So Who Has the Right-Of-Way Here?

[jrd22]

The smaller boat was the stand on vessel, however he should have taken whatever actions necessary to avoid the collision so he will share responsibility. It's not clear to me that the larger vessel was moving, but assuming it was it should have taken action (turn to stb) in time to allow the stand on vessel to maintain it's course. I seriously doubt that anyone was at the helm of the smaller vessel, or if they were, they must have been drunk.

[Chief Engineer]

as the vessel on the starboard side would would be still turning into the other vessel. Both should have turned to starboard....y'know that "thing" about making large noticable corrections.

Both are at fault.

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

How hard would it have been for either of these rectums to have altered course to port a few degrees? Hopefully no innocent victom's were killed or injured but I suspec that is not the case.

s/v HyLyte

[David M]

Two rules were broken, Rule 8(a) and Rule 14(c).

RULE 8
ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION

(a)Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and [Intl] shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b)Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.
(c)If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
(d)Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

They failed to make their actions positive and in ample time.


Rule 14
(a) Unless otherwise agreed [Inld] When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. (b)Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/ [Intl] or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
(c)When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

There is doubt as to whether this is a meeting or crossing situation, therefore it is considered a meeting situation and both vessels failed to take proper action.

Both vessels broke both rules.




Rule 14 & 15: Head-On and Crossing Situations

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule08.htm

[George Raffa]

Looks like both captains will say, "good bye license". Think about the attorneys; boat A passengers file case against boat B and passengers on B file against boat A. Well, the more I think about it passengers on A and B can file against both captains or boat owners insurance companies. Another post said it best, "Captains are Moran's".

[Cherp]

The rules here are irrelevant. What's on display is gormless action by both skippers, which could easily have resulted in fatalities.

[Chief Engineer]

"Gormless" Brit. stupid

How often we are reminded that we are two cultures separated by a common language

[David M]

I was wondering what gormless meant. Now I feel edified.

gormless definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

[svHyLyte]

Here we are back with Einstein in 1906, again. It all depends upon the reference frame.

The film was taken from somewhere aboard the larger boat looking toward the smaller, so it appears that the smaller boat is in error. On the other hand, if one were filming from the smaller vessel, one would see a larger boat approaching from the port forequarter and evidently, from that reference frame it would be a "crossing" vessel approaching from port and, accordingly, in error.

In either case it's clear, even from a few seconds of film, that both helmsman should have observed a CBDR situation (but given what I've observed with power boats, I bet 10 bucks that one or both helmsmen didn't even notice the other).

The foregoing not withstanding, if either yacht turns to starboard (supposedly per Rule 14) as suggested by some, above, the boats will be in a worsened crossing situation--i.e. they will both be turning across a "threat axis"--but still with decreasing range.

If one chooses to be sea lawyerly about it, at that point Rule 15 unequivocably dictates:

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.

Maybe ship handling has changed since my younger daze but we were trained to always turn away from, not into, a threat axis, i.e., in this case, to port pass parallel to one another's threat axis on opposit courses.

But what do I know--other than conning officers make lousy sea lawyers but sea lawyers make even worse conning officers.

FWIW...

s/v HyLyte

[Chief Engineer]

If they both turn to starboard yhey will be turning away///passing port to port.



To confuse things more...I have heard sailing instuctors say "Tiller towards trouble"

[svHyLyte]

After re-viewing the video (too late to edit my own post, above, however), it seems that the situation was always such that Rule 15 would have been applicable, in which case the larger yacht (approaching from the smaller's "port side") should have avoided the smaller by passing to its stern, which would have involved it turning to starboard and passing astern of the smaller, which correctly, according to the Rule at least, held its course and speed.

N'any case, regardless of the applicable rule, better to err on the side of caution. One advantage of a sailboat is that situations develop a little more slowly.

FWIW...

[starfish62]

Originally Posted by David M

I was wondering what gormless meant. Now I feel edified.

gormless definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

Your philological perspicacity is most edifying!

[Pete the Cat]

I am with Lodesman here. This is a crossing situation as it is not head on. The vessel from which the video is shot is the give way (unless he is--has been mentioned before--he is restricted by draft from moving out of the channel, in which case he would have to be flying an appropriate shape to claim that right.). Also, both were obligated to avoid a collision and there was no apparent reason not to do so. My guess is that both were on autopilot and thinking the other would give way. I have observed this tendency with the proliferation of bigger boats to dumber people with too many gadgets and inadequate training. And we wonder why insurance rates are high.

[imagine2frolic]

A perfectly clear day with flat water. They should have NEVER even gotten close to eachother. As I posted earlier. There's a lot of stupid going on there by both vessels...i2f

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by David M

Rule 14

(a) Unless otherwise agreed [Inld] When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. (b)Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/ [Intl] or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
(c)When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

There is doubt as to whether this is a meeting or crossing situation, therefore it is considered a meeting situation and both vessels failed to take proper action.

Both vessels broke both rules.

What "doubt" is there? From the video you can only see the port bow of the smaller boat - you cannot see any part of the starboard side. And from the aspect it's apparent that from the smaller boat, only the starboard bow of the larger was visible. To be "head-on" you both need to be within 5 degrees of the other's bow.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Tempest245

The stand on vessel has the responsibility to "maintain course and speed"....until the Oh **** rule takes effect......which should be in sufficient time to avoid collision..

Time to re-read rule 17 (specifically sub-para a(ii)) - he could have taken action as soon as it was apparent the other wasn't taking timely action (before the 'oh ****' rule necessitating action comes into effect). It should be noted that rule 17 advises against turning to port for a vessel on one's port bow.