Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[DtM]

Having got himself in the situation he could have stopped racing and putting his crew's lives at risk by turning on his motor and dropping his spinnaker.

In reverse for 2 minutes at 6knots he could have been 400 yards away !!!

He was an idiot and hope was all he had.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by DtM

Having got himself in the situation he could have stopped racing and putting his crew's lives at risk by turning on his motor and dropping his spinnaker.

In reverse for 2 minutes at 6knots he could have been 400 yards away !!!

Honestly at the end it was not that easy. In what direction do you want him to motor in reverse? Dead aft still puts him in the potential future course of the ship (if it makes a wide turn).. He just simply was in a wide cone where every direction for several hundred meters was in the potential path of the vessel. At the end he was just potentially screwed no matter what he did.

We know now, after the fact, that he could have stayed to port and stayed clear . . . But he did not know that at the time. What he needed to do was at 4mins/1.3nm to take a course that gave the ship more room - a wider gybe to starboard sailing along the edge of the protected boundary.

But it's an interesting and relevant case for this thread. We have mostly been discussing cases with several ships and one yacht (the classic channel crossing situation), but this was a several yachts and one ship. The ship did in fact have some (limited) room sea room to maneuver (it in fact did maneuver to avoid the small power boat). But the sail boat was found guilty of impeding.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Mmmmm . . . . There is another thread about a collision (between a yacht and a ship) at cowes race week, where the skipper has just been found guilty of impeding.

I read the article and noted he was tried in Magistrate's Court. AFAIK, the "Admiralty Court" is part of the Queen's Bench or High Court, so he was not actually tried by a colreg expert. The article noted the judge was a lifelong sailor who cruised a Bav 36. It seemed to me also that beyond "impeding" the sailor was guilty of infracting several rules - I assume the two impeding charges were related to rules 8 and 18. He was also found guilty of improper lookout, but the more obvious rule 16 infraction was not mentioned.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by frank_f

But if you had to sail, which one?

I actually wouldn't sail, seriously.

Tacking across a TSS is very bad form and possibly illegal.

It's bad form because you get across much slower (you're supposed to get across as fast as you can), causing many more encounters with traffic.

And even worse -- watchstanders on the ships can't be sure when you're going to tack, so can't be sure about their solutions. You really cause problems with traffic.

So the truly right answer is to get the motor on. Seriously.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by DtM

Having got himself in the situation he could have stopped racing and putting his crew's lives at risk by turning on his motor and dropping his spinnaker.

In reverse for 2 minutes at 6knots he could have been 400 yards away !!!

He was an idiot and hope was all he had.

He could not have avoided the accident like that because he had no idea, at 2 minutes before the accident, that the ship was not turning the way it signalled it would.

By the time he could see that the ship was turning the other way, there was nothing he could do. It takes time to get the spinnaker down even if you cut it away. The ship is nearly three cables long, and in turning was presenting a big part of that to the yacht. Only teletransportation would have been able to get him out of the way, by the time he could see what was happening.

By the way, the last thing you would do is put the boat in reverse. You lose a vast amount of time taking way off and then putting way back on in reverse. That would be the idiot move.

The way to avoid the accident would have been to obey the moving exclusion zone and go around behind the ship. It would have meant giving up the race, based on what would have seemed to the skipper an incredibly unlikely scenario -- that the ship would fail to turn up the Thorne Channel towards its destination and would instead turn away down the Solent.

I say he got an incredibly bad break. Guilty -- yes. He had no right to violate the moving exclusion zone, racing or not. Idiot -- no.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Wait a minute here. Are you telling me that if I'm sailing, and am able to cross the TSS at (say) 45 degrees without impeding any ships, that I'm violating the rules? I don't buy it.

People are prosecuted fairly regularly for sailing the wrong way in TSS's, even when they do not impede anyone. Including fines and even jail sentences. One skipper recently prosecuted was a Vendee Globe competitor.

Whether 45 degrees is the "wrong way" or not, I don't know, but these rules are not a joke and are not taken as mere formalities. 45 degrees sounds pretty close to "wrong way", at best. I would never do it unless my motor were disabled.

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

He could not have avoided the accident like that because he had no idea, at 2 minutes before the accident, that the ship was not turning the way it signalled it would. By the time he could see that the ship was turning the other way, there was nothing he could do. It takes time to get the spinnaker down even if you cut it away. The ship is nearly three cables long, and in turning was presenting a big part of that to the yacht. Only teletransportation would have been able to get him out of the way, by the time he could see what was happening. By the way, the last thing you would do is put the boat in reverse. You lose a vast amount of time taking way off and then putting way back on in reverse. That would be the idiot move. The way to avoid the accident would have been to obey the moving exclusion zone and go around behind the ship. It would have meant giving up the race, based on what would have seemed to the skipper an incredibly unlikely scenario -- that the ship would fail to turn up the Thorne Channel towards its destination and would instead turn away down the Solent. I say he got an incredibly bad break. Guilty -- yes. He had no right to violate the moving exclusion zone, racing or not. Idiot -- no.

+1

Been there, done that. I can think of several dozen scenarios in just the last three years where if this had happened a skipper I know may have been caught out.

Not saying the skipper was right, but many of us both sailing and driving have unconciously entered situations where there was an expected outcome and havent realized that if the outcome didnt go as expected we might have over commited and be in trouble ourselves.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by foolishsailor

+1

Been there, done that. I can think of several dozen scenarios in just the last three years where if this had happened a skipper I know may have been caught out.

Not saying the skipper was right, but many of us both sailing and driving have unconciously entered situations where there was an expected outcome and havent realized that if the outcome didnt go as expected we might have over commited and be in trouble ourselves.

A great parallel might be the following:

Say, you're in a hurry, driving, and you are following a car into a left turn. The left turn light is about to change, and you know you won't make it through unless you drive fast and follow pretty closely. It seems a safe bet that the driver ahead is going to keep moving, since he has his left turn signal on, so you press ahead. But a dog runs into the street, and he slams on his brakes, and you plow into him.

Are you guilty? Absolutely%

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People are prosecuted fairly regularly for sailing the wrong way in TSS's, even when they do not impede anyone. Including fines and even jail sentences. One skipper recently prosecuted was a Vendee Globe competitor.

Whether 45 degrees is the "wrong way" or not, I don't know, but these rules are not a joke and are not taken as mere formalities. 45 degrees sounds pretty close to "wrong way", at best. I would never do it unless my motor were disabled.

The simple answer is based on the understanding of " as near as practical "

If you had a sail only boat , then you would cross with a heading of 90 degrees to the TSS or as near as was practical for you. If under sail that is x or y degrees then that would be it. ( and may include tacking )

However if you have a functional diesel engine on board , you would be expected to use that as it was " practical" for you to head at or near right angles. It would not be reasonable to assert that you " wished" to only sail in that circumstances

Note it's a heading not a course , leeway and or tidal movements will affect your course. In effect in crossing a TSS you do not correct for leeway or drift

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Honestly at the end it was not that easy. In what direction do you want him to motor in reverse? Dead aft still puts him in the potential future course of the ship (if it makes a wide turn).. He just simply was in a wide cone where every direction for several hundred meters was in the potential path of the vessel. At the end he was just potentially screwed no matter what he did.

We know now, after the fact, that he could have stayed to port and stayed clear . . . But he did not know that at the time. What he needed to do was at 4mins/1.3nm to take a course that gave the ship more room - a wider gybe to starboard sailing along the edge of the protected boundary.

But it's an interesting and relevant case for this thread. We have mostly been discussing cases with several ships and one yacht (the classic channel crossing situation), but this was a several yachts and one ship. The ship did in fact have some (limited) room sea room to maneuver (it in fact did maneuver to avoid the small power boat). But the sail boat was found guilty of impeding.

I agree , at the end of the day she should have respected the moving exclusion zone, I believe he was even warned by the pilot boat. His reluctance to stop racing resulted on the collision . This is not unusual , I remember the Cork Harbourmaster warning RCYC by letter, some years ago , that if yachts continued to imperil the safe passage of ships in cork Harbour , he would ban yacht racing. Racers seem to suffer red most when racing a times.

Dave

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Tacking across a TSS is very bad form and possibly illegal.

First I've heard of that.

Here in Puget Sound, you wouldn't be able to go north or south past West Point without either tacking through the TSS or using the engine.

Since races regularly go around West Point, and since those races are in the Local Notice to Mariners, I conclude that it's probably not illegal to tack through the TSS.

[psneeld]

May not work in some TSSs...but in many tacking is just not advised with traffic nearby, the rest of the time it's just fine...definitely not illegal in the US...fishing (trawling is even allowed)...ya just can't impede.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People are prosecuted fairly regularly for sailing the wrong way in TSS's, even when they do not impede anyone. Including fines and even jail sentences. One skipper recently prosecuted was a Vendee Globe competitor.

If you're talking about Marc Guillemot, he went the opposite direction to the flow of traffic for nearly 30 miles total through two separate traffic schemes, forced many ships to avoid him, and when told by the coast guard he was going the wrong way in the lane, told them he was going to continue to do so in order to beat a record. That's a far cry from a sailboat crossing a scheme at not-quite-90º.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Tacking across a TSS is very bad form and possibly illegal.

Four major races (Oregon Offshore, Swiftsure, Van Isle 360, Vic Maui) in the Pacific Northwest go through the TSS in Juan de Fuca Strait. In Swiftsure the turn mark in two of the classes requires the competitors to cross the TSS. Admittedly it is not the Channel.

They communicate with VTS.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Four major races (Oregon Offshore, Swiftsure, Van Isle 360, Vic Maui) in the Pacific Northwest go through the TSS in Juan de Fuca Strait. In Swiftsure the turn mark in two of the classes requires the competitors to cross the TSS. Admittedly it is not the Channel.

They communicate with VTS.

See GoBoatingNow's last post -- you are required to cross "as nearly as practical" to perpendicular.

I think if you have a working engine, you are required to use it instead of tacking -- certainly it's interpreted that way here.

Doesn't mean that slack is never cut from a strict interpretation, especially if a major race is going on and the crossing is coordinated with VTS.