Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 31-08-2017, 20:58   #121
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,489
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
StuM I don't know where you are getting your information from?
I suspect that you missed the fact that my previous post concluded with a quotation from:
"A Guide to the Collision Regulations" by A. N. COCKCROFT and J . N. F. LAMEIJER
(commonly known as "Cockcroft").

The principles stated are not mine, they are the exact words of the recognised authority on the subject. Specifically the authors' comments on Rule 9. There are about 10 pages of comments and quoted case law on the Rule which are well worth reading.
StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 22:56   #122
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 151
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

StuM, what do you understand the word impede means? As to my quoted paragraph in post 120 you did not answer my question as to where the large vessel should go. Rule 9b reflects the change from 1972 where sail no longer has priority in restricted waters. I don't believe 13a overides 9b. unfortunate,you cannot create rules written in such a way as to allow for human stupidity so my original question was really a case of if one followed the rules would that suggest that the restricted vessel should have a free run up the waterway.I have consistently stated that every vessel must take action to avoid a collision but it seems to me that something I take for granted I must repeat on every post. I await with interest your response.
robbievardon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 23:12   #123
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,489
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
StuM, what do you understand the word impede means?
I understand it to mean what Cockcroft says:
The following item of Guidance was approved in 1982 by the Maritime Safety Committee; ‘When a vessel is required not to impede the passage of another vessel, such a vessel shall so far as practicable navigate in such a way as to avoid the development of risk of collision. If, however, a situation has developed so as to involve risk of collision, the relevant Steering and Sailing Rules shall be complied with.’

The above Guidance is now superseded by the new Rule 8(f) which establishes clearIy that the requirements of ‘not to impede’ are complementary to other requirements of the Steering and Sailing Rule.

IOW, "not to impede" is applicable only prior to a risk of collision eventuating. Once the risk does eventuate, "not impede" becomes irrelevant and the other Rules come into play.
StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 23:22   #124
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,489
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
Rule 9b reflects the change from 1972 where sail no longer has priority in restricted waters.
See previous post. 9(b) did not change the situation so that sail no longer has priority in restricted waters.

Quote:
I don't believe 13a overides 9b.
I believe it does. This seems quite clear to me:

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.


Quote:
unfortunate,you cannot create rules written in such a way as to allow for human stupidity so my original question was really a case of if one followed the rules would that suggest that the restricted vessel should have a free run up the waterway.I have consistently stated that every vessel must take action to avoid a collision but it seems to me that something I take for granted I must repeat on every post. I await with interest your response.
StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 23:29   #125
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,489
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
you did not answer my question as to where the large vessel should go.
I did answer it as best I could given that it is a hypothetical with limited factors described:
"the small vessel becomes stand one and the large vessel is required to take action - be it alter course, slow down, speed up or whatever."

The specific action to be taken by the large vessel will be dependent on the particular circumstances and prudent seamanship.
StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 01:59   #126
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
Dockhead, perhaps I have confused you.I would not advocate replacing the words as written in the c regs but suplement them with words that would help them to grasp the principle and remember it more easily. Is this not something you intend to put in your book. Having said that how about you give a couple examples of just what scenarios you intend to create and how you intend to improve on the wording in the c regs to cover it. Your last sentence does not quite fit with my question evaded by you by stating not part of c regs, The narrative regarding the river passage was not in the US but europe. A small adendum, what signals would the ship exibit in your opinion each time we ran aground, day and night?
OK, now I understand you.

And sure -- I don't think there's anything wrong starting off with new students by saying something like "vessels under sail have right of way over powered vessels underway", then going right on to explain that "but it's not 'right of way' at all, because unlike on the road, we don't have any 'rights', and here is what we are obligated to do . . ." etc. We have an experienced ASA instructor on here -- Snore -- and he does just that. I think it's not only OK, but actually essential, to discuss "right of way" and how it is different from standing on.

As to "improving on the wording of the c regs" -- I wouldn't dare. The more I study them, the more I respect the way they are written and how they work.

As to your river situation -- if it is in Europe, it's governed by CEVNI, not COLREGs. I don't know anything about CEVNI, and have never navigated on a European inland waterway, so I won't waste space here by writing about something I don't understand.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 02:07   #127
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
Dockhead,your version of lost is incorrect as a general statement. We now have the ability to recover lost items from almost anywhere in the North sea up to and beyond the Thistle oilfield which seems to be local to you.Divers are regularly put to work in depths greatly exceeding 6oo feet. I don't know the current capacities but in my day we had floating cranes with lift capacities 3,600 tons over the stern or 2,600 tons full circle, and i am sure these figures will have increased as jackets and platform modules have increased in size. Introducing your age into the argument is the same as talking about a car. A complete non starter for me.
So we're now arguing about the meaning of the word "lost"? This is getting better and better . . .

Well, I have to disagree. The word "lost" is absolutely correctly applied to situations where the condition is not absolute or permanent. Otherwise, the phrase "lost forever" would be a tautology. "I've lost my keys" doesn't necessarily mean "I've lost them forever, and will never find them again." Just like "I lost a winch handle overboard" doesn't mean that it is absolutely impossible to recover it -- it might correctly mean simply that it's not worthwhile to attempt to recover it, so it's lost to me.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 02:15   #128
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
I understand it to mean what Cockcroft says:
The following item of Guidance was approved in 1982 by the Maritime Safety Committee; ‘When a vessel is required not to impede the passage of another vessel, such a vessel shall so far as practicable navigate in such a way as to avoid the development of risk of collision. If, however, a situation has developed so as to involve risk of collision, the relevant Steering and Sailing Rules shall be complied with.’

The above Guidance is now superseded by the new Rule 8(f) which establishes clearIy that the requirements of ‘not to impede’ are complementary to other requirements of the Steering and Sailing Rule.

IOW, "not to impede" is applicable only prior to a risk of collision eventuating. Once the risk does eventuate, "not impede" becomes irrelevant and the other Rules come into play.
Stu is absolutely correct, and this is one of the rather fine points in the Rules. This was the point about which I corresponded with Cockcroft himself a few years ago.

The short answer is this: Rule 9 does NOT trump Rule 13. These two Rules apply at DIFFERENT TIMES.

As Stu correctly said (and he is one of the few people I have run into who understand this ), in order to fulfill the obligations of Rule 9, you must maneuver early enough that the risk of collision never arises in the first place.

If for any reason you fail to prevent a risk of collision from arising, then Rule 13 is fully applicable. Your Rule 9 obligation to "not impede", however, continues.

What this means is that you could be obligated to stand-on AND not impede at the very same time. This is what bothered me so much that I found Cockcroft and wrote to him about it. I am grateful to Lodesman who was the one who pointed this out to me, years ago, in an argument on CF, and proved me wrong when I insisted that this could not possibly be so.

It really is so. And it is not as paradoxical as it first seems, when you correctly understanding what standing-on really means.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 02:20   #129
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
. . . . I have consistently stated that every vessel must take action to avoid a collision but it seems to me that something I take for granted I must repeat on every post. . . .
Can there be any controversy on this point? I think everyone agrees with you, completely. It's kind of the one fundamental principle of collision avoidance, actually.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 02:42   #130
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
. . . Dockhead you forgot to mention that the USCG rules (9) are not the same as the international ones. Where do you get the "right to manoeuvre as you like" Int. c regs (9) states "A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable" Sections b,c,d,e,and f list vessels which should not impede the above vessel which to me suggests it has a "right of way' but there is no statement to this effect that I can see.
I think Stu has answered this already.

I was referring to U.S. Inland Rule 9(a)(ii), which applies ONLY to a vessel proceeding down a river with a following current. This is the ONLY case where right of way exists -- and the U.S. Coast Guard specifically says this on their official site. They take pains to distinguish the condition of having explicit right of way under Inland Rule 9(a)(ii) from the case where you are obligated to stand on under Rule 17, and well they should, because what you are allowed to do and what you are required to do are completely different in those two different cases.

If a vessel is supposed to "not impede" you under Rules 9 or 10, then this is even further away from anything like "right of way". It is yet again something different. You must give way to a vessel which is obligated to "not impede" you, in case a risk of collision arises -- Rule 13 explicitly applies notwithstanding anything in Rules 9 or 10.

So what that means is that if you are a fully loaded supertanker following a channel into Rotterdam, and a little sailboat under sail crosses the channel and gets in your way, you are obligated to give way to the sailboat as best you can, and the little sailboat is obligated to stand on so that you can effectively do that, up until the point he has a reasonable doubt that the supertanker is maneuvering effectively.

Depending on the distances involved, the amount of time the little sailboat must stand on prior to this doubt arising may approach 0 -- that is because any such encounter is likely to be an "in extremis" situation where the maneuver of the give way vessel is already not going to be enough in any case. So of course in practice, the little sailboat should be doing its best to get back out of the channel as fast as possible. But legally -- the supertanker is obligated to give way, and this obligations continues into the the "in extremis" phase, and the supertanker must do everything it can to give way. If the little sailboat has sailed right under its bows, then there might be nothing whatsoever the supertanker can do, but that's where "everyone is at all times obligated to do what is necessary to prevent a collision" comes in -- Rule 2, also the obligations of the stand-on vessel under Rule 17(b).
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 06:30   #131
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 3,482
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
"Shall not impede" basically means, do not manoeuver into a position where a "risk of collision" will arise. Once the "risk of collision" has arisen because of the improper action of the "vessel which shall not impede", then the other rules come into effect and the "above vessel" may well be the "give way vessel" and the impeding vessel may well be the "stand on" vessel.
If you re-read Cockcroft, you will find the above directive was out of the MSC's 1982 Guidance, which was superseded by Rule 8(f). The rule spells out that a vessel required to not impede (VRTNI) aware of the approach of a vessel that is not to be impeded (VNTBI) should take early action to allow the safe passage of the VNTBI, whether it is in sight or not.

"Safe passage" is not described sufficiently by the rules or Cockcroft, but as the "not impede" rule is only used in situations where vessels are constrained by the available draught and width of channel, then it can reasonably be surmised that so long as there is safe, navigable water through which the VNTBI can manoeuvre, it is not impeded.

If the VRTNI is blocking the deep-water channel, and the VNTBI cannot manoeuvre around it, then the VNTBI is impeded. The VRTNI would have failed in its requirements, but at this point would be required to do whatever is required to allow the VNTBI safe passage; while the VNTBI would be required to avoid the collision by whatever means necessary, with no requirement to endanger herself navigationally.
Lodesman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 07:01   #132
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
If you re-read Cockcroft, you will find the above directive was out of the MSC's 1982 Guidance, which was superseded by Rule 8(f). The rule spells out that a vessel required to not impede (VRTNI) aware of the approach of a vessel that is not to be impeded (VNTBI) should take early action to allow the safe passage of the VNTBI, whether it is in sight or not.

"Safe passage" is not described sufficiently by the rules or Cockcroft, but as the "not impede" rule is only used in situations where vessels are constrained by the available draught and width of channel, then it can reasonably be surmised that so long as there is safe, navigable water through which the VNTBI can manoeuvre, it is not impeded.

If the VRTNI is blocking the deep-water channel, and the VNTBI cannot manoeuvre around it, then the VNTBI is impeded. The VRTNI would have failed in its requirements, but at this point would be required to do whatever is required to allow the VNTBI safe passage; while the VNTBI would be required to avoid the collision by whatever means necessary, with no requirement to endanger herself navigationally.
For the sake of clarity, you are not disagreeing with, but rather elucidating Stu's comment, right?

Some commentators believe that the VNTBI is impeded if it has to maneuver at all -- not just if it is put into a position where it cannot maneuver around. I don't have an opinion on this; I'm just stating for the record that such a position exists. Your thoughts on the matter would be very interesting for many of us, I think.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 07:27   #133
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 3,482
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
For the sake of clarity, you are not disagreeing with, but rather elucidating Stu's comment, right?

Some commentators believe that the VNTBI is impeded if it has to maneuver at all -- not just if it is put into a position where it cannot maneuver around. I don't have an opinion on this; I'm just stating for the record that such a position exists. Your thoughts on the matter would be very interesting for many of us, I think.
I'm not disagreeing with Stu per se; I don't believe he has a complete understanding of the rule, given his citing of an obsolete Guidance. Stu can be forgiven, because this is a poorly-understood concept, even amongst professional mariners. As you suggest, many equate being impeded, with any requirement to manoeuvre, and that IMO is patently wrong. It is certainly inconsistent with the wording of the rules, and the guidance (as little as there is) as written by Cockcroft.

Take the example that a tanker is proceeding along a traffic lane at 20 kts, to the stbd side in the lane. He approaches a freighter making 12 kts, also to the stbd side in the lane. Well the tanker will simply alter a couple degrees to port and pass the freighter, staying safely within the lane and leaving the freighter a safe distance to stbd - he won't even need to change speed.
Now imagine the same scenario, but in place of the freighter, we put a PDV under 20 metres. The commentators you talk of, would now consider the tanker to be impeded; you have to admit, that is preposterous.
Lodesman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 07:38   #134
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
I'm not disagreeing with Stu per se; I don't believe he has a complete understanding of the rule, given his citing of an obsolete Guidance. Stu can be forgiven, because this is a poorly-understood concept, even amongst professional mariners. As you suggest, many equate being impeded, with any requirement to manoeuvre, and that IMO is patently wrong. It is certainly inconsistent with the wording of the rules, and the guidance (as little as there is) as written by Cockcroft.

Take the example that a tanker is proceeding along a traffic lane at 20 kts, to the stbd side in the lane. He approaches a freighter making 12 kts, also to the stbd side in the lane. Well the tanker will simply alter a couple degrees to port and pass the freighter, staying safely within the lane and leaving the freighter a safe distance to stbd - he won't even need to change speed.
Now imagine the same scenario, but in place of the freighter, we put a PDV under 20 metres. The commentators you talk of, would now consider the tanker to be impeded; you have to admit, that is preposterous.
I have always thought it to be fairly logical that if while sailing across a TSS, if I put a ship in a lane in a position where it had to maneuver to avoid me, that I had violated my obligation to "not impede".

Your point is well argued, though. Is there any reading on this you can recommend? I have to write something on this and I have to be sure that I have read everything on the subject which is important. Or maybe you'd like to write this chapter?
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017, 08:20   #135
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 151
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

DH/Lodesman my view is that you appear to have 2 scenarios rolled into one.If your sailing vessel is proceeding up the channel then in my view the tanker is an overtaking vessel and is thus required to keep clear as per rule 13. If however a vessel which according to rule 3a means every type of water craft crosses a narrow channel in such a way as to cause your tanker to alter course then is that craft not impeding the tanker rule 9d particularly if it crosses from starboard side and then suddenly becomes the stand on vessel. At what point does this change occur? My understanding of the word impede is based on US dictionary = bar or hinder the progress of, obstruct or delay. Could you please advise when you are referring to USCG regs for inland waters and rivers as they are not all the same as International c regs, Does Canada use the USCG regs or do they have their own rules?
robbievardon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
collision

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Challenge: Collision Avoidance! Pelagic Challenges 53 18-08-2017 19:54
CARD Collision Avoidance Radar Detector multihullsailor6 Marine Electronics 12 27-12-2015 21:12
Collision Avoidance - Tsunami Debris rreeves Health, Safety & Related Gear 22 03-05-2012 07:23
Collision Avoidance in Mexico: AIS or Radar or ? no_bad_days Pacific & South China Sea 27 19-09-2011 15:40
Distance to Horizon & Collision Avoidance GordMay General Sailing Forum 7 19-06-2009 00:18

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:10.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.