Anchored Vessels' Etiquette

[Bash]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Having just towed a lay barge of some 180m in length up river to the port of Rotterdam, I was really impressed how all the boats,ships, barges on the river acted. Everyone knew what they were meant to do, it was busy with pleasure boats, being a Friday afternoon, and at no time did I ever feel the need to get on the radio or lean on the whistle. Made for a pleasant river passage.

I had a similar experience en route to Bergen via the fjords. Recreational and commercial vessels were able to share some remarkably tight spaces without anyone needing to blast a whistle. (All boaters were exceptionally chill except, of course, for one bleary-eyed Yank named Bash who had just bashed across from Newcastle and couldn't believe how many boats were packed together.)

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Back on topic - an interesting anchor decision.

Sure. All it would have taken was a Davis light as a backup, and he would have had at least a prayer.

[Ex-Calif]

It is incorrect to confuse "common sense" with the rules (ColRegs)

To say the least maneuverable ship has the most right of way is factually incorrect. The rules are pretty clear.

Common sense may predicate giving room to less maneuverable ships but corrections to course and speed should be made very well in advance in order to not confuse the other skipper who may be following the rules.

"Blame" is always apportioned. If the Stand On vessels stands on and a collision occurs the SO vessel may get a portion of the blame for failing to avoid a collision if avoidance was deemed possible. The majority of blame sill still go to the Give Way vessel for not giving way.

However if the Stand On vessel does not Stand On and a collision occurs, more blame may be apportioned if the change in course and speed were deemed to "cause" the collision.

Do what you want - sail prudently but don't call "common sense" rules. It can't work that way...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

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.

No, it isn't about "pleasure craft" vs. commercial -- it's about maneuverability. Sometimes the applicable law doesn't state things exactly as you expect them to. Commercial vessels can have decreased maneuverability because of size (that will also keep them from seeing smaller boats near them) or because of their activity -- shrimpers, for instance. The pleasure boat can get out of the way of the freighter much more easily than the freighter can maneuver.

It would also be smart.

[micah719]

Mr No-etiquette shows up? Scuba, screw picket, relocate. I'd have preferred limpet mines, but the chandleries don't seem to stock them at the moment.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK

Just found this


REAL MOUNTIE's Adventures * Les Aventures du REAL MOUNTIE: ANCHORING RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES...

The highlighted section has some interesting twists.

So, technically, one of the four on your boat has to stay aboard and not go to dinner because someone else could come along and anchor badly near you?

I came into an anchorage last May with a severely compromised rudder. We did the best we could but dropped the hook too close to the starboard boat. I was on the bow at the time and said that, and the woman on the next boat agreed. I told her that unfortunately I had a severely compromised steering system. She was gracious and voluntarily moved her boat. She shouldn't have had to, but it was the best choice under the circumstances.

[zeehag]

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

No, it isn't about "pleasure craft" vs. commercial -- it's about maneuverability. Sometimes the applicable law doesn't state things exactly as you expect them to. Commercial vessels can have decreased maneuverability because of size (that will also keep them from seeing smaller boats near them) or because of their activity -- shrimpers, for instance. The pleasure boat can get out of the way of the freighter much more easily than the freighter can maneuver.

It would also be smart.

Out of interest, where do you start drawing the lines. Lets start with the 20ft sail boat, one mast, then move up to say a 60 ft sail boat with 2 masts, how about a 4 masted square rig boat.
I would think a 4 masted square rig boat is going to be a lot harder to manoeuver than any commercial power vessel.
In general, except where other rules apply, a power driven vessel gives way to sail.
Otherwise, you'll end up with a situation where the OOW on a commercial vessel begins to question the rules, ie thats a small sail boat, they will keep clear, or thats a real big sail boat, they will stand one, and, there's a another sail boat, not so small, not so big, what will they do?

In your own sail boat, YOU may know what you are going to do, hundreds of watchkeepers on commercial vessels dont, hence, there are regulations which enable both or more parties to do do something predictable.
As said earlier, you can take any action provided it is done before a risk of collision exists, once risk of collision exists, then comply with the colregs, which includes action by the stand on vessel.
Most commercial vessels start to see risk of collision when in open waters at about the 4 to 5 mile range.

And I do practice what I say, two days ago on passage from Aberdeen to Scapa Flow, I made a 30 degree course alteration at a range of 2 miles to duck behind a 26ft sail boat outbound from Peterhead

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Out of interest, where do you start drawing the lines. Lets start with the 20ft sail boat, one mast, then move up to say a 60 ft sail boat with 2 masts, how about a 4 masted square rig boat.
I would think a 4 masted square rig boat is going to be a lot harder to manoeuver than any commercial power vessel.
In general, except where other rules apply, a power driven vessel gives way to sail.
Otherwise, you'll end up with a situation where the OOW on a commercial vessel begins to question the rules, ie thats a small sail boat, they will keep clear, or thats a real big sail boat, they will stand one, and, there's a another sail boat, not so small, not so big, what will they do?

In your own sail boat, YOU may know what you are going to do, hundreds of watchkeepers on commercial vessels dont, hence, there are regulations which enable both or more parties to do do something predictable.
As said earlier, you can take any action provided it is done before a risk of collision exists, once risk of collision exists, then comply with the colregs, which includes action by the stand on vessel.
Most commercial vessels start to see risk of collision when in open waters at about the 4 to 5 mile range.

And I do practice what I say, two days ago on passage from Aberdeen to Scapa Flow, I made a 30 degree course alteration at a range of 2 miles to duck behind a 26ft sail boat outbound from Peterhead

All the boats you listed are sailboats. In *most* situations they will have the right of way unless they are motor sailing, in which case the sails don't count when looking at the rules.

Having had all of this explained to me by both the Coast Guard and a maritime lawyer, I am confident about what I'm saying. It really is a sailboat's responsibility to avoid a tanker. It's not like they sneak up on you. It is admirable that you do give way but when a tanker and a small boat are within collision range it is very unlikely that the tanker can even see the smaller boat. In one incident, many regulations may come into play, including the requirement to do everything possible to avoid a collision. That applies to both the sailboat and the freighter, but since the freighter can't see the sailboat, the sailboat now has added responsibility.'

That isn't "common sense," by the way. It's how those regs are actually interpreted by maritime judges.

It doesn't make "common sense" for you to try to argue by using more extreme examples than I used. THAT'S using "common sense" instead of the regs.

[nigel1]

Why is it the freighter cannot see the sail boat?. Biggest ship I worked was as Mate on a 520,000 tonne ULCC, and had no problem seeing other vessels, including small boats. Up in the PG during the Iraq/Iran war, we spent a lot of time seeing small boats, I can still visualize the one that popped half a dozen RPG's into us.

IF I was a judging a maritime case, and the freighters defense was that they did not see the small boat they ran down, then I might just question the quality of their watchkeeping.
Plenty of ships around the UK have been held partly to blame for running down fishing boats, I dont think there is any excuse for "I did not see them"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Having had all of this explained to me by both the Coast Guard and a maritime lawyer, I am confident about what I'm saying. It really is a sailboat's responsibility to avoid a tanker.

I think you need top provide some evidence for this.

This is a case of a commercial vessel colliding with a sail boat.

Transportation Safety Board | Home

Being "commercial" was not relevant.

Nor was it relevant in the case of the Ouzo

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ile=/Ouzo_.pdf

[goboatingnow]

Rakuflames

I don't know where you get what is very erroneous information. Even the case you mention is an investigation not a finding of blame and consists of a sailboat acting erratically while in a confined channel

Secondly you repeatedly use the term ' right of way'. No such provision exists at sea.

Thirdly you persistently mis quote or mis apply othe COLREGS. a ' restricted as to maneouvering' under the COLREGS is very specific and does not apply to any of the ships you mentioned ( a reading of the regs as well as the Bibles ' farewell', would do you wonders )

Admiralty judgements are available for all to read.

While it may make common sense to treat large ships so. It's is not IN The COLREGS. professional masters will tell you the number one thing they dislike about leisure craft is their unpredictability. So if you discuss to break the COLREGS ( or manoeuvre early ) even if you are the stand on vessel. Ensure you make an early and extremely obvious turn

Dave

[atoll]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Rakuflames

I don't know where you get what is very erroneous information. Even the case you mention is an investigation not a finding of blame and consists of a sailboat acting erratically while in a confined channel

Secondly you repeatedly use the term ' right of way'. No such provision exists at sea.

Thirdly you persistently mis quote or mis apply othe COLREGS. a ' restricted as to maneouvering' under the COLREGS is very specific and does not apply to any of the ships you mentioned ( a reading of the regs as well as the Bibles ' farewell', would do you wonders )

Admiralty judgements are available for all to read.

While it may make common sense to treat large ships so. It's is not IN The COLREGS. professional masters will tell you the number one thing they dislike about leisure craft is their unpredictability. So if you discuss to break the COLREGS ( or manoeuvre early ) even if you are the stand on vessel. Ensure you make an early and extremely obvious turn

Dave

i would watch out dave next raku will be accusing you of being macho and an internet bully,as she has me in the past when faced with proven and well thought out arguments envolving logic and marine operations

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

So, technically, one of the four on your boat has to stay aboard and not go to dinner because someone else could come along and anchor badly near you?

I returned to my boat several years to find a power boat anchored (short scoped) well within my swing room. I asked him to move; he refused.

When the wind shifted it became apparent that we were in danger of a collision. When he refused to over, I did.

[Dockhead]

Rakuflames, I am truly sorry that everyone has piled on to you here.

I think I might be able to bridge the gap between your different understanding of the rules.

If a maneuverable, shallow draft pleasure vessel needlessly creates a close-quarters situation, and a collision results, then the pleasure vessel will get a large share of the blame, even if that vessel was technically the stand-on vessel according to the Colregs. That's probably what your Coast Guard guys were telling you. It means, that you shouldn't turn into a channel suddenly if there is no great necessity for such a maneuver, and expect a large commercial vessel on your port side to maneuver out of your way. This is a matter of common sense, good manners, and also the Colregs. So far so good -- to this point you are absolutely right.

But as others have told you, it is not enough to know that you should "do your best to stay out of the way of larger and less manueverable vessels". That is not enough knowledge to navigate safely in waters you have to share with large commercial vessels. That is because despite your best efforts, you might neverthless find yourself in a Colregs situation with a large commercial vessel. And you really, really need to know what the rules say, about whatever situation you find yourself in. You must really not, really really not, under any circumstances, turn to port in a head-on situation, even if that seems to be the quickest way to get out of the way of a commercial vessel. Rule 14. You must really, really not start maneuvering willy-nilly, if you are in a crossing situation with a large commercial vessel on your port side. You really, really need to hold your course and speed for a bit, at least, to allow the commercial vessel a chance to make the first move. Rule 15. And so forth, and so on.

So I think that you have been given the wrong advice, or have confused what was advised to you, as between how you should behave prior to a Colregs situation arising, and how you should behave once you are already there.

Your heart is absolutely in the right place, and in most places in the world, 90% of of all Colregs situations can be avoided by the pleasure vessel, prior to it arising -- and this is good seamanship, common sense, etc. But, at the risk of beating a dead horse, if for whatever reason you do find yourself in a Colregs situation, then you need to know a great deal more than just "for God's sake, stay out of the way of commercial vessels."

Yes, actually, I am a lawyer, not a maritime lawyer, but trained to read, interpret and understand rules like the Colregs.