What can happen when you cut off a ferry

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by psneeld

my point is that it is "interpretable" by the skipper whether or not there is sufficient room...many narrow channels are not "designated" ...they are just merely what they are.

Just like a tug and tow are not automatically RAM...it's up to the skipper of the tow to determine his situation and notify others of his now declared "RAM"...I'm guessing much the same would be true if a skipper thought he was "in a narrow channel and chose to invoke rule 9"...it would fall upon him/her to declare and inform...and to take appropriate action if unable to have unimpeded flow.

Of course all other traffic should try and see if a narrow channel situation may exist and also adhere to the principle....communicating when in doubt....or if able just pull over and let the big vessel have the middle if water is available off to the side.

Much of the COLREGS relies on the assumption of trained operators, ie that skippers will recognise situations for what they are. Narrow channels tend to be obvious, rather like pornography , hard to describe , but you know it when you see it.

And yes small vessels should by courtesy and sometimes as required by law , keep to the starboard side of narrow channels and ensure they do not impede larger vessels.

I don't beleive that is the case here. There was clearly enough sea room to manoeuvre about the sailboat. The ferry wasnt that big.

Dave

[Dockhead]

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to say a word about the Third Layer of Nonsense, namely maneuverability itself.

In open water at passage speed, maneuverability is a linear function of speed. How many degrees of course change will produce a given number of meters of distance out of a given close quarters situation? The answer is a function of speed. So a small sailboat running at 5 knots will be unable to get out of the way of a large commercial vessel running at 20 knots for a long distance during which the large commercial vessel can still avoid.

This is very obvious in the exaggerated case of the Condor ferries we deal with in the Channel, which runs not at 20 knots, but at 40. By the time you can even see the Condor, it is already too late to do anything. There is no point at all in trying. The helmsmen are at the bridge of the Condor like playing a video game, zooming here and there through the field of obstacles. All you can do is hope they see you. You have more ability to maneuver when encountering a commercial vessel running at 20 knots, and even more with one running at 14 knots. But even with regard to a vessel running at 14 knots, you can't compete -- 20 degrees of his rudder produces an entirely different effect, than 20 or even 30 degrees of yours.

BUT -- this does not mean that you are always the stand-on vessel, just because he is more maneuverable. The Colregs tell you in plain text who stands on and who gives way, and you have to read them. If you are motoring and he is to starboard of you, then you have to make the first move, just to name one example.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The COLREGS clearly and unambiguously puts the onus on a mechanically powered vessel to avoid one under sail , if you don't agree , petition the IMO .

Dave

There are a few exceptions -- power-driven vessel constrained by draft and navigating in a narrow channel, vessel under sail overtaking, to name a couple.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

This is simply nonsense. A large fast moving ferry is hardly affected by current a slow sailboat is hugely affected.

The COLREGS is not based on a simple " rule of tonnage" as you seem to think nor a simple hierarchy of manoeuvrability. The COLREGS clearly and unambiguously puts the onus on a mechanically powered vessel to avoid one under sail , if you don't agree , petition the IMO .

Dave

I NEVER SAID THE COLREGS ARE BASED ON A 'RULE OF TONNAGE.' That is YOUR distortion, and you should own up to it. The last time you said that (not in reference to a post of mine; you were chewing on someone else), you said that. I had not seen it in the thread anywhere, so I did a search of the forum, and found that the term has been used in other threads.

i don't know who said it, but I DID NOT. PLEASE stop putting stupid words in my mouth. It's so obnoxious when the forum gets like this -- people reading CASUAL CONVERSATIOON and nit-picking it to death, using things the other person didn't even say.

Your whole perception of what I said is so distorted that there can be no discussion between us on this. As long as you make things up and then claim others said it, you'll always be right, though, won't you? It's no accident that you make up the things you make up.

SOMEONE on this forum, some time in the past, did say something about a rule of tonnage, but for all i know THAT was a distortion of what someone else had said. I had never heard the term until this thread and knew it wasn't so, but when I searched the forum posts, all i found was more silly nit-picking.

i have my own theory about why people do that, but I'm going to let prudence get the best of me and not share it right now.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There are a few exceptions -- power-driven vessel constrained by draft and navigating in a narrow channel, vessel under sail overtaking, to name a couple.

Yes of course , merely repeating the general point.

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I NEVER SAID THE COLREGS ARE BASED ON A 'RULE OF TONNAGE.' That is YOUR distortion, and you should own up to it. The last time you said that (not in reference to a post of mine; you were chewing on someone else), you said that. I had not seen it in the thread anywhere, so I did a search of the forum, and found that the term has been used in other threads.

i don't know who said it, but I DID NOT. PLEASE stop putting stupid words in my mouth. It's so obnoxious when the forum gets like this -- people reading CASUAL CONVERSATIOON and nit-picking it to death, using things the other person didn't even say.

Your whole perception of what I said is so distorted that there can be no discussion between us on this. As long as you make things up and then claim others said it, you'll always be right, though, won't you? It's no accident that you make up the things you make up.

SOMEONE on this forum, some time in the past, did say something about a rule of tonnage, but for all i know THAT was a distortion of what someone else had said. I had never heard the term until this thread and knew it wasn't so, but when I searched the forum posts, all i found was more silly nit-picking.

i have my own theory about why people do that, but I'm going to let prudence get the best of me and not share it right now.

Did you say this:

"The least maneuverable vessel has the right of way, always."

Or did someone put these words in your mouth? This might be a good time for a shift of gears.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by psneeld

current has EXACTLY the same effect on a big boat as it does on a little boat...leeway is a different story...and that's about windage to a degree.

set/drift calculations are about speed...not the size of the vessel.

OF COURSE -- and we're not talking about leeway. The sailor should have been looking over his shoulder, and I think if we're sure of anything we can be sure that he did that too late. THEN it's a matter first of whether a collision could even have been avoided. If there's a lot of current there, an outboard motor may not have been able to deal with it. Most people with outboards on their sailboats under-power IMO, not thinking about that time they want to go under the bridge with wind, waves and tide all against them. But we don't know, because the outboard is at the bottom of the channel. There's a whole lot we don't know that we need to know, but in a channel, with a current, and a commercial vessel at work, the sailboater is going to have to have some mighty fine excuses IMO. I don't think this is cut-and-dried against the ferry operator at all.

We don't know if the sailboat was so close to the ferry that the ferry operator could not see it. That's possible.

All of those things plus probably a dozen more will determine who really was the stand-on vessel, but common sense would tell the sailboater to get the heck out of Dodge. No point in shaking your fist at the sky and shouting "I was the stand on vessel, dammit!" as your boat sinks.

And once a collision has occurred, both will be found at fault, even if it's 99% for one and 1% for the other. Once a collision has occurred, legally speaking they've both blown it.

IMO everyone here stating who was to blame is wrong because they just don't have the facts yet, esp. if they're relying on the media for it.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Your personal experiences don't invalidate the colregs. Nor have we any evidence to indicate what sort of lookout the sailboat was habitually maintaining . These ferries travel fast.

If you find yourself with a very fast ferry closing close astern , you actually need to stay on your course , turning could cause you to direct yourself into a broadside as he may turn at the last minute. Yes in extremis you have to do something but options are very limited , relating your experience with another sailboat is not relevant to the fast closure issues of this incident. Avoiding other sailboats is trival and collisions are rarely serious anyway.

Dave

OH FOR GOD"S SAKE WHERE did I say that ANYONE'S personal experience invalidates Colregs? Do you just sit around and make stuff up that people did NOT say just for kicks? It works in politics, but not on debate teams, by the way.

So you feel my anecdote was not relevant. You're entitled. I feel that drifting off to "35 tons vs 40 tons" and pretending I said that is stupid.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The post about "The least maneuverable vessel has the right of way, always" was the rare case which actually made me tremble for the people reading it, and so, yes, required me to speak up.

The human brain has several gears, among which are "spout off", and "read, listen, think". It really pays to pull the gear lever out of the first one of these from time to time, and leave it in the second one. The Colregs can be understood by any person with average intelligence and education -- and I say this not just as a lawyer but as a former law professor. There is no mumbo-jumbo in Colregs -- they are exceedingly plainspoken.

If you actually read them with your brain in the right gear, you will see that they have nothing to do with which vessel happens to be more or less maneuverable at any given time. The Colregs cannot and must not be simplified to this kind of misleading banality. Just because the order of maneuvering to avoid a collision (which is what giving-way and standing on is all about, so different from "right away" on the road) might have been formulated based on some idea of the rough maneuverability of different classes of vessels, doesn't mean that you can skip over the processes and procedures in the Rules and just decide for yourself -- that is, just make up -- your own order of maneuvering. Because the Colregs very often require a larger or less maneuverable vessel to give way to a smaller or more maneuverable one.

Particularly in the case of overtaking, which is what was operative in the original post. The rule that an overtaking vessel gives way to an overtaken vessel trumps all others -- it is at the top of the hierarchy of maneuvering order. It is true, as Ann Cates says, that a vessel being run down from astern has some responsibility to avoid, if possible, in reality this is pretty minimal and theoretical. It doesn't matter whether you are power, or sail, constrained by draft, or not, fishing, dredging, or whatever -- the Colregs require you to avoid any other vessel of whatever class or navigational status when you are overtaking. So all this talk about maneuverability is doubly inapplicable in this particular case.

i suggest that you read the first paragraph of your post, and then get off knee-jerk-I'm-gonna-get-em-now autopilot and put your brain into functional mode, because you're going off on wild tangents based on things I did not intend. And, it seems, that's what you want to do.

I'm sorry, but you don't think being overtaken affects maneuverability? I do. If you're overtaking to my port and I move to port, we may well collide. So I can only safely move to starboard. Maneuverability. You just want to argue with a stranger, and I have no idea why. (That second part isn't true.)

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I NEVER SAID THE COLREGS ARE BASED ON A 'RULE OF TONNAGE.' That is YOUR distortion, and you should own up to it. The last time you said that (not in reference to a post of mine; you were chewing on someone else), you said that. I had not seen it in the thread anywhere, so I did a search of the forum, and found that the term has been used in other threads.

i don't know who said it, but I DID NOT. PLEASE stop putting stupid words in my mouth. It's so obnoxious when the forum gets like this -- people reading CASUAL CONVERSATIOON and nit-picking it to death, using things the other person didn't even say.

Your whole perception of what I said is so distorted that there can be no discussion between us on this. As long as you make things up and then claim others said it, you'll always be right, though, won't you? It's no accident that you make up the things you make up.

SOMEONE on this forum, some time in the past, did say something about a rule of tonnage, but for all i know THAT was a distortion of what someone else had said. I had never heard the term until this thread and knew it wasn't so, but when I searched the forum posts, all i found was more silly nit-picking.

i have my own theory about why people do that, but I'm going to let prudence get the best of me and not share it right now.

Here's a quote from you
"I can't imagine why a ferry captain would think a small sailboat WOULDN'T get out of his way. "

That's a clear statement of the " tonnage rule" the little guy gets out of the way of the bigger guy.

The correct response of a properly trained ferry captain , would be to think , " I must avoid the sailboat as required by the COLREGS"

Dave

None of this is " silly nitpicking " Dockhead has clearly laid out the issues involving fast craft. The rules simply can't be interpreted as " run away "

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

i suggest that you read the first paragraph of your post, and then get off knee-jerk-I'm-gonna-get-em-now autopilot and put your brain into functional mode, because you're going off on wild tangents based on things I did not intend. And, it seems, that's what you want to do.

I'm sorry, but you don't think being overtaken affects maneuverability? I do. If you're overtaking to my port and I move to port, we may well collide. So I can only safely move to starboard. Maneuverability. You just want to argue with a stranger, and I have no idea why. (That second part isn't true.)

You persistently bring manoeuvrability into it,

Heres what the rules say
"(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken."

What part of " shall keep out of the way " don't you understand that has nothing to do with manoeuvring ability.
Why bring this up repeatedly and why keep screaming
Dave

[markpierce]

Not that it really matters in this instance as it was being overtaken, but wasn't the sailboat operating using its engine? So, as far as Colregs go, the sailboat was a power-driven vessel, not a sailing vessel.

[texasnielsen]

I am new to this board and enjoy reading the forums both for educational as well as comic relief purposes. While I can I usually determine by the title of the post which way the wind will blow the discussion towards, I can never determine how long it will take to lean one way or another on some innocent sounding titles and thus read most all of them with an open mind believing that both opportunities (learning and humor) will (and do) occur.

This particular thread has been interesting for a couple of reasons. Unlike the gun, religion, or political bend that some posts take (resulting from more opinion than fact), this unfortunate event has facts that all of us (I believe) are currently not privy to. The testimony of both captains (thankfully). When the official report is released we will be able to pat ourselves on the back for "knowing" how smart we were reciting COLREGs, and their appropriate application, who was more guilty of the collision and so forth or we will be publicly silent having to privately acknowledge we didn't know as much as we thought we did.

Until we all get to read the official report on what was a very serious accident, I would offer that getting one's knickers in a knot, huffing or puffing about who said what, who claimed not to have said what, and who said nothing of the sort truly diminishes the intent of the OP. (yes, I thought this was going to be an educational thread at first. It went on to some comedy, but then spun down a vortex of ill will and bilge stink.

Lets be grateful the skipper of the sailboat is alive to tell his story and that the ferry captain is dealt with with respect and proper discipline and not malicious penalty.

Lastly, thanks to everyone for what is a generally great forum / web site. There is much to learn and so little time . . .

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by texasnielsen

I am new to this board and enjoy reading the forums both for educational as well as comic relief purposes. While I can I usually determine by the title of the post which way the wind will blow the discussion towards, I can never determine how long it will take to lean one way or another on some innocent sounding titles and thus read most all of them with an open mind believing that both opportunities (learning and humor) will (and do) occur.

This particular thread has been interesting for a couple of reasons. Unlike the gun, religion, or political bend that some posts take (resulting from more opinion than fact), this unfortunate event has facts that all of us (I believe) are currently not privy to. The testimony of both captains (thankfully). When the official report is released we will be able to pat ourselves on the back for "knowing" how smart we were reciting COLREGs, and their appropriate application, who was more guilty of the collision and so forth or we will be publicly silent having to privately acknowledge we didn't know as much as we thought we did.

Until we all get to read the official report on what was a very serious accident, I would offer that getting one's knickers in a knot, huffing or puffing about who said what, who claimed not to have said what, and who said nothing of the sort truly diminishes the intent of the OP. (yes, I thought this was going to be an educational thread at first. It went on to some comedy, but then spun down a vortex of ill will and bilge stink.

Lets be grateful the skipper of the sailboat is alive to tell his story and that the ferry captain is dealt with with respect and proper discipline and not malicious penalty.

Lastly, thanks to everyone for what is a generally great forum / web site. There is much to learn and so little time . . .

But its good fun when Raku gets all riled up and hits the capitals lol

Dave

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Here's a quote from you
"I can't imagine why a ferry captain would think a small sailboat WOULDN'T get out of his way. "

That's a clear statement of the " tonnage rule" the little guy gets out of the way of the bigger guy.

The correct response of a properly trained ferry captain , would be to think , " I must avoid the sailboat as required by the COLREGS"

Dave

None of this is " silly nitpicking " Dockhead has clearly laid out the issues involving fast craft. The rules simply can't be interpreted as " run away "

Dave

No, that was not a statement about any imagined tonnage rule.

So once again you have taken something someone did NOT say, and ranted about it.

You should try to figure out why.