Interpreting ColRegs

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

we will give it 24 hrs before moving on

No hurry, it might be days away , even more if there is a little thread drift .

[Pelagic]

For those of you new to reading the Rules a good trick I learned was to….

Read One Rule a night…. Just before going to sleep.

Read it a few times to let the words burn in … and it is sure to put you to sleep.


But the rule seems to stick

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

99% of tonnage....
Obviously any commercial vessel not adhering to COLREGS would be banned from International trade because member states would never allow them in their harbors.

Maybe the UN should disolve and the IMO take over world affairs.


Mark

[Lodesman]

Good suggestion. Perhaps the Mods would consider creating a subforum and we could have separate threads for each rule.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

(e) Whenever the Government concerned shall have determined that a vessel of special construction or purpose cannot comply fully with the provision of any of these rules with respect to the number, position, range or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, without interfering with the special function of the vessel, such vessel shall comply with such other provisions in regard to the number, position, range or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, as her Government shall have determined to be the closest possible compliance with these rules in respect to that vessel.

Of special note is that many warships over 50m cannot be fitted with a forward masthead light so do not assume length based on whether you see one or two mast lights.

Just an add-on - some warships and others (I'm thinking USN ships particularly) have 2 masthead lights but the horizontal spacing is much less than specified by the Rules. It can make it harder to determine aspect, and therefore heading of the ship.

[cal40john]

So how does Puget Sound and Lake Washington conform to being sea going navigable waterways using international rules and San Francisco bay qualifies as a harbor using inland rules? Entirely up to the gov. to decide what qualifies?

John

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Good suggestion. Perhaps the Mods would consider creating a subforum and we could have separate threads for each rule.

Hi Lodesman..... I am sort of thinking that as we develop this the Rules will start to interact with one another, so having a handy reference on this one Thread will be easier to quote from.

Will probably become a monster but a useful tool when collision discussions come up.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by cal40john

Entirely up to the gov. to decide what qualifies?
John

More or less John.... Governments are asked in 1b ...Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these rules.

but the reality is that historical habits and equipment already in place usually means that conformity is low on the budget priorities, which is why we have sailing directions for each port

[Pelagic]

This rule makes it clear that mariners can not hide behind the rules and use them as an excuse. It is worded so that seamen are able to use their judgment and experience to deal with unusual situations which would be impossible to predict and legislate for.


Probably the most important Rule to remember.

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 precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Discussion points:

Should a vessel underway and stopped rely on other vessels keeping out of her way?

Two vessels approaching one another on a difficult tidal bend, whose duty is it to wait?

Are you justified to be sailing/motoring in dense fog without operational radar if it was practical for you to anchor somewhere safe?

(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.


Both conditions must exist “special circumstances” and “immediate danger” for a departure to be permitted….Is a vessel “bound to or expected to depart from the rules” in this case?


What about if it is advantageous to all the other vessels in the area to depart from the rules?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Should a vessel underway and stopped rely on other vessels keeping out of her way?

No, relevant steering and sailing rules apply.

Two vessels approaching one another on a difficult tidal bend, whose duty is it to wait?

The one proceeding against the current.

Are you justified to be sailing/motoring in dense fog without operational radar if it was practical for you to anchor somewhere safe?

No, but that also depends on other factors: schedules, traffic, VTMS, AIS etc. There are ways to minimize the risk too.

Both conditions must exist “special circumstances” and “immediate danger” for a departure to be permitted….Is a vessel “bound to or expected to depart from the rules” in this case? What about if it is advantageous to all the other vessels in the area to depart from the rules?

There is no definition for "immediate danger" so the onus is on you to make that call. If departing from the rules is the only way out of danger then a vessel is so bound, however if departure is just one possible course of action, then it should not necessarily be expected. If following the rules would likely result in multiple close-quarters situations, the danger would not be immediate, but an early, well-advertised departure from the rules would be the most prudent course of action.

[Pelagic]

Your absolutely right Lodesman, the questions I asked are not in the “Rules” but they are judgments made in the courts after a collision, so this is where the “interpretation” bit starts to come in and why in possible grey areas it is interesting to hear what the courts have to say.

For those interested in how the marine legal side works, we can use UK as an example.

Collision --> Preliminary inquiry --> Formal Investigation if necessary-->

If action is then taken to recover damages and jurisdiction is held to be in the UK then it is held in a Court of Admiralty, before a High Court Judge, who is usually assisted by two of the “Elder Brethern of Trinity House” acting as nautical assessors to give advice on matters of seamanship (Rule 2). (retired Master Mariners with command experience)

So it is the opinion of these “Elder Brethern” that say:

A vessel underway and stopped must not rely on other vessels keeping out of her way…(unless she is not in command and displaying those signals)

Correct…against the current

Fog: Courts say you may not be justified in being underway.. but there is a lot of latitude between may not and shall not.


I agree somewhat with your last statement since multilateral considerations are an important and prudent part when there are other vessels around… but the "courts" do not support an early departures from the Rules, simply because it is "advantageous".


Example...overtaking a number of slower vessels running abreast inside a Traffic Separation Scheme you cross over into the separation zone and run afoul of fishing nets. The courts would not support your argument that you were avoiding danger and were thus justified

[donradcliffe]

Nowdays the ships who want to stop and drift just shift their AIS status to 'not under command'. I've come across this more than one in the last few months, and they don't bother with the day shapes or lights.

[Pelagic]

Wow Don!... that is an interesting development with AIS and I wonder if a collision happened, if it would be judged differently?

You will see that in the past the courts have held a pretty hard rule over what is considered to be an authentic NUC situation.

The Definitions touch on that so maybe we should move on to Rule 3

[Pelagic]

This rule helps to define the classification of different vessels. These definitions become important when we apply the rules for the interaction which takes place when two different types of vessels meet.

Rule 3
General definitions

(a) The word "vessel" includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.

Non displacement craft and seaplanes are now considered as vessels

(b)The term "power-driven vessel" means any vessel propelled by machinery.

(c) The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery if fitted, is not being used.

(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restricts maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

(e) The term "seaplane" includes any aircraft designed to maneuver on the water.

(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

Can adverse weather conditions be now considered “exceptional circumstances”?

Can you be accepted by these rules to be NUC if your anchor is down but not holding?

Can you be accepted by these rules to be NUC if your sailing vessel is becalmed?

(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

The term "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged inlaying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

(h) The term "vessel constrained by her draught" means a power-driven vessel which because of her draught in relation to available depth and width of navigable water is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.

(i) The word "underway" means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.

Are you underway if you are lying stopped?

(j) The words "length" and "breadth" of a vessel mean her length overall and greatest breadth.

Now switched to metric as an international standard

(k) Vessel shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other.

What if you sight another vessel on your radar screen how doe the rules apply?

(l) The term "restricted visibility" means any condition in which
visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes.

What other causes have been given and accepted?

(m) The term 'Wing-In-Ground (WIG) craft' means a multimodal craft which, in its main operational mode, flies in close proximity to the surface by utilizing surface-effect action.

This is a new addition to the Rules

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

T

(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

Can adverse weather conditions be now considered “exceptional circumstances”?

Can you be accepted by these rules to be NUC if your anchor is down but not holding?

Can you be accepted by these rules to be NUC if your sailing vessel is becalmed?

(
(i) The word "underway" means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.

Are you underway if you are lying stopped?

(k) Vessel shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other.

What if you sight another vessel on your radar screen how doe the rules apply?

(l) The term "restricted visibility" means any condition in which
visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes.

What other causes have been given and accepted?

A vessel could be considered NUC if the conditions were such that she was unable to alter course and speed due to weather, I am considering a small vessel hove to in this case.
This was considered in the 1972 conference, and adverse weather seriously affecting a vessels ability to manoeuver was considered exceptional circumstances, but it must that the conditions are so exceptional with respect to a particular vessel.

Also considered to be NUC are sailing vessels becalmed, a vessel with anchor down and not holding, and a vessel riding to anchor chains with anchors unshackled

A vessel at anchor is only considered anchored when the anchor is holding



Sighting another vessel on radar. If it is only observed, and youy cannot sight it visually, you are deemed to be not in sight of the other vessel. It could be due to restricted vis, or that the other vessel is below the horizon. If its below the horizon, it is unlikely that the colregs will apply.

Restristed vis: Other causes are smoke from own vessel, other vessels or the shore (Indonesian forest fires is one I have been caught in), and dust storms

[Pelagic]

Thanks Nigel... I can see you have read A.N. Cockroff...sorry this part is tedious but it gives us the basis for more relevant sailing discussions.

What do you think about Don's AIS example of transmitting NUC only without showing signals?