craft. Instead, the entire decision quotes the colregs over and over and over again.