Freighters vs. Sailboats

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

Anyway, at 50 metres on a collision course don't you turn the same direction as him and then colregs makes him the overtaking vessel? If a collision should occur it's important to make sure some of the ships paint is left on your stern so that you have proof that you were the stand on vessel. There's colregs for you.

Nice try Greg, but no cigar. If it was me in my sail boat, at 0.5 miles I'd be looking to tack/gybe, or reaching for the ignition key.

About the paint, you got that the wrong way around, you'll be looking to leave your paint on the other ships bow. Your boat will be gone, most likely never to be found. A fair number of ships have been caught out when inspected in a port and found to have unwanted paint left on the bow or down the ships side

[jackdale]

What happens when you get run down - without a proper lookout on both boats.

Division of Fault

Since United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc., 421 U.S. 397, 44 L. Ed. 2d 251, 95 S. Ct. 1708 (1975), liability for damage in marine collision cases is allocated among the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault. Thus I have the full mathematical sliding scale available to me. But I conclude that there is no basis to distinguish between the faults of the EXPRESS and the CAMERA. The CAMERA's failure to maintain an attentive lookout rises to the level of that of the EXPRESS; indeed, the failure to maintain any lookout at all at night constitutes a more severe degree of neglect. That is sufficient to overcome any advantage which the CAMERA might otherwise enjoy as (1) an overtaken vessel which (2) was under sail. *fn7" The CAMERA's basic lookout deficiency condemns her to an equal proportion of the fault for the collision. Cf. Matter of Interstate Towing Co., supra, at 757 (district court's allocation of 20 percent fault to small pleasure craft for failure to maintain lookout reversed as insufficient share of blame for ensuing collision with tug and tow).

FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Tony B

Nigel:
Unfortunately, the UK does not have a monopoly on that. Its hard to keep someone on look-out when you could hardly keep them awake.

Your earlier post also struck a familiar bell - When I was working the offshore oil fields, nobody was on radio watch either because the VHF radio was turned down so they can listen to music. And these are on commercial vessels.

I spent 6 months in the shipyard during the final stages of the build of my present work boat, and was taken aback a bit when I noted that a car type radio/cd player was fitted on the bridge with 8 speakers mounted in the deck head. That was disconnected pretty quick, there are already too many distractions on the wheelhouse.

Keeping a proper look out, I'll admit, in the real world is not always easy. I've been on rig moves which kept me on the bridge for 48+ hours straight.
There is the business world and the legal world, owners/operators want to keep crew cost to a minimum, but also want the ship maintained and worked. Flag States stipulate minimum manning requirements, but these only cover a boat going from A to B, and not actually working. In the case of a collision, the Colregs will win, working conditions on the boat will not be an excuse. Its unfair, but at the moment, thats the way it is, and is likely to stay that way for many more years

[Tony B]

When I was Capt on crew boats and supply boats in the oil fields, the only legal requirement was that you had to have 1 master, 1 mate and 2 deckhands. As long as the internal body temp was 98.6 all was good. I hung in there for over 2 years and constantly kept changing boats hoping the quality of people would get better. Never happened.
I still work the oil fields, but not on boats. I purposely let my ticket expire as a guarantee that I will never do that again. Working the platforms and rigs is much much better.

[Sabbatical II]

If I ever got the chance to ride on the bridge of a freighter entering Sydney Harbour of a weekend I'd jump at the chance, just to see the other perspective.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

If I ever got the chance to ride on the bridge of a freighter entering Sydney Harbour of a weekend I'd jump at the chance, just to see the other perspective.

Dont know about Sydney, but if your ever across to Aberdeen, your welcome to step onboard, not too many sail boats to contend with, but still a few fishing boats to keep you on your toes.

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

If I ever got the chance to ride on the bridge of a freighter entering Sydney Harbour of a weekend I'd jump at the chance, just to see the other perspective.

I don't know if I could take the altitude without getting a nosebleed.
I'm sure the rockin' and rollin' would be fun.

[Surfer Girl]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

If I ever got the chance to ride on the bridge of a freighter entering Sydney Harbour of a weekend I'd jump at the chance, just to see the other perspective.

Unfortunately Greg (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), you won't get that chance. All commercial shipping now goes to Port Botany or Port Kembla as of a few years ago - only passenger liners like the QEII or Queen Mary come into Sydney Harbour these days. The small fishing trawlers that used to fish the harbour are also gone, their fishing licenses bought by the government......

I used to work as a charter skipper, corporate team building events, racing, etc, on yachts in Sydney Harbour for 5 years. In summer on the weekend, it is one of the busiest harbours in the world - literally thousands of sailing craft & recreational power vessels with usually 10 or so simultaneous sailing regattas from super maxis down to optimists, car carriers (back then) coming through the heads, dozens of government ferries, hydro foils & fast cats, dozens of commercial charter boats (some very large), people fishing, etc, etc.

Mayhem but I used to love it! The Manly ferry was constantly sounding 5 short blasts due to the hundreds of small sailing boats in its path. The 18 foot skiffs would be flying across the bow of large vessels at 20knts with spinnaker (and sometimes capsize). There were even nuts kayaking or kite surfing amongst all that traffic...

A great experience if you ever get the chance.......

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Dont know about Sydney, but if your ever across to Aberdeen, your welcome to step onboard, not too many sail boats to contend with, but still a few fishing boats to keep you on your toes.

That would be completely fascinating!

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

That would be completely fascinating!

Your welcome as well

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Your welcome as well

If I should manage to find my way to Australia I'm going to hold you to that!

I used to go out on my dad's tugboats when I was a child. I thought they were fascinating (but the really funny thing was when we'd hear over the radio, from the commercial fishermen -- "They're FISHING off that tug -- I think they're following us!")

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

If I should manage to find my way to Australia I'm going to hold you to that!

Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, the place with two seasons, July and winter

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

No one has said that ...

Er...

Originally Posted by Starbuck

That'd make a good epitaph on someone's tombstone:


Mine was
the stand-on
vessel.

I protest.

Originally Posted by denverd0n

This is the best and most complete summary of the whole stand-on versus give-way issue that I have seen. You may be in the right, but it is stupid to stand-on until you are dead right!

It was implied.

[Tony B]

Nigel

You're quite the ladies man. Can I hang out with you?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

No kidding!

PLEASE tell me where I EVER said at what point ANYONE should take "avoiding action." PLEASE don't decide I meant something I didn't say, and then tell me where to go to correct what I didn't say.

You might get more out of a forum discussion if you dial down the snippiness. I never suggested you meant anything - I was replying to your first post, specifically:

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Some time ago I created quite a heated discussion by stating that when it comes to freighters and sailboats the freighter actually had the right of way because of the freighter's lessened ability to maneuver....

but the ColRegs also were written following some basic principles. One of them is that the less maneuverable ship/boat has the right of way. All the sections in CR stating who has the ROW in specific instances are based on those two principles: do everything possible to avoid a collision, and the most maneuverable vessel is to give right of way...

with the context that the Colregs don't assign right of way - they define the action required by each vessel. Using your example of a freighter and a sailboat, I merely suggested how the colregs should be applied.