Ferry And Powerboat Collide

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Would you mind elaborating? I thought the port/starboard, power/sail, overtaking rules applied at sea. I would be stunned if you can show me where they don't. Are you truly saying that the concepts of "burdened" and "privileged" don't apply?

Yes -- I am saying that, but I'm not sure you took what I said in the way I intended.

I mean that standing-on is not a "privilege" -- it's on the contrary an obligation to take certain action during a certain phase of a risk of collision situation.

Both vessels are in fact burdened -- both have obligations. No vessel ever has any kind of "privilege".

Calling it "privilege" and "burden" is deeply misleading, and that is why these terms were banished from the Rules.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

True, the "right of way" terminology does not appear in the regs, but the *concepts* of "burdened" and "privileged" have to apply. The rules use the terms "give way" and "stand on", but I think the meaning is the same.

So, Dockhead, are you saying that there is a practical difference in meaning between "give way" and "burdened", or "stand on" and "privileged"?

Yes, I'm saying exactly that -- and in fact there's a big practical difference in meaning. Please see the previous posts, and the article text. Cheers.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

The concepts in your second sentence certainly do apply. They are the fundamentals of COLREGS.

"Burdened" and "Privileged" are a different matter entirely. It's not a matter whether they "apply", it's a matter of whether those words are relevant or applicable.

There is certainly no "privilege" anywhere . Only an obligation to maintain course and speed.

"Burdened" in my experience means obligated to take action (i.e. the "give way vessel". The problem is that doesn't have an official definition

The fact that there are several conflicting interpretations of "burdened" from different posters in this thread clearly demonstrates the problem with using such undefined terms.

It is much better to avoid such nebulous expressions and just follow the COLREGS:

"one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:"

"Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed."

These are normally paraphrased to the clearly understood and equivalent "give way vessel" and "stand on vessel" with no suggestion that either vessel has "rights" or "privileges".

Exactly so.

Putting my lawyer hat on (after wiping the dust off of course ):

"Burdened" has a concrete legal meaning -- it means you have an obligation.

"Privileged" likewise has a concrete legal meaning -- it means you are the beneficiary of someone else's obligation.


And this is totally wrong in a COLREGS situation -- both vessels are always "burdened"; and no vessel is ever "privileged" -- speaking in a technical, legal way.

[a64pilot]

It takes a Lawyer, to understand Law

[TJ D]

Here is a link that explains rule 9 and 10's relevance here to this situation. For regulatory purposes the powerboat in question falls under rule 10, and 9 also applies.

Apologies to the poster who found my post to be nonsense. Perhaps the USCG can explain it better.

http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

Bottom line, it was incumbent on the pleasure boat to keep clear. The ferry still shouldn't have hit him, however.
But, the initial fault is very much the pleasure boat's.

TJ

[rolandcavanagh]

Does anyone know for a fact how long it takes to make the mechanical changeover from propulsion in one direction to the other in these ferries? It may be that the ferry Captain initiated the reversing process well before the video starts, and the only evidence we can see is after the ferry has slowed sufficiently to not overrun its propwash.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TJ D

Here is a link that explains rule 9 and 10's relevance here to this situation. For regulatory purposes the powerboat in question falls under rule 10, and 9 also applies.

Apologies to the poster who found my post to be nonsense. Perhaps the USCG can explain it better.

http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

Bottom line, it was incumbent on the pleasure boat to keep clear. The ferry still shouldn't have hit him, however.
But, the initial fault is very much the pleasure boat's.

TJ

I believe that a document was posted which showed that this particular channel is NOT a "narrow channel" for COLREGS purposes?

But even if Rule 9 applied in this case, Rule 9 is indeed not relevant to the obligations of both vessels once the risk of collision arose.


In the grander scheme, of course, the pleasure vessel should have kept well clear of commercial traffic operating over a predictable route using well-marked channels. I think everyone can agree about that. This would be required by Rule 2 even if Rule 9 did not apply. This would be considered as one factor in evaluating fault, but again, would not be considered in evaluating the appropriateness of either vessel's maneuvers once the risk of collision arose.


As to Rule 10 -- this applies only in TSS's, so completely irrelevant here.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by rolandcavanagh

Does anyone know for a fact how long it takes to make the mechanical changeover from propulsion in one direction to the other in these ferries? It may be that the ferry Captain initiated the reversing process well before the video starts, and the only evidence we can see is after the ferry has slowed sufficiently to not overrun its propwash.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

I'm going out on a limb here, but if it takes very long at all to go from one direction to the other, that would make docking difficult, and this on a vessel that is intended to dock very frequently, I would suspect that direction change is as fast as it is on our boats.
I'm betting he didn't throw it into reverse until just before the collision, possiblely about the time of the collision.

This is only speculation, and I doubt unless someone is familiar with that particular Ferry, they can answer for sure

[TJ D]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;2275468]I believe that a document was posted which showed that this particular channel is NOT a "narrow channel" for COLREGS purposes?

But even if Rule 9 applied in this case, Rule 9 is indeed not relevant to the obligations of both vessels once the risk of collision arose.


In the grander scheme, of course, the pleasure vessel should have kept well clear of commercial traffic operating over a predictable route using well-marked channels. I think everyone can agree about that. This would be required by Rule 2 even if Rule 9 did not apply. This would be considered as one factor in evaluating fault, but again, would not be considered in evaluating the appropriateness of either vessel's maneuvers once the risk of collision arose.


Below is a more comprehensive guide. See section 4 for the relevant rule.

https://www.uscg.mil/d13/psvts/docs/userman032503.pdf

I actually meant to say rule 10 initially, we were on the way to Southampton when this came up, and I didn't take the time to dig out colregs. I believe that rule 9 applies in the location of the incident as well, however.

I can't find it at the moment, but for the purposes of recreational boats, a ferry operating in the VTS area falls under the same rule as a vessel operating within the TSS. Recreational boats can't impede ferries. So, the TSS rules apply on the ferry routes too, as they are participating in the VTS system. Rule 10 is in effect. If one really wanted to assert that recreational boats aren't obligated to not impede ferries on Puget sound, a call to VTS would surely set them straight.

But, as I've stated all along, nobody has the right to hit anybody else. That was never my contention!

However, the pleasure boat should not have been there in the first place.

TJ

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TJ D

I actually meant to say rule 10 initially, we were on the way to Southampton when this came up, and I didn't take the time to dig out colregs. I believe that rule 9 applies in the location of the incident as well, however.

I can't find it at the moment, but for the purposes of recreational boats, a ferry operating in the VTS area falls under the same rule as a vessel operating within the TSS. Recreational boats can't impede ferries. So, the TSS rules apply on the ferry routes too, as they are participating in the VTS system. Rule 10 is in effect. If one really wanted to assert that recreational boats aren't obligated to not impede ferries on Puget sound, a call to VTS would surely set them straight.

But, as I've stated all along, nobody has the right to hit anybody else. That was never my contention!

However, the pleasure boat should not have been there in the first place.

TJ

Anything about VTS areas will be local rules, and not COLREGS. I don't know the local rules in Puget Sound -- never sailed there.

I agree whole-heartedly with your last sentence!

Just be sure to drill a little deeper than that. One of your posts stated that this rule governs the whole situation -- but it does not. As a couple of people on here have stated (Stu and Lodesman and maybe others) -- once you have a risk of collision, Rule 9 is out the window, and you have to follow the normal steering and sailing rules.

That applies to the ferry as well as to the pleasure boat. Unfortunate for the ferry, as clearly the pleasure boat should not have been there in the first place, as you correctly state!



Totally off topic -- are you out sailing? I'm going out tomorrow, maybe to Weymouth -- the weather is wonderful! Gentle South breeze and 12 degrees! We could meet up if you're out somewhere.

[TJ D]

Hi Dock,

I think that we all agree here. Perhaps I'm just having an inarticulate day. Of course 9 or 10 don't apply once there's risk of collision, and the ferry should of course not have hit the guy.

But, I'm also VERY sure that the initial obligation to keep clear was entirely on the pleasure boat.

Anyway, after running commercial boats in and out of Seattle for 20 years, as well as sailing there, this topic might have touched a nerve with me. I can't tell you how many times I've seen pleasure boats attempting to assert that they have the right of way over commercial boats in the area, including container ships doing 20 knots in the lanes. It's maddening to watch. How so many pleasure boaters remain ignorant of the rules, not to mention common sense, is quite something.

Anyway, I digress.

To your question, we just got back to the UK 2 days ago and put the boat back in the water-had her out for antifouling and some other service. I'm leaving again at the end of the month, so we probably won't go through the trouble to re-rig everything for a daysail. It's a big project to get the sails out from down below and re-run the running rigging. I'll probably hitch a ride with somebody else if I feel like going for a daysail...

After that, I'll be back in mid-march, and we'll leave for Scotland in April.

If you get bored sometime, let us know.

TJ

[SV DestinyAscen]

Thanks all for the excellent presentation of regs.

Now I can't escape the reality that I'm a dinosaur

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes -- I am saying that, but I'm not sure you took what I said in the way I intended.

I mean that standing-on is not a "privilege" -- it's on the contrary an obligation to take certain action during a certain phase of a risk of collision situation.

Both vessels are in fact burdened -- both have obligations. No vessel ever has any kind of "privilege".

Calling it "privilege" and "burden" is deeply misleading, and that is why these terms were banished from the Rules.

Now I understand your point.

I have always considered "privileged" and "burdened" to be terms of art in this context, and to have the exact meaning of "stand on" and "give way" in the current rules. I will agree that the newer terms are better if we suspect that the older terms may be misinterpreted.

[nigel1]

I think part of the problem here is the local by-laws which require boats to maintain a separation of at least 100m from a ferry which is underway.
Thats going to leave the Master or the mate of the ferry wondering if that pleasure boat is going to leave it until the last minute before making an avoiding manoeuvre.

If they don't make that manoeuvre, then a 100m separation is not going to leave a lot of wriggle room for the ferry.

When I took large tugs into Rotterdam, especially during the summer and on weekends when the water way was really crowded, I'd make sure that I kept the speed down, because in a lot of situation's in congested narrow waters, taking the way off is usually the best bet to avoid collision with.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by TJ D

But, I'm also VERY sure that the initial obligation to keep clear was entirely on the pleasure boat.

You keep saying this, and claim that Rule 10 TSS rules apply in most/all cases to WA State ferries. However, we have the memo from the USCG Puget Sound VTS Director saying otherwise in pretty plain language: http://ptyc.net/wp-content/uploads/D...r-Ferries-.pdf

Care to comment on this?