Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I think you mean "towards" the oncoming vessel. "At"
might open another legal discussion.

Not necessarily. Hence the big grin.

Nothing gets attention like a warning shot between the eyes.

[jmorrison146]

I found out today that an old shipmate, a retired CWO4 Bosun, is working in the USCG Headquarters office that owns the NAVRULS. Just let me know if you have any suggested changes and I'll see what I can do.

[Adelie]

What are NAVRULS? Is this just bureaucratese for COLREGS? Those set by international treaty and the don’t like changing them.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

I found out today that an old shipmate, a retired CWO4 Bosun, is working in the USCG Headquarters office that owns the NAVRULS. Just let me know if you have any suggested changes and I'll see what I can do.

Suggest you do a bit of research on the origin and the international standing of COLREGs and the way they are legislated by the signatory countries to the Convention.

Maybe google: "Articles of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 ".




Added: Actually, just read the first paragraph of the Introduction to the US Navigation Rules (which I assume is what you are referring to).

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Cpt Mark

A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver is only for commercial vessels.

A USCG buoy tender (for example) isn't commercial. Some research vessels (another example) are probably also not commercial. Both of these could at times qualify as RAMs.

-Chris

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by StuM

A becalmed sailboat is in fact complying with COLREGs as stand on vessel - it is maintaining its course and speed Course: in accordance with any current, Speed: speed of any current.


Even if going sideways - Course is not the same as heading

Agreed, well at least up until the tide shifts and the current reverses and pushes the vessel towards another vessel and thus is no longer maintaining the original course and speed but instead maintaining a completely opposite course and speed, maybe even being underway aft first.

[seandepagnier]

You can avoid most collisions by calling ship on radio. It's easy to track ships with ais, so despite right of way or not, this is a simple way I already probably avoided a few collisions or what would have been very near pass. Before I did this, ships sometimes passed by just 100 meters.

Obviously two becalmed sailboats pose no threat to each other, so it is up to the powered vessel to avoid the sailboat in all cases.

Originally Posted by requiem

If you have no other means of propulsion fitted, then it would be wise to indicate that you are unable to move to avoid others.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, I see. With sails down, then it would have been useful after all to show NUC. Otherwise other vessels might be assuming that you have a working engine which you would use when necessary.

It is wrong to assume another vessel has an engine unless you observe it working, and even then, it can fail at any moment.

Originally Posted by requiem

If you do have an engine fitted, then you would be expected to use it.

I want to be clear that this statement is incorrect. You are never expected to use an engine, because you already have right of way being a sailing vessel.

If you claim the engine should be used in the last moment to prevent collision (at the fault of the powerboat), that is wrong too because, although I was sailing a boat the other day which had an engine, since I don't know how to even start the engine and never have used one, trying to use it for the first time might actually cause a collision.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

I found out today that an old shipmate, a retired CWO4 Bosun, is working in the USCG Headquarters office that owns the NAVRULS. Just let me know if you have any suggested changes and I'll see what I can do.

I strongly suggest that some of you get a sense of humor. This was meant entirely in jest. Lighten up.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

You can avoid most collisions by calling ship on radio. It's easy to track ships with ais, so despite right of way or not, this is a simple way I already probably avoided a few collisions or what would have been very near pass. Before I did this, ships sometimes passed by just 100 meters.

Obviously two becalmed sailboats pose no threat to each other, so it is up to the powered vessel to avoid the sailboat in all cases.



It is wrong to assume another vessel has an engine unless you observe it working, and even then, it can fail at any moment.


I want to be clear that this statement is incorrect. You are never expected to use an engine, because you already have right of way being a sailing vessel.

If you claim the engine should be used in the last moment to prevent collision (at the fault of the powerboat), that is wrong too because, although I was sailing a boat the other day which had an engine, since I don't know how to even start the engine and never have used one, trying to use it for the first time might actually cause a collision.

To clarify the apparent misunderstandings:

First, two becalmed sailing vessels are two vessels that are distinct navigation hazards. Actually, being twice the hazard of one becalmed sailing vessel. Becalmed sailing vessels [without or without functional engines] remain underway and can be IN THE WAY, of other vessels, or drift INTO THE WAY of other vessels, or DOWN ONTO other vessels.

There is NO such thing as having a right of way under the Colregs, i.e., rules of navigation. Stating that sailing vessels, or any other vessel, "have right of way" is a statement of ignorance of the COLREGs.

And you damn sure are expected to use an engine if you have an operational engine to properly maneuver your vessel so as to not be a hazard. You are always expected to use any and all means available to avoid collisions or allisions.

A becalmed sailing vessel that does NOT have an engine, or does NOT have an operational engine, is similar to a boat that is powered by an engine but whose engine is not operational or its propeller or rudder is not operational and thus such boat / ship would be considered a vessel that is classified as Not Under Command. If you have an engine that can operate you are expected to use such to propel your vessel so as to not be a hazard to other vessels. You are not allowed to chose to simply not use your engine when you have a functioning engine. And you are required to provide proper display of day signals and lights a night, and to use proper sound signals during periods of limited visibility to indicate that your vessel is of NUC status when becalmed with out a functional engine.

The failure to be knowledgeable about operating your vessel is definitely the basis for imposing liability for lack of proper seamanship. That is called negligence. You are proposing something like saying, "because I don't know how to apply the brakes on the car or truck which I am driving, I shouldn't be held responsible for not using them and thus not being held responsible for running into another car, or running over a pedestrian or running a stop sign or red light."

Similarly as to COLREGs, one is required to keep a lookout AT ALL TIMES [including while at anchor] and using ALL AVAILABLE MEANS, including AIS, RADAR, VHF radio communications, visual aids, sound aids, etc. One is required to use all available means and lack of knowledge of how to operate such means does not mitigate your responsibility to use such; you should know how to use each and every available means. There isn't a piece of technology that the vessel is equipped with, or practice of seapersonship that you are not to utilize or use at your discretion or laziness or ignorance.

As the saying goes:

IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE, AND NEGLECTING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Dang, talk about an accident waiting to happen.

Rant, 10-7.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorrison146 View Post
I found out today that an old shipmate, a retired CWO4 Bosun, is working in the USCG Headquarters office that owns the NAVRULS. Just let me know if you have any suggested changes and I'll see what I can do.


I strongly suggest that some of you get a sense of humor. This was meant entirely in jest. Lighten up.

Hi jmorrison, your post was just an example of Poe's Law at work and working well.

Recommend one use of an emoji so as to denote the use of humor / humour, so as to mitigate Poe's Law from being realized.

All's is good.

Tongue in Cheek. Wink, wink

Surely you jest!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

You can avoid most collisions by calling ship on radio. It's easy to track ships with ais, so despite right of way or not, this is a simple way I already probably avoided a few collisions or what would have been very near pass. Before I did this, ships sometimes passed by just 100 meters.

Obviously two becalmed sailboats pose no threat to each other, so it is up to the powered vessel to avoid the sailboat in all cases.



It is wrong to assume another vessel has an engine unless you observe it working, and even then, it can fail at any moment.


I want to be clear that this statement is incorrect. You are never expected to use an engine, because you already have right of way being a sailing vessel.

If you claim the engine should be used in the last moment to prevent collision (at the fault of the powerboat), that is wrong too because, although I was sailing a boat the other day which had an engine, since I don't know how to even start the engine and never have used one, trying to use it for the first time might actually cause a collision.

Wrong ,wrong and wrong. Three strikes you’re out.
Ignorance is no excuse, nobody has any such thing as “right of way,” maybe it’s time to read the rules.

Here’s a free copy ... have at it: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

You can avoid most collisions by calling ship on radio. It's easy to track ships with ais, so despite right of way or not, this is a simple way I already probably avoided a few collisions or what would have been very near pass. Before I did this, ships sometimes passed by just 100 meters.

Obviously two becalmed sailboats pose no threat to each other, so it is up to the powered vessel to avoid the sailboat in all cases.



It is wrong to assume another vessel has an engine unless you observe it working, and even then, it can fail at any moment.


I want to be clear that this statement is incorrect. You are never expected to use an engine, because you already have right of way being a sailing vessel.

If you claim the engine should be used in the last moment to prevent collision (at the fault of the powerboat), that is wrong too because, although I was sailing a boat the other day which had an engine, since I don't know how to even start the engine and never have used one, trying to use it for the first time might actually cause a collision.

So under this manner of thought: - I am handling or transporting a gun, it is loaded with a round in the chamber. It has a safety, but I don't know how to operate the safety or to remove the ammunition, thus I am not responsible for the gun discharging when I pull the trigger by accident or intentionally.

ARGHHH!!!!!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

I strongly suggest that some of you get a sense of humor. This was meant entirely in jest. Lighten up.

That's the problem with internet postings, and why smilies are so useful.

I've seen far worse posted in all seriousness.


I refer you to Poe's Law

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by StuM

Not necessarily. Hence the big grin.

Nothing gets attention like a warning shot between the eyes.

As I recall Donald M Street is reported as saying that he has shot a .45 onto the bridge (in the direction of the bridge?) of ships that did not appear to have see him on Iolaire.

[Cpt Pat]

This is my own personal taxonomy on Rules versus Laws:

Laws define fault, and apply to situations that end up in court. They are always applied to occurrences in the past.

Rules define responsibility, and apply to situations in the present or future.

The COLREGs are practical rules intended to avoid collisions by defining who does what in a conflicting situation - so those responding actions, or lack of actions, don't make the situation worse. They only become laws when someone runs into someone else.

The whole point is to maintain the COLREGs within the status of being just rules.

There are very similar rules that apply to collision avoidance when flying. Pilots don't often argue about laws because - once an occurrence comes under scrutiny of the courts - those pilots are nearly always dead.

Yes, the COLREGs are codified as laws. But I hope to never experience them in that fashion.