Rules of the road with spinnaker

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

But, the rules provide an unsolvable conflict. The stand on vessel is prohibited to take early action to avoid a collision, but is at the same time held to the ultimate rule of "never collide."

Er, no! I recommend a guide to the Colregs, such a Cockcroft or Farwell's.

Originally Posted by sailingharry

-- does the rest of the world have their own tweaks on COLREGS, or does the rest of the world adopt COLREGS in their waters?

We had a thread on this at some point - you can do a search. Off the top of my head I'm also aware of the CEVNI rules in Europe and New Zealand has its own rules.

[chrisr]

as regards tweeks to colregs, as far as i know, such are only in inland waterways, (canals and rivers and such) eg us inland waterways rules

but not aware of any country that has adopted the convention, and then made changes in coastal waters ie ocean waters within territorial limits

cheers

ps although sometimes i wonder about it here. seems like 90% of professional skippers keep to the left hand side of a channel...not the right. really Tees me off !

cheers,

[HeywoodJ]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

... the other shall keep her course and speed...

Such a simple phrase, and yet undefined in COLREGs. And so important, especially in the OP's case. Ever been to told as the helmsman to "hold your course dead downwind", or "hold her course with the wind x points off the y bow"? Not uncommon phrases in the age of sail, where "course" may or may not have meant a compass heading or cardinal direction.

Is a sailboat hard on the wind maintaining her "course" if the wind shifts 10 degrees and she follows the shift and is thus still hard on the wind? There is an argument that says yes. In the OP's case, under spinnaker, holding wind angle through a shift so as not to gybe or collapse the sail could be argued as "holding course." No power driven vessel would view it that way, but these things have had a way of changing in the last century-and-a-half.

And what about speed? Is sailing "as fast as I can make the boat go with this relative angle to the wind" holding speed? When the wind drops from 15 to 5, are you obligated to start your engine to maintain the speed you had? What if you don't have an engine?

[Jim Cate]

ps although sometimes i wonder about it here. seems like 90% of professional skippers keep to the left hand side of a channel...not the right. really Tees me off !

But, but... Chris, remember that you are in the southern hemisphere and everyone knows that things are reversed down there... don't they?

I remember some years back when entering the fairly narrow entrance channel to the marina at Whangaparoa NZ, motoring along the starboard side I was verbally abused on a loud hailer (by a stinkpotter, of course) "Bloody yank! Don't you know that we drive on the left side down here?"

I did know that, for it was driving me mad on the road!

Jim

[sandy stone]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Legally, yes. Logically, no.
Rule 11 states: Rules 11 through 18 apply to vessels in sight of one another.

Rule 17(a)(i) states: Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
Rule 17 (a)(ii) states: The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

By clear application the rules as written, as soon as the vessels are in sight of each other, the stand-on is prohibited from making any change to course or speed. You may find wiggle room in Rule 34, Maneuvering Signals (ie, you can discuss and agree on a course change). But as stand on vessel, if I see you 3 miles away as a give-way vessel, and I come up in a lift, I'm breaking the law. Rule 17(a)(ii) allows the stand-on vessel to take action when it becomes apparent that the give way is not taking appropriate action, but if that were deemed to occur the instant the vessels see each other, it kind of defeats the obligation to stand-on. I would interpret that to occur at the point where reasonable action by the give-way would be insufficient (for instance, a course change greater than 15 degrees, or calling up all stop, or some similar extreme action on the part of the give-way) -- in other words, 5 minutes out or so for most pleasure craft.

It's even worse if, at that point (20 minutes from collision), I create a collision risk. This is meaningful, because even if I create a collision risk, I'm still the stand-on vessel, so further course changes to avoid the risk are also prohibited. In other words, I come up in that lift, even if it only lasts 5 minutes and I fall back off and there is no longer a risk of collision, I've become irreparably guilty at some level. From that moment on, if there ends up a collision, I'm partly at fault.
But, the rules provide an unsolvable conflict. The stand on vessel is prohibited to take early action to avoid a collision, but is at the same time held to the ultimate rule of "never collide."

While there is no disputing your quotations, I think there are other considerations. I see that rules 12, 14, and 15 all refer to boats approaching "so as to involve the risk of collision". I would argue that small, maneuverable recreational boats are not at risk of collision until, say, 5 or 10 minutes from point of closest approach. If they are both sailboats, that would be around a mile or two apart. In any case, I would interpret the rules as saying I am free to maneuver as courtesy and common sense dictates up to that point. When big ships are involved, obviously that is a different matter entirely.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by HeywoodJ

Such a simple phrase, and yet undefined in COLREGs. And so important, especially in the OP's case. Ever been to told as the helmsman to "hold your course dead downwind", or "hold her course with the wind x points off the y bow"? Not uncommon phrases in the age of sail, where "course" may or may not have meant a compass heading or cardinal direction.

Is a sailboat hard on the wind maintaining her "course" if the wind shifts 10 degrees and she follows the shift and is thus still hard on the wind? There is an argument that says yes. In the OP's case, under spinnaker, holding wind angle through a shift so as not to gybe or collapse the sail could be argued as "holding course." No power driven vessel would view it that way, but these things have had a way of changing in the last century-and-a-half.

And what about speed? Is sailing "as fast as I can make the boat go with this relative angle to the wind" holding speed? When the wind drops from 15 to 5, are you obligated to start your engine to maintain the speed you had? What if you don't have an engine?

The plain reading of the words seem pretty straightforward to me and don’t need further definition.

If the external situation changes then all parties need to reevaluate their obligations under the COLREGs. Being at sea is not like being ashore driving a car where you are required to stay in a lane and doing so confers significant privilege.

The OP’s question was in regards to collision course with another sailboat so they would be similarly affected by a wind shift in the short term. USCG a wind shift might leave them on a collision course. Whatever, the situation is changed and you have to reevaluate.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

By clear application the rules as written, as soon as the vessels are in sight of each other, the stand-on is prohibited from making any change to course or speed. You may find wiggle room in Rule 34, Maneuvering Signals (ie, you can discuss and agree on a course change). But as stand on vessel, if I see you 3 miles away as a give-way vessel, and I come up in a lift, I'm breaking the law.

There was some discussion about this when writing the COLREGS; the case law surrounding the question is that there is also a time component (TCPA), not just a space component (CPA). When the meeting is sufficiently distant, both vessels are free to maneuver. (Yes, I know it's not well spelled-out.). For large ships in a head-on or crossing situation, a TCPA of 18-24 minutes seems to be about the point when risk of collision is said to arise.

Additionally, "course and speed" has been held to refer to the activities the ship is currently engaged in, so far as it would be obvious to an observer. I.e. it's the "keep doing what you're doing" rule. For example, if you're following a river that bends, you don't hold your heading straight into the riverbank.

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Rule 17(a)(ii) allows the stand-on vessel to take action when it becomes apparent that the give way is not taking appropriate action, but if that were deemed to occur the instant the vessels see each other, it kind of defeats the obligation to stand-on.

How could it occur on that instant? The other vessel would need to take time to properly assess the situation. In pre-ARPA times that might mean at least the time to work a basic 6-minute radar plot. Even after it would mean the time to take a compass bearing, wait a few minutes, and repeat the exercise. Simply eyeballing the situation runs afoul of Rule 7(c)'s caution about making assumptions based on scanty information.

Originally Posted by sailingharry

I would interpret that to occur at the point where reasonable action by the give-way would be insufficient (for instance, a course change greater than 15 degrees, or calling up all stop, or some similar extreme action on the part of the give-way) -- in other words, 5 minutes out or so for most pleasure craft.

This situation is already covered by 17(b), but your approach of working backwards to find appropriate action points for the other vessel is on the right track. Thus, you'd need to consider how much space and time you'd need to respond, as well as how much they might need. At some point before either threshold is reached you'd need to budget time for sounding the warning signal and seeing if they respond, before taking the required avoiding action.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

What am I supposed to see below?

Generally, all of it. More specifically the label thing.

This? You haven't said anything.

I meant that I've said it several times prior and don't want to keep repeating it. But it seems I have to (in this thread but not in this paragraph).

Is there a point here? Having a choice is still a right, as opposed to "thou shalt alter to starboard a la Rule 14."

The point is that a binary choice is a far cry from this:

...but it is entirely up to that privileged vessel to make whatever plan it pleases - because it has a right!

and this:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It does mean "others have to stay out of your way regardless of what speed and direction you choose."

Furthermore, "thou shalt alter to starboard a la Rule 14" and pass port-port is the INTERNATIONAL Rule 14. But we are talking about inland here, and INLAND 14(a) allows altering to port and passing stbd-stbd, initiated by EITHER vessel (and accepted or refused by the other). INLAND 14(d) gives the up-current vessel the right of way and "the right" (obligation?) to make that same decision. That's it. Not to do whatever she wants. A difference, but not a substantive difference IMHO.

Your opinion. My opinion is you're wrong. According to the US Coast Guard you're wrong. I'm all for challenging conformity, but at some point when you're the lone dissenting voice, you really should be asking "AITA?"

The purpose of a conversation (or discussion, argument, etc.) is to convey information. Your sentence did that sufficiently even though it contained some "errors." I could point out that some words were spelled incorrectly; I could tell you the correct spelling of those words. But it wouldn't add anything more to the information that was the intent of the sentence.

Referring to a boat as the right-of-way vessel tells you exactly which part of the rules apply to her. You can point out the incorrect terminology, but it doesn't change the rule interpretation one iota.

It's not just me. The 72 conventions specifically got rid of right of way and privilege and burden. They worked long and hard to be as precise as possible in defining the obligations of specific vessels.

The change(s) was made to make the rules slightly clearer, slightly less ambiguous. "It is altogether fitting and proper that [they did] this." But they only clarified a bit with the new wording, they didn't create a game changer.

You've missed the point altogether. The point is that there is obviously a substantive difference between "stand on" and "right of way." If you're familiar with the Inland rules that should be a given as "right of way" is used in specific instances, and clearly not in all the other rules where "stand on" applies.

No sir, you have missed the point. Or rather two of them.

First, IF there were "a substantive difference between 'stand on' and 'right of way,'" you wouldn't be able to get that from the Annex. This is because, summarizing again (using the wrong terminology) all it says that it doesn't ALWAYS have right of way, but DOES have it when the rules say it does and not why the rules say it doesn't. Because the lights don't make it special. It says nothing about the difference between the meaning of any terms.

Second, it is nonsense to say: "So obviously if a vessel can be 'stand on' but not have right of way at the same time, there's a substantive difference." The Annex doesn't say this, either explicitly or implied. It should be obvious from the previous paragraph.

Read the FAQ (#5): https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/navigation-rules-faqs#0.3_5
Feel free to argue with the USCG.

I have no beef with the USCG. They are "the lawyers" talking about the legalese. We can be "non-lawyers" and talk colloquially.

Further to this point, since "The Rules do not grant privileges or rights" (quote from the FAQ) if someone refers to a boat with the right of way, you know that "the label" does not infer any specific right on that vessel. Those "rights" are only as described in said rules and not what the reader/listener thinks the "label" means. In other words, any difference (and how substantive it is or might be) between "stand on" and "right of way" is meaningless.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Generally, all of it. More specifically the label thing.

Good grief! You'd argue a leopard's spots aren't "spots."

The point is that a binary choice is a far cry from this:

You realize that boats work in a 2-dimensional realm - they all have basically the same choices - left, right or stop.

Furthermore, "thou shalt alter to starboard a la Rule 14" and pass port-port is the INTERNATIONAL Rule 14. But we are talking about inland here, and INLAND 14(a) allows altering to port and passing stbd-stbd, initiated by EITHER vessel (and accepted or refused by the other). INLAND 14(d) gives the up-current vessel the right of way and "the right" (obligation?) to make that same decision. That's it. Not to do whatever she wants. A difference, but not a substantive difference IMHO.

If you don't understand that something agreed to by two parties is different to something decided by one party and imposed on the other, then I can't help you.


First, IF there were "a substantive difference between 'stand on' and 'right of way,'" you wouldn't be able to get that from the Annex. This is because, summarizing again (using the wrong terminology) all it says that it doesn't ALWAYS have right of way, but DOES have it when the rules say it does and not why the rules say it doesn't. Because the lights don't make it special. It says nothing about the difference between the meaning of any terms.

It says:

Nothing there that says "not always." "Must" abide by the Rules, and "must not" act as if it gives them right of way!


I have no beef with the USCG. They are "the lawyers" talking about the legalese. We can be "non-lawyers" and talk colloquially.

The USCG are not lawyers. The FAQ is specifically directed at boaters. I'm done with your nonsense. Feel free to have the last word.

[catsketcher]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Except that, legally speaking (not logically speaking, or prudently speaking, or politely speaking) treating yourself as the Give-Way is illegal. Once you see another boat (a mile or two away? "In Sight" is the legal standard), you are bound to hold your course and speed until it becomes apparent that the other vessel isn't, even if a 10 degree change eliminates the risk of collision and makes it easier for everyone (Rule 17). Interpreting this to mean that you can take avoidance action 15 minutes before CPA because "obviously, they haven't" kind of defeats the intent of "stand on" (ie, stand-on is relieved of the burden the instant it is established).

I don't know how anyone is supposed to know when another boat has seen them. AS I stated before, even as a right of way boat, if altering course 10 degrees early on makes it possible for me to go astern of a boat that is busy (or dangerous looking) and make everything easier then I can do that with pride in my seamanship. Do it early and be seen doing so. On Sydney harbour this can be 1 minute or less before a CPA or offshore it could be 2-3 miles away. If you were to hold right of way regardless on a crowded Sydney Harbour you would be very unwelcome with local racing fleets and with those near the shore on port tack going upwind. You would probably have had a few collisions too. Just use your boat's heading to show where you are going and your intentions, but do it early.

If we take the idea that the stand on vessel has to keep on going as soon as it has been seen, then that would mean you can't tack, even if you are now on the layline for your destination once "seen", or gybe for the same reason, or you get a big knock. That would be pretty inconvenient and very silly. On a crowded (or not so crowded harbour) you would be forced to keep on your starboard close halued course if anyone is able to see you - a sort of enforced quantum effect, whereby the mere act of being observed makes your right of way course unalterable - that is just silly. We don't drive ships that take miles to alter course, so shouldn't use ship type methods.

Maybe it is because I am a racer too. In racing clever sailors often let close port tackers cross them, it stops the port tacker lee bowing them. In Lasers and one designs just a little dip keeps your air clear and everyone apart. So you yell out "Keep going! - you are clear!" and dip a little. Then you get a little nod from the guy who crosses you. I do it yacht racing too, but I do it early and make sure I am seen by the guys on the helm, and then I check the boat's behaviour. It works very well and has spread to experienced sailors not racing who regularly call out to let racing boats, or ones with kites, or anyone having a hard time, have a clear lane if it is easy to do so. It is not hard and keeps everyone safer, look at the other boat and work out what they will be doing soon and plan for it - another racing strategy.

The most wind I have ever had my cat in was consistent 35 plus and gusting more. There were only two of us out off the coast that day, my cat, square running with a scrap of headsail out and a 100ft training ship almost paralleling me - the Young Endeavour. We were slowly converging with me on starboard tack and him on port. So I called him up on the radio and asked him his destination and we chatted. I said I would gybe instead of making a 100ft training vessel do so in a gale. All good and much safer than me continuing on with right of way. It took me about 20 seconds to gybe the tiny heady and eventually I pulled ahead. All good. You can do the same without a radio, use your boat's course and boat behaviour to telegraph your intentions early. I would have done the same with a yacht the same size as mine - the conditions were nasty and the other yacht may have really wanted to avoid a gybe, so a right of way boat altering course early can be far more seamanlike than holding onto the course irregardless. Acting as if we drive ships is not seamanlike.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

I don't know how anyone is supposed to know when another boat has seen them. AS I stated before, even as a right of way boat, if altering course 10 degrees early on makes it possible for me to go astern of a boat that is busy (or dangerous looking) and make everything easier then I can do that with pride in my seamanship. Do it early and be seen doing so.

Just to be clear, you and I are on the same page with how to behave on the water. Under sail, I'll often alter course, sometimes significantly, to let a fisherman keep fishing. Racers are completely off limits -- as a racer myself, I'll go to great lengths to keep me and my bad air away from them. But where in COLREGS do you find justification or permission for that?
It's been mentioned up-thread that COLREGS are just the beginning -- if you want to know what the law actually is, you need to read the many precedent setting case law. Woe be to anyone who actually thinks that the plain words in the law even come close to being the law.
Fortunately, good manners and good seamanship, even if illegal, ensure that you never get into a situation where courts and lawyers get to educate you on the hidden law behind the plain English. No one will ever prosecute you for failing to get into a collision!

[catsketcher]

I'll keep being illegal then

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Good grief! You'd argue a leopard's spots aren't "spots."

I don't get where / how that follows. Maybe I didn't cover as much as thoroughly I was intending, but still don't get this...

You realize that boats work in a 2-dimensional realm - they all have basically the same choices - left, right or stop.

Uhhh, yeah, of course. Is that supposed to help your case?

If you don't understand that something agreed to by two parties is different to something decided by one party and imposed on the other, then I can't help you.

Did you see where I said "A difference, but not a substantive difference IMHO." If you don't know that "difference" and "different" are two forms of the same root word, then I can't help you.

Nothing there that says "not always." "Must" abide by the Rules, and "must not" act as if it gives them right of way!

Which is what I said. Twice. Flashy lights mean nothing, follow the rules.
What it doesn't say is anything about the definition of "right of way" and "stand on." You said it did though.

The USCG are not lawyers. The FAQ is specifically directed at boaters.

Of course they are "the lawyers" (the law, the Government, the big cheese, the fuzz,...) and are going to use "official" language. We don't have to. Come on man. You're being petty.

I'm done with your nonsense. Feel free to have the last word.

My last word is: I noticed how you (repeatedly) ignored the main point of my post(s) and focused on the trivial things. THE POINT IS that using the reference of a vessel with "right of way" is not technically correct since it is not used in the Rules (with a couple minor exceptions), but it is a perfectly fine label that leaves no ambiguity as to which side of the rules she is on.

I'd like to think that you repeatedly ignore this because you realize it is right but don't want to admit. I fear that it is more likely that you don't concede that fact, and just can't come up with anything to say about it to make your case. Or maybe it's some other reason...

[Jammer]

Mod hat on

Please keep in mind that, particularly when it comes to the finer points of the COLREGS and Inland Rules, you and other forum participants will be best served when the purpose of your posts is either to further your own understanding of the regulations or to answer questions from others.

I can assure you that there are no neutral adjudicators reading page six of this thread in order to award a medal to whoever is right.

[Lee Jerry]

Awwww, crap. I was really hoping for a medal. Or at least a bowling trophy...