Courtesy when giving way

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

Dockhead probably has better information, but my quick perusal suggests two different definitions for 'in the blind'.

one would be an undirected call essentially to 'anyone listening' - in maritime usage a Sécurité call would be an example (this is obviously not 'Forbidden'). The FCC uses the non-tower aircraft calls (which has been discussed above) as their example.

the other would be a situation where you transmit to a specific target "without obtaining a receipt, or acknowledgment of reception, from the intended receiving station." (eg in maritime usage - without using the standard ch16 hailing procedure). This is wiki's definition (which unfortunately does not have any legal or official citations), and I suspect is DH's intended definition. But I still have not found any law which makes it 'Forbidden' (on 13, which has a different purpose than a hailing channel), and it is not uncommon on 13 without any (that I have ever heard) official criticism in many heavy commercial zones I have been in. These are places where the pilots and local captains often know each other's voices.

as an aside re other communication 'technique' - the usage of "5 shorts" varies by location - some places it is used rarely and other placed freely. SF bay happens to be a place where it is used relatively freely by the commercial vessels. Most of the local SF sailing instructions have a specific clause that if you get 5 shorts your racing is finished. My personal take, without having been there, is that in SF if the OP did not get 5 shorts, nor a vhf call, the bridge crew probably did not feel at risk of being impeded (but ofc without having been there it is difficult to know).

I'll give you the pedantic radiohead explanation of all of this later, when I'm back home with my books, so I can give you cites.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by StuM

No I meant do you think that there was even the slightest possibility that Wotname was being serious. His post was a blatant send up of the "Law of Gross Tonnage" showing just how ridiculous the whole concept is.

Originally Posted by roland stockham

I really really hope this is a joke but if not can you give a tonnage solution to the following situations.

A 50,000ton container ship travelling at 25kn in open coastal waters seas a fishing fleet of 6 vessels laying nets in 2 mile circles. Each pair currently has more than a mile of nets out but because they are of less displacement the containership is the stand on vessel?

Yes, container ship has right of way 'cause it's bigger

The same cargo ship sees a small coastal vessel ahead. It is showing day marks indicating restriction in manouvering but as the container ship is larger she continues on course and there is a collision with the cable the smaller ship was laying

Yes, container ship has right of way 'cause it's bigger

At night the container ship see red white red lights displayed with a green below and forward. There are 3 white light visible behind. Do you continue on course assuming the tug can get a couple of miles of unsteard tow our of you way?

Yes, container ship has right of way 'cause it's bigger

Laving a buisy rive entrance in a 50,000 ton tanker you meet two sister ships from your fleet coming in so you know each vessel is identical and all of you apear laden, what do you do? You will be dangerously close in 10min.

You get on the blower and determine which of the three of you is bigger!

You see a vessel ahead that looks as if it has similar tonnage to you so you call on DSC to assertain thier tonnage and the watch officer replies in Korean, after several min failing to communicate they go off to find an officer who speaks English, you are now so close to a collison that you both decide to make an emergency turn, you turn port, they turn starboard:banged:

The bigger guy is at fault because the bigger guy should not have made any emergency turn 'cause he had right of way.
All these have straight foward sollutions under coll regs!



There is a good rational behind the coll regs that has worked well for many years. Unfortunatly you ignore then at our peril as well as yours.

Yeah but the colregs are so complicated, there are 40 of them and written in lawyerspeak.
The ROGT is a simple sentence, a simpler concept and is understood even by illiterate seafarers. How good is that!

BIG little

BIG
little and






Oh, and refer also to post #69 & 72 for clarification

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

....
2 miles is in fact not 'very close' in say the Chesapeake Bay - or perhaps I should say that a different way - it is close for ship maneuvering but is almost unavoidable - in fact, the gap between ships is often rather less than 2nm.

not impede = take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel - right? I believe OP allowed sufficient sea room. His maneuvering created some doubt about his intentions - but 'some doubt' is (as I said above and I believe you agreed) sometimes unavoidable, and I believe (although happy to be educated) that 'not impeding' does not require 100% removal of 100% doubt (which is likely impossible).

I think you are right that 100% removal of doubt is impossible, but holding a collision course all the way to 2 miles out is at the opposite end of the spectrum and if definitely a violation of Rule 9. 2 miles out on a perpendicular course with the ship making 18 knots and the SV making 7 knots (say) is 10.33 minutes to impact, of 5.16 minutes until you are in a desperate close quarters situation. At 2 miles out, the ship's bridge is going to be desperately looking for a solution, getting ready to take way off or make a crash stop, which may take several minutes to initiate, unless they are just ignoring you and leaving you to your fate (imagine what that feels like -- killing a yachtsman could mean the end of your career). You have no right to do that.



Moreover, there is almost never any reason why you need to do that. Just head off until it's clear you're not on a collision course. All you need is a slowly changing bearing. How hard is that?

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

As an aside, practically speaking, the ships are actually not going to, pretty much not ever, maneuver for a sailing vessel out of the lane - no matter how much doubt and concern they have. They risk going aground and risk screwing up the tight dance between the other ships. They will really only ever attempt to maneuver if there is a sailing vessel right in the lane right in their path

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

......

It depends on the crew. Some, especially in waters very crowded with rec vessels, take the view that they won't be able to deal with it anyway and so just carry on, laying on the 5 blasts from time to time. But this is risky (and illegal). By the time the rec vessel is "right in the lane right in their path" it's too late. So most I think follow normal procedures and try to prevent what look like developing collisions following normal COLREGS procedures, which they are legally obligated to follow anyway. In the Solent, where I was based for 9 winters, densely packed with huge fleets of sailboats and with two major commercial/military harbours, this is such a problem that local regulations had to be implemented creating moving security zones around commercial vessels, and the Soton Harbourmaster cutters escort most commercial vessels through the Solent and chase sailboats away when they get too close to channels with ships coming down them.



I'm sure you've seen this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI

This took place in the Solent less than a cable from my winter mooring. The sailboat skipper was criminally prosecuted.

[roland stockham]

Originally Posted by StuM

No I meant do you think that there was even the slightest possibility that Wotname was being serious. His post was a blatant send up of the "Law of Gross Tonnage" showing just how ridiculous the whole concept is.

Ok, put that down to the internet, I always have problems understanding what people intend when i can't see them.i

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I waited until the range had closed to 2 nm because, in the sea state, my AIS CPA solutions were wildly erratic, varying from 3 miles to 0.0 miles at the distance of initial acquisition (15 nm). GPS-derived CPA solutions are greatly affected by both sea-induced surge and sway. The smaller the vessel (and its mass), the greater the effect. The CPA solution deviations gradually resolved as the target vessel came closer aboard.

Dockhead beat me to it, but it should be reiterated - AIS is but one tool in the box; you should have taken bearings to determine if risk of collision actually existed. I have found that less-experienced watchkeepers tend to close on a steady bearing to some arbitrary range, then make a bold visible alteration. There are some situations that require this sort of approach (heavy traffic, bends in channels, etc.) but in open ocean it makes no sense. Particularly in your case, where the "not impede" regime is in effect. That requirement to not impede precedes the "risk of collision" regime. That is to say, that when you initially became aware of the vessel in the traffic lane at 15NM, the onus was upon you as a sailing vessel, to not impede him. Practicality then required a period of closing to make a determination of risk of collision, but once it became clear you should have taken action. Once the range between you had decreased to 6-8NM, you would be in the "risk of collision" regime, which would have put the onus on the other vessel to give way to you in accordance with rule 18. This is a delicate balance for a vessel that is not to be impeded. By the time you had closed that distance to 2NM, it is very likely that he would be in the process of taking action to avoid you. The additional advantage for you in making the alteration earlier, given the conditions and hazards you mentioned, is that you would not be required to make a huge alteration - rounding up or falling off a bit, just until the bearing of the other vessel was positively moving, would have been sufficient and seamanlike.

[roland stockham]

Replying to Dockheads example of the Solent. Know exactly what you mean (I took my skippers ticket there) and it can look like chaos. Fortunatly there are very few places in the world like that. I also remember the incident in the video. I am not sure you are right about why the moving exclusion zone was brought into effect though. My understanding was that it was not a variation to coll regs but a response to people ignoring them. Those ships are in a designated chanel within a port area controlled by port traffic regs. I understood the moving zone and escourts were to enforce complience with the existing rules not to create new ones.
There is I suggest another set of rules that apply to that incident, identified by Dawin!!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

Dockhead probably has better information, but my quick perusal suggests two different definitions for 'in the blind'.

one would be an undirected call essentially to 'anyone listening' - in maritime usage a Sécurité call would be an example (this is obviously not 'Forbidden'). The FCC uses the non-tower aircraft calls (which has been discussed above) as their example.

the other would be a situation where you transmit to a specific target "without obtaining a receipt, or acknowledgment of reception, from the intended receiving station." (eg in maritime usage - without using the standard ch16 hailing procedure). This is wiki's definition (which unfortunately does not have any legal or official citations), and I suspect is DH's intended definition. But I still have not found any law which makes it 'Forbidden' (on 13, which has a different purpose than a hailing channel), and it is not uncommon on 13 without any (that I have ever heard) official criticism in many heavy commercial zones I have been in. These are places where the pilots and local captains often know each other's voices.

as an aside re other communication 'technique' - the usage of "5 shorts" varies by location - some places it is used rarely and other placed freely. SF bay happens to be a place where it is used relatively freely by the commercial vessels. Most of the local SF sailing instructions have a specific clause that if you get 5 shorts your racing is finished. My personal take, without having been there, is that in SF if the OP did not get 5 shorts, nor a vhf call, the bridge crew probably did not feel at risk of being impeded (but ofc without having been there it is difficult to know).

OK, so here's the legalistic radio nerd stuff.


U.S. vessels and vessels operating in U.S. waters are subject to the FCC rules in 47 CFR Part 80. These rules have the force of law. These say among other things that U.S. vessels and vessels operating in U.S. waters are obligated to comply with all of the international rules which the U.S. has signed up to, which will include the ITU Radio Regulations and various IMO rules. 47 CFR §80.86.


The required operating procedures for maritime radio stations are contained in Chapter IX of the Radio Rules and in the ITU's Rec. ITU-R M.1171, Annex 1, which can be found here:


The cited Recommendation was implemented and made part of the ITU Radio Rules by Chapter IX Art. 57 Sec. 1 of the Radio Rules.


Section III of this and various sections of Chapter IX have the radiotelephony operating procedures. This makes somewhat tedious reading, but to summarize those points relevant to this discussion:


1. Listen for 30 seconds to make sure the channel is free.
2. Establish contact by calling in the manner required and waiting for a reply.
3. When the reply has been received, move immediately to a working channel.
4. Pass your message and wait for an acknowledgement.
5. Every time you transmit, identify your own station and the calling station.


But we all know all this, don't we? It's not rocket science.



The essential point is to be sure you are talking with the right vessel and to be sure that your message has been received and understood. In the situation described in the first post in this thread, the ship would be required to start to maneuver about this time -- only 5 minutes from close quarters. Changing course without being sure that you have actually agreed some different passing arrangement could be very dangerous. There is no agreement if you haven't even received any reply from the other vessel to your proposal that you will do the maneuvering.



Note well that if you are under sail, the ship will be REQUIRED to give way once a risk of collision has arisen, even though you are obligated by Rule 9 and have already violated it, and even before he doubts your intentions triggering Rule 17(a)(ii). That is because your being obligated to not impede under Rule 9 does NOT indeed make him the stand-on vessel. One more reason why it is essential to do your "not impeding" early enough, way earlier than this as Lodesman said, that you don't put the ship into a position that he needs to start giving way or even starts preparing to do so.

[DuncanWells]

In open waters following the IRPCS should suffice. Big ships do give way to sailing boats when they are the give way vessel. I did get frightfully hot under the collar one night when an extremely large oil tanker, flashed a very bright light at me for several seconds until I saw his high white aft start to come into line with his low white forward and realised that he was giving way and going astern of me. Flashing his bright searchlight at me was his way of telling me he was giving way. In confined waters where Narrow Channels and Precautionary Areas abound I will, keep well out of their way. Radio communication is not part of the IRPCS. And of course if I see that the give way vessel is not giving way then it is up to me as the stand on vessel to make such action as to avoid a collision at all costs.

Duncan Wells - Stress Free Sailing

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Dockhead beat me to it, but it should be reiterated - AIS is but one tool in the box; you should have taken bearings to determine if risk of collision actually existed. I have found that less-experienced watchkeepers tend to close on a steady bearing to some arbitrary range, then make a bold visible alteration. There are some situations that require this sort of approach (heavy traffic, bends in channels, etc.) but in open ocean it makes no sense. Particularly in your case, where the "not impede" regime is in effect. That requirement to not impede precedes the "risk of collision" regime. That is to say, that when you initially became aware of the vessel in the traffic lane at 15NM, the onus was upon you as a sailing vessel, to not impede him. Practicality then required a period of closing to make a determination of risk of collision, but once it became clear you should have taken action. Once the range between you had decreased to 6-8NM, you would be in the "risk of collision" regime, which would have put the onus on the other vessel to give way to you in accordance with rule 18. This is a delicate balance for a vessel that is not to be impeded. By the time you had closed that distance to 2NM, it is very likely that he would be in the process of taking action to avoid you. The additional advantage for you in making the alteration earlier, given the conditions and hazards you mentioned, is that you would not be required to make a huge alteration - rounding up or falling off a bit, just until the bearing of the other vessel was positively moving, would have been sufficient and seamanlike.

Just to add a small point to this excellent post:


A risk of collision is deemed to exist whenever there is any doubt about it -- Rule 7 (a). So if your CPA reading from AIS is bouncing around because of sea conditions, and you can't perceive that the bearing is changing -- that is, if there is any doubt about whether the bearing is changing -- then you must act as if there is a risk of collision. You must not say to yourself "maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I'll just get plowing on until I get within 2 miles of him, then I can tell better." This is unseamanlike and a violation of Rule 9. At the moment you are close enough to start evaluating the risk of collision -- generally at least 10 miles -- if there is any doubt that you may be on a collision course, and you are under Rule 9 or 10, then THAT is the time to alter course, right then, unless there is some objective reason why you can't (other traffic, obstacles, etc.). As Lodesman said, at that kind of distance, a very small alteration may be enough to create a clearly changing bearing, and then you have resolved the situation and are not bothering the ship. Forget about the AIS CPA readout if it's unstable -- look at the bearing.


Another tip: it's just a matter of geometry that a given rate of change of the bearing, represents a bigger CPA, at longer distances (and at close distances and/or with regard to a very large vessel, you can't rely on a slowly changing bearing to indicate safety -- Rule 7(ii)). So at 10 miles or even 7 or 8 miles, a definitely changing bearing even slowly but definitely, indicates safety. When you're under Rule 9 or 10 you should never approach a ship on a constant bearing or a bearing which you can't definitely perceive to be changing, unless you absolutely have no choice for some reason. Because you will force him to regard you as a threat, divert attention to you, then prepare to maneuver in case it looks like you're not going to maneuver, and at 2 miles after you've been holding a collision course, he must assume you are not going to maneuver. All of this is impeding him.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by roland stockham

. . . There is I suggest another set of rules that apply to that incident, identified by Dawin!!

tee hee.


Indeed. But the incident also shows that it is hard to judge crossings with ships by eye. You usually can't just dodge out of the way in close quarters as many assume. Small yachts can change course rapidly but they move slowly. So the idea that we are so "manueverable" is an illusion. In fact with a big difference in speed we become, at a surprisingly long distance, sitting ducks, unable to get out of the way, no matter how quickly we can change course, because we simply can't cover enough distance to get out of the cone of danger, in the time we have. 2 miles may be only 10 minutes from impact at typical speeds for a perpendicular crossing, and can be dramatically less if the vessels are approaching from fine on each other's bows. Not understanding this is a typical WAFI mistake.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Yeah but the colregs are so complicated, there are 40 of them and written in lawyerspeak.
The ROGT is a simple sentence, a simpler concept and is understood even by illiterate seafarers. How good is that!

BIG little

BIG
little and






Oh, and refer also to post #69 & 72 for clarification

It is better to have it written out in an unambiguous way as possible (lawyerspeak?) and be a usable, universal system that works, than to be written in babytalk or "Simple English" so everyone can think they understand, but have a system that does not work well. The Rules as written are very dry reading and require an analytical mind sometimes, but nobody has come up with a more perfect or less imperfect system so far. Anyone can propose changes. Anyone who thinks he can do better, should maybe give it a go.



It would be wonderful if it was easy to achieve a perfect understanding of the rules. The reality is that it is not that easy at all. It is pretty easy to memorize a few basic mnemonics like "red over red, captain is dead" or "green over white, trawling at night" or "show him red and go ahead" and stuff like that, and have an imperfect grasp of the most basic concepts. As you delve deeper into what seems to be a kabalah of mystical esoterica, it gets harder. Too bad. It is what it is. Nobody has ever been excused from knowing and following the Rules, by any court in the world, and nobody ever will. Far too many boaters don't take this seriously because nobody is forcing them to learn. There is no accountability until a catastrophe is being sorted out by the relevant authorities. The lawyers and adjusters know the Rules and they will gut and flay you with them if you haven't followed them. That is, if you are still alive.


Semantics are everything. Just the difference between "may" and "shall" take on life changing importance in The Rules. So, simply reading through, which is a useful learning tool, is not enough. Study, THINKING, reading respected commentary and explanation, are very important. A class is merely a beginning. This is essentially your Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, all rolled up into one. Until you learn to think of The Rules in that context, you are not going to follow them as they are intended to be followed.



As a young AB I was steering a large car carrier up the Solent once and the pilot related a story of how he ran over and killed two yachtsmen in broad daylight and near perfect visibility. The area around the Isle of Wight can be very congested with sailboats at times. Lots of those boats are skippered by knowledgeable and prudent sailors. Some by ignorant imbeciles who are motivated only by instant gratification and maybe a touch of self preservation. Some few are blatantly careless or deliberately reckless, or at least appear to be by their actions.



A small sloop was headed toward the channel and it was a "constant bearing, decreasing range" situation. The pilot was piloting another car carrier in to Southampton and could not safely navigate outside the marked channel. The sailboat kept coming. The pilot had Dead Slow rang up, then All Stop, then Dead Slow Astern. Due to the way on the ship, it took a lot of start air to get the engine to start again in reverse. (usually a large ship is direct drive, no reversing gear, and the engine is stopped and restarted in the opposite rotational direction for Astern bells.) So, the ship keeps way on for a considerable time. Of course 5 blasts had been sounded several times. VHF was all but useless due to massive traffic. The ship did slow enough and quickly enough that the sailboat should have crossed ahead if conditions had allowed. However, the sailboat sailed into the lee of the ship and lost way. The house was set back aft of its usual forward location on a car carrier and so there was an even larger zone of invisibility than usual. The two guys onboard panicked and bailed. The boat never touched the ship. It surfed down the bow wave and clear of the ship. The two idiots drowned and so were not around to explain their actions or what they were thinking.



As I less than perfectly recall the story all these decades later, there was an outboard mounted on the transom of the sailboat but investigators found it to be in marginal operating condition. It would seem that the pilot violated the Rules in not maintaining course and speed but closer study of the Rules reveals that the stand on vessel may take action when the give way vessels actions or intentions are in doubt, and MUST take action when action of the give way vessel alone can no longer prevent collision. Then there is the whole thing about "not impeding". If your actions prompt the large vessel in the channel to take action to avoid you, you are impeding. So there are layers and layers of required actions, permissible actions, and accountability there. Sometimes the required action is no action at all. But all parties are responsible in some way for ensuring that collision does not occur and that The Rules are adhered to.



The pilot further related how he took the commodore and another senior member out with him on a job. Both were amazed at how much differently things look from a ship's bridge than the helm of a sailboat, and were appropriately terrified by how little the ship could do in a close quarters situation with one or multiple small boats tacking and gybing about helter skelter. They learned firsthand how difficult everyone's job is when there are "WAFI's" about who don't know the Rules or who think they know them or don't understand how the situation looks from a ship's bridge or even another yacht.



There is one sure way to avoid a collision, even when you don't know The Rules. Keep the boat in her slip. And that is exactly what a boater should do, until he knows The Rules. Boating can be fun, but that doesn't mean it is a game.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

It is better to have it written out in an unambiguous way as possible (lawyerspeak?) and be a usable, universal system that works, than to be written in babytalk or "Simple English" so everyone can think they understand, but have a system that does not work well. The Rules as written are very dry reading and require an analytical mind sometimes, but nobody has come up with a more perfect or less imperfect system so far. Anyone can propose changes. Anyone who thinks he can do better, should maybe give it a go.

It would be wonderful if it was easy to achieve a perfect understanding of the rules. The reality is that it is not that easy at all. It is pretty easy to memorize a few basic mnemonics like "red over red, captain is dead" or "green over white, trawling at night" or "show him red and go ahead" and stuff like that, and have an imperfect grasp of the most basic concepts. As you delve deeper into what seems to be a kabalah of mystical esoterica, it gets harder. Too bad. It is what it is. Nobody has ever been excused from knowing and following the Rules, by any court in the world, and nobody ever will. Far too many boaters don't take this seriously because nobody is forcing them to learn. There is no accountability until a catastrophe is being sorted out by the relevant authorities. The lawyers and adjusters know the Rules and they will gut and flay you with them if you haven't followed them. That is, if you are still alive.

Semantics are everything. Just the difference between "may" and "shall" take on life changing importance in The Rules. So, simply reading through, which is a useful learning tool, is not enough. Study, THINKING, reading respected commentary and explanation, are very important. A class is merely a beginning. This is essentially your Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, all rolled up into one. Until you learn to think of The Rules in that context, you are not going to follow them as they are intended to be followed.

As a young AB I was steering a large car carrier up the Solent once and the pilot related a story of how he ran over and killed two yachtsmen in broad daylight and near perfect visibility. The area around the Isle of Wight can be very congested with sailboats at times. Lots of those boats are skippered by knowledgeable and prudent sailors. Some by ignorant imbeciles who are motivated only by instant gratification and maybe a touch of self preservation. Some few are blatantly careless or deliberately reckless, or at least appear to be by their actions.

A small sloop was headed toward the channel and it was a "constant bearing, decreasing range" situation. The pilot was piloting another car carrier in to Southampton and could not safely navigate outside the marked channel. The sailboat kept coming. The pilot had Dead Slow rang up, then All Stop, then Dead Slow Astern. Due to the way on the ship, it took a lot of start air to get the engine to start again in reverse. (usually a large ship is direct drive, no reversing gear, and the engine is stopped and restarted in the opposite rotational direction for Astern bells.) So, the ship keeps way on for a considerable time. Of course 5 blasts had been sounded several times. VHF was all but useless due to massive traffic. The ship did slow enough and quickly enough that the sailboat should have crossed ahead if conditions had allowed. However, the sailboat sailed into the lee of the ship and lost way. The house was set back aft of its usual forward location on a car carrier and so there was an even larger zone of invisibility than usual. The two guys onboard panicked and bailed. The boat never touched the ship. It surfed down the bow wave and clear of the ship. The two idiots drowned and so were not around to explain their actions or what they were thinking.

As I less than perfectly recall the story all these decades later, there was an outboard mounted on the transom of the sailboat but investigators found it to be in marginal operating condition. It would seem that the pilot violated the Rules in not maintaining course and speed but closer study of the Rules reveals that the stand on vessel may take action when the give way vessels actions or intentions are in doubt, and MUST take action when action of the give way vessel alone can no longer prevent collision. Then there is the whole thing about "not impeding". If your actions prompt the large vessel in the channel to take action to avoid you, you are impeding. So there are layers and layers of required actions, permissible actions, and accountability there. Sometimes the required action is no action at all. But all parties are responsible in some way for ensuring that collision does not occur and that The Rules are adhered to.

The pilot further related how he took the commodore and another senior member out with him on a job. Both were amazed at how much differently things look from a ship's bridge than the helm of a sailboat, and were appropriately terrified by how little the ship could do in a close quarters situation with one or multiple small boats tacking and gybing about helter skelter. They learned firsthand how difficult everyone's job is when there are "WAFI's" about who don't know the Rules or who think they know them or don't understand how the situation looks from a ship's bridge or even another yacht.

There is one sure way to avoid a collision, even when you don't know The Rules. Keep the boat in her slip. And that is exactly what a boater should do, until he knows The Rules. Boating can be fun, but that doesn't mean it is a game.

Best post of the entire thread! A superbly formulated argument against the common but harmful idea that the Rules are complicated and "legalistic"; better to just be "practical" and apply "common sense".

[slug]

Don’t even get close to commercial traffic , stay out of shipping channels and navigate in the small craft channel

Cross shipping channels at right angles when traffic is clear

Bridge to bridge vhf whenever a crossing will be one mile or less inshore
4 miles of less offshore

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

legalistic radio nerd stuff.

1. Listen for 30 seconds to make sure the channel is free.
2. Establish contact by calling in the manner required and waiting for a reply.
3. When the reply has been received, move immediately to a working channel.
4. Pass your message and wait for an acknowledgement.
5. Every time you transmit, identify your own station and the calling station.

.......

A risk of collision is deemed to exist whenever there is any doubt about it

.....

sigh

the whole first comment is misdirection - that is simply the ch16 hailing procedure - does not address the specific point - if it was that simple then (as a stupid but obvious example) a Sécurité call would be forbidden.

and the whole second set of comments would make sailing around SF and such places impossible if interpreted in an absolutist fashion. The bridge crew of a vessel in SF (and other similar places) WILL have concerns and doubts, it is simply unavoidable. But we all make it work because of the opportunity for practical real-world flexibility and judgment built into the rules.

Anyway . . . . does not seem worthwhile to continue.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think you are right that 100% removal of doubt is impossible, but holding a collision course all the way to 2 miles out is at the opposite end of the spectrum and if definitely a violation of Rule 9. 2 miles out on a perpendicular course with the ship making 18 knots and the SV making 7 knots (say) is 10.33 minutes to impact, of 5.16 minutes until you are in a desperate close quarters situation. At 2 miles out, the ship's bridge is going to be desperately looking for a solution, getting ready to take way off or make a crash stop, which may take several minutes to initiate, unless they are just ignoring you and leaving you to your fate (imagine what that feels like -- killing a yachtsman could mean the end of your career). You have no right to do that.



Moreover, there is almost never any reason why you need to do that. Just head off until it's clear you're not on a collision course. All you need is a slowly changing bearing. How hard is that?






It depends on the crew. Some, especially in waters very crowded with rec vessels, take the view that they won't be able to deal with it anyway and so just carry on, laying on the 5 blasts from time to time. But this is risky (and illegal). By the time the rec vessel is "right in the lane right in their path" it's too late. So most I think follow normal procedures and try to prevent what look like developing collisions following normal COLREGS procedures, which they are legally obligated to follow anyway. In the Solent, where I was based for 9 winters, densely packed with huge fleets of sailboats and with two major commercial/military harbours, this is such a problem that local regulations had to be implemented creating moving security zones around commercial vessels, and the Soton Harbourmaster cutters escort most commercial vessels through the Solent and chase sailboats away when they get too close to channels with ships coming down them.



I'm sure you've seen this video:

This took place in the Solent less than a cable from my winter mooring. The sailboat skipper was criminally prosecuted.

ANOTHER one. LOL! Every generation has to learn it all over again. Or maybe it is every Cowes Week. At least that guy lived to face the music.



On a ship one quickly learns that it is impossible to predict the actions of most small boats anyway, so yeah, normal procedure is to assume that the small boat will do the right thing or at least act in the interest of self preservation. In pilotage waters, in a narrow channel, (narrow according to the rules, which is not defined LOL) this is actually not really a departure from The Rules. As stand on vessel the requirement to act only occurs when it is no longer possible to avoid collision by the other vessel's actions alone. In fact the requirement to not impede and the presumed inability of the ship to navigate outside the channel put the whole stand on and give way thing into a different layer of meaning and importance. You cannot be required to do what you are not able to do.



In open ocean waters it is perfectly normal for a ship to give way to a sailboat. Typically any course change is done as soon as the yacht is visible and proper action required to maintain suitable CPA is determined. Changing course for another ship is typically done at 10 miles range, or when the other ship becomes visible ("in sight of one another" is a keyword here). Voyaging sailboats actually crossing an ocean behave in a normal and predictable manner, unlike weekend warriors out for a bit of wind and spray. Also it is usually understood (I have had to teach a few Mates this) that it is possible that nobody is awake on the sailboat. Shock and disbelief and even indignation are common initial reactions, but guys who have been around know that right or wrong, it happens. No skin off our nose, when there is plenty of sea room. Just remember, I am talking about U.S. flag ships with U.S. crews. There are some few ships where nobody is awake, too, LOL. Worst time for this is when the 4 to 8 comes up and relieves, has a coffee, and then settles into another boring watch. From 0430 to about 0530 seems to be really bad for this. This is why U.S. flag ships have two men on the bridge and also a dead man alarm.