Do you use a Daytime Black ball at Anchor?

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Those unwilling to do so have no place in command of any vessel, not a freighter and not a small sailboat.

You’d miss us.

If posters are correct the US, Canada and Australia would be practically devoid of sailors.

[Pete O Static]

INMHO. The biggest problem about the ignorance of the Colregs is due to the licensing body of the member country as it pertains to recreational boaters.

This is a general statement but have you noticed that most Europeans are more aware of and follow the Colregs vs their North American counterparts?

As an example, any courses issued by the RYA will discuss the Colregs. In stark contrast, I doubt any ASA, US Sailing, or CYA course even mentions the Colregs. I personally know several CYA Sailing Instructors who have no idea what the Colregs are. Yet they are "instructors."

In or around 2002 Canada decided that anyone who operated a vessel on the water needed to be licensed. I kid you not, this is an actual question from the exam.

Q. What is a wake?

A) An Irish funeral
B) A moving column of water
C) The opposite of asleep
D) All of the above

In typical fashion, the question does nothing to test your knowledge and technically, the answer could be either B or D. Your task is to choose the most correct answer. Ridiculous.

Interestingly, when I owned an American Flagged boat in American waters, I was required to carry onboard, a copy of the 'Navigation Rules" as issued by Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard. This is clearly just a copy of the International Colregs with Inland differences. A PDF copy is attached. I can't remember where I found the requirement for me to carry it but it is out there. Nonetheless, it is an invaluable document to have onboard.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Pete O Static

INMHO. The biggest problem about the ignorance of the Colregs is due to the licensing body of the member country as it pertains to recreational boaters.

This is a general statement but have you noticed that most Europeans are more aware of and follow the Colregs vs their North American counterparts?

As an example, any courses issued by the RYA will discuss the Colregs. In stark contrast, I doubt any ASA, US Sailing, or CYA course even mentions the Colregs. I personally know several CYA Sailing Instructors who have no idea what the Colregs are. Yet they are "instructors."

In or around 2002 Canada decided that anyone who operated a vessel on the water needed to be licensed. I kid you not, this is an actual question from the exam.

Q. What is a wake?

A) An Irish funeral
B) A moving column of water
C) The opposite of asleep
D) All of the above

In typical fashion, the question does nothing to test your knowledge and technically, the answer could be either B or D. Your task is to choose the most correct answer. Ridiculous.

Interestingly, when I owned an American Flagged boat in American waters, I was required to carry onboard, a copy of the 'Navigation Rules" as issued by Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard. This is clearly just a copy of the International Colregs with Inland differences. A PDF copy is attached. I can't remember where I found the requirement for me to carry it but it is out there. Nonetheless, it is an invaluable document to have onboard.

Page 23 has a guide to help you figure out what is required based on size of vessel.

https://www.uscgboating.org/images/420.PDF

[kas_1611]

Yes, everytime we drop the hook. My misses says I'm OCD but the rules state it must be displayed. My theory is if anyone then collides with me I have the defence that I was clearly displaying an "at anchor" sign. Same with the anchor light at night.

[markpierce]

The only special anchorage in the San Francisco Estuary (bay/delta) is within Richardson Bay.

I haven't used the dayshape while moored at the California State Park at Ayala Cove.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Pete O Static

In or around 2002 Canada decided that anyone who operated a vessel on the water needed to be licensed. I kid you not, this is an actual question from the exam.

I know it is common vernacular but let's not call this joke of a "Pleasure Craft Operators Card" a license. It is not a license and the government has never termed it as such.

We don't actually have licenses in Canada, we have "Masters Certificates" of varying degrees.
Now I am getting a little picky

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pete O Static

...As an example, any courses issued by the RYA will discuss the Colregs. In stark contrast, I doubt any ASA, US Sailing, or CYA course even mentions the Colregs. I personally know several CYA Sailing Instructors who have no idea what the Colregs are. Yet they are "instructors."

This parallels my experience. Between my spouse and I we have five CYA cruising courses under our belts. All involved anchoring and at no time was a anchor shape used. Neither was the underway cone. It was covered in the course material, but not in practice.

As most Canadians/Americans have attested, it’s just not part of our boating culture. Whereas it does appear to be in most European countries. Given this, there should be a way to answer the question: Do anchor shapes enhance safety? We’ve got two large datasets with two different practices. It should be possible to compare them.

My hypothesis remains that there will be no measurable difference in actual collision avoidance. It’s not my impression that anchorages in ’the colonies’ are more prone to collisions than over in the old world. But as always, I could be wrong.

The USCG has a database of all reportable accidents going back to 2005. It’s far from ideal, but it does include categories of accident causes, and one or more would include anchorage collisions.

Is there an equivalent European database where we could try and do some basic analysis?

Originally Posted by Pete O Static

In or around 2002 Canada decided that anyone who operated a vessel on the water needed to be licensed. I kid you not, this is an actual question from the exam.

Q. What is a wake?

A) An Irish funeral
B) A moving column of water
C) The opposite of asleep
D) All of the above

Funny… I don’t recall that question, but it’s been a long time since I got my boater operator card. I have little respect for this program. It is probably better than nothing, but not much better.

Interesting how Transport Canada’s website claims that “one important reason for fewer recreational boating deaths and injuries is the requirement that boat operators demonstrate their boating safety knowledge by obtaining proof of competency.” I’d love to see the actual evidence for this.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Do anchor shapes enhance safety?

Certainly nice to sometimes to know a boat is on the hook for sure looking through the binoculars, not every day but now and again. Since it takes a few moments to rig & is part of the international regs it seems just a bit of good seamanship with next to no reason not the use one.

If you have actually heard of the irpcs and read them that is......

[boatpoker]

If I ever get involved in an "incident", anchored or otherwise I can only hope that the other party is one who picks and chooses which ColRegs to apply, mis-quotes or misunderstands them. Of course the dream party to go against in court would be like the poster here with many opinions who didn't even know they existed.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by conachair

Certainly nice to sometimes to know a boat is on the hook for sure looking through the binoculars, not every day but now and again. Since it takes a few moments to rig & is part of the international regs it seems just a bit of good seamanship with next to no reason not the use one.

If you have actually heard of the irpcs and read them that is......

Maybe it’s part of our cultural differences. I have never once looked for an anchor shape. I can’t recall ever seeing one in action. It’s quite possible I’ve seen boats with anchor shapes hoisted, and I’ve simply not noticed them.

My view is that anchor shapes make no measurable improvement in collision avoidance. But as I say, I could be wrong. This is why I’d love to examine the data. It is possible to get an answer on this, although we may not have access to the data.

I don’t dispute for one second the shapes are required by law. And clearly there appears to be a benefit from the insurance question, but this is the same as obeying a law for the law’s sake. For a law to be justified it should show some actual measurable benefit. But as we know, there are lots of things required by law, that people don’t necessarily follow. Why? Because people perceive there is no benefit to the law, and no real downside to not following it. There’s plenty of room for error on all sides here, which is why I would love to see actual evidence of harm reduction.

[contrail]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Maybe it’s part of our cultural differences. I have never once looked for an anchor shape. I can’t recall ever seeing one in action. It’s quite possible I’ve seen boats with anchor shapes hoisted, and I’ve simply not noticed them.

My view is that anchor shapes make no measurable improvement in collision avoidance. But as I say, I could be wrong. This is why I’d love to examine the data. It is possible to get an answer on this, although we may not have access to the data.

I don’t dispute for one second the shapes are required by law. And clearly there appears to be a benefit from the insurance question, but this is the same as obeying a law for the law’s sake. For a law to be justified it should show some actual measurable benefit. But as we know, there are lots of things required by law, that people don’t necessarily follow. Why? Because people perceive there is no benefit to the law, and no real downside to not following it. There’s plenty of room for error on all sides here, which is why I would love to see actual evidence of harm reduction.

Have you never had occasion to wonder if a boat was at anchor or not? How about motorsailing, in a situation when you are stand on if they are motoring, but give way if they are sailing? Remember, boats can now be equipped with exhausts that discharge the water below the waterline, and other boats may be running a generator, the exhaust of which can be confused with that of a motor. And, even if the engine is on, and exhaust visible, it may not be in use for propulsion....ever thought of those? Agreed, the trim of sails can often be indicative, but not always.

[contrail]

As an American (living and sailing abroad, however), I am very much part of the culture that hates rules and regulations. I get that. It's why I have always argued against licensing for recreational boaters. As a corollary, I have always accepted my responsibility to a) know how to handle a boat, and b) know and understand the rules under which we operate. It's a fair trade-off.


This thread has changed my point of view, 100%. Seeing how many are ignorant of the rules (willfully, it would seem), and unaccepting of their responsibilities, I am now totally in favour of licensing, if it includes a fairly rigourous test on the Colregs.



For the poster who said that most boaters would quit, I say that anyone who refuses to even try to learn the rules is most welcome to quit. Just as I would say that to people who want to drive or to fly. I also think he is wrong, and am fairly sure that almost everyone (perhaps excepting him) would go ahead and learn them.


Among other things, I am an ASA instructor, and I can say, 100%, we definitely go into the rules. Not everyone listens...........which might be the theme of this thread!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Maybe it’s part of our cultural differences. I have never once looked for an anchor shape. I can’t recall ever seeing one in action. It’s quite possible I’ve seen boats with anchor shapes hoisted, and I’ve simply not noticed them.

My view is that anchor shapes make no measurable improvement in collision avoidance. But as I say, I could be wrong. This is why I’d love to examine the data. It is possible to get an answer on this, although we may not have access to the data.

Maybe there is a measurable benefit in collision avoidance, in Europe anyway ...

Thinking about this a bit more and trying to think back on what I do coming into a new anchorage, the boats with anchor balls up will generally be either full time cruisers or experienced sailors so, again generally, they will be safer to be anchored near. It a boat is going to drag more chance it will be a charterer or a seldom sailor on the 2 week summer cruise - those are the ones which will drag in a brisk breeze so best to stay upwind..

This is well known around the Algarve for sure, July / August will have the boats on a rare trip out of the marina dragging when the sea breeze gets up late afternoon . The more seasoned full timers will tend anchor well upwind out of the way.

So in a way no anchor ball is a bit of a badge that there's a good chance you don't know what you're doing. In many parts of Europe anyway

But again, it's such a miniscule thing to do why wouldn't you? Where's the downside?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

How many things is the competent mariner allowed to do while his boat sits aground violating the ColRegs?

I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not what a competent mariner is "allowed" to do, but what the mariner should do to most effectively and reasonably avoid collision. So in a case of being hard aground and thus unable to move, any means of communicating that fact to apprise other mariners transiting the area would be competent & prudent. Along with the required day shape & lights, you may want to put out a securité on the VHF if you're in or close to a busy channel, for example.

Rather ironically, the Colregs are in large part designed to be implemented in a manner opposite to the rigidity & compulsiveness that its adherents are often accused of. Rule 2 is the best example but this sort of language appears throughout:

Rule 2

Responsibility

(a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. (Emphasis mine).

And it's important to note that this sort of discretion & flexibility is designed to account for the myriad of circumstances inherent to operating a vessel on the water, but not intended to afford discretion as to whether the Rules themselves are required to be followed or not. IOW, adherence to the Rules is mandatory for all vessels; the discretion is instead built in to a standard judged by the "ordinary practice of seamen." Yes, there are some fast & hard rules like day shapes & lights, but the overriding purpose & intent of the Colregs is collision avoidance, not merely blind obedience to rules & regs.

So for example, and in response to your question about which actions should be prioritized after running aground, if you ground your boat in isolated waters, outside of a channel, and with no other boat traffic around, your first priority may be to try and get your boat afloat again. Why? Well, for one because that is the most reasonably effective way of avoiding a potential collision under those particular circumstances. On the other hand, if you run aground in a busy channel, and especially at night or in limited visibility, the first & highest priority of a competent seaman may more likely be to warn other vessels that you are aground and cannot maneuver before attempting to remedy the grounding. Why? Again, in order to avoid a potential collision given those particular circumstances.

What's rather ingenious about the Colregs is that they are intuitive, in line with basic common sense, and thus the "ordinary practice of seamen" standard. To the extent they may seem pedantic to some when it comes to, for example, day shapes, lights, and the give way/stand on rules, even those rules only serve to promote consistency and clear communication. So while reasonable minds may disagree whether a black ball is the most effective manner of communicating that a boat is anchored, it is the manner of communication that everyone has agreed to and so should be followed. Unlike many rules of the actual "road" (i.e. land-based traffic laws), violations of the Colregs are usually only adjudicated after a collision has occurred since that, after all, is the overriding purpose & intent of the Rules.

For the vast majority, non-adherence -- whether by ignorance or otherwise -- will not result in collisions. But it is also not in keeping with competent seamanship, and unnecessarily increases risks & potential liability. So the question becomes why not simply comply with standards all the maritime nations of the world have agreed to?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by contrail

Have you never had occasion to wonder if a boat was at anchor or not? How about motorsailing, in a situation when you are stand on if they are motoring, but give way if they are sailing? Remember, boats can now be equipped with exhausts that discharge the water below the waterline, and other boats may be running a generator, the exhaust of which can be confused with that of a motor. And, even if the engine is on, and exhaust visible, it may not be in use for propulsion....ever thought of those? Agreed, the trim of sails can often be indicative, but not always.

I honestly cannot recall any situation where the navigation question was: are they anchored or not? My navigation decisions are based on observable factors: velocity vectors, boat type, and by the over riding focus of not hitting anything. I can’t recall any confusing situation which turned on the question of whether a boat was anchored or not. It is the boat’s motion (or lack thereof) which drives my navigation choices. Whether a boat is anchored, or just moving very slowly, doesn’t really matter. They’re treated the same.

I’m truly not trying to “win” any argument here contrail. I’m trying to be open and honest. Maybe if I lived in an area where anchor shapes were routinely used, I’d learn to incorporate that information into my navigation matrix. But I don’t.

And this is why I say it would be interesting to compare actual collision data in areas with these different practices. It seems like it should be possible.

I actually think an underway cone shape is possibly a more useful tool. I’ve never factored it into my navigation because, as I say, it’s use is not common practice.

ADD (you’re too fast ).

Originally Posted by conachair

Maybe there is a measurable benefit in collision avoidance, in Europe anyway ...

Thinking about this a bit more and trying to think back on what I do coming into a new anchorage, the boats with anchor balls up will generally be either full time cruisers or experienced sailors so, again generally, they will be safer to be anchored near. It a boat is going to drag more chance it will be a charterer or a seldom sailor on the 2 week summer cruise - those are the ones which will drag in a brisk breeze so best to stay upwind..

Yes, I can see that. If the information is readily available I’m sure I too would make use of it. Why not. And I bet you’re correct about your assessment of the shape use being a proxy for skill or experience. I can certainly see that if I was in a culture where they were used, I’d quickly amend my sorry ways .

Originally Posted by conachair

But again, it's such a miniscule thing to do why wouldn't you? Where's the downside?

Yes, I said as such earlier. I don’t think it’s a big deal to hoist the anchor shape, and this discussion will prompt me to get one. I do think the underway cone use would be more of a challenge, which is why I infer they are less-used, even amongst those here who faithfully use anchor shapes.

But I remain skeptical as to their actual benefit in reducing collisions. I want to see the evidence.