Schooner VS Containership

[El Pinguino]

Page 43 of the german rules applies to this case.

It seems that unlike rule 9 the local rules not only apply to smallish craft and sailing vessels but everyone... you can't come out of Brunsbuttel on a 10,000 ton motor ship and impede an outward bound 1000 ton coaster coming down from Hamburg...the coaster has 'right of way' even though you will be on her starboard bow....

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

As far as I remember, (from Boot Camp) steering commands are RUDDER commands. Doesn't matter if it's a wheel or tiller, it's that barn door thingy in the water that counts.
Of course, my time in the USCG was spent chasing electrons; maybe a Bosun's Mate coule chime in here.

Been that way for nigh on a century, and Wiki claims the US and UK were among the last to switch, doing so in the early '30s. Example:

No person on any British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall when the ship is going ahead give a helm or steering order containing the word " starboard " or " right" or any equivalent of " starboard" or " right", unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the right, or give a helm or steering order containing the word " port" or " left", or any equivalent of " port " or " left ", unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the left.
-- Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act 1932

Also in the International Convention For The Safety Of Life At Sea agreement of '29:

The Contracting Governments agree that after midnight on 30 June 1931, helm or steering orders, ie, orders to the steersman, shall on all their ships be given in the direct sense, eg, when the ship is going ahead an order containing the word "starboard" or "right" or any equivalent of "starboard" or "right" shall only be used when it is intended, on ships as at present generally constructed and arranged, that the wheel, the rudder-blade and the head of the ship, shall all move to the right.

[barnakiel]

Elbe is a limited depth channel waters. Very stupid to get under the bow of a cargo vessel in such circumstances.


b.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Correct... 'starboard' means tip of rudder goes to starboard and bow also goes to starboard....

Turn left, right?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Flagman101

https://ecolregs.com/index.php?optio...id=384&lang=en
9d

"A vessel of less than 20 m in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage. . . "


"Not impede" is not the same as "give way" under Rules 18, 19, 20. It's a different concept. I suggest further study.

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

In the Elbe the container ship had 'right of way'....
From the local regs quoted above at #36.... https://www.bsh.de/DE/PUBLIKATIONEN/...cationFile&v=8

§ 25 Right of way of ships in a fairway
(1) In derogation of the provisions of Rules 9(b) to (d), 15, and 18(a) to (c) of the International Regula- tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended, the regulations contained in the following paragraphs shall apply to vessels navigating in a fairway.
(2) A vessel proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, irrespective of whether or not she can safely navigate only within the fairway channel, shall have the right of way over vessels
1. entering that fairway,
2. crossing that fairway,
3. making turns in that fairway,............
...........

Yes, and obviously that is the operative concept here, not Rule 9.



This specifically trumps Rules 9, 15, and 18.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

9a, 9b and 9d all seem to apply:

Rule 9 (Narrow channels)
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit or the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable. It appeared that the schooner was far over to the port side of the channel and beating into a headwind at far from anything resembling a right angle across the channel generally proceeding towards returning to the starboard side of the channel; per this rule the schooner likely should not have passed beyond the centerline of the shipping lane, albeit if it had stayed in the shallows far to the oncoming container ships starboard side so as to pass starboard to starboard, it likely would have avoided the collision. Wrong time to be on the wrong side of the narrow channel.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 m in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway. My general rule of thumb is to just quit sailing when the course requires to otherwise tack your way through a narrow channel, especially as to the necessity for repeated tacks within a narrow channel as there often is no room for a Plan B with a failed tack or a windshift, or the wind slows or stops. There being a time and a place for the iron jib to be unfurled.

. . .

(d) A vessel shall not cross a narrow channel of fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the sound signal prescribed in Rule 34 (d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel. In the video I heard the schooner sound five horn toots in two rapid successions just seconds from the collision but I did not hear the container ship make any sound signals. Taking time to sound signal was a wrong choice of action as it further delayed the skipper's needed course alteration. Sound doesn't change the direction of ships, might as well have yelled Hey for all it was going to accomplish.

El Ping has straightened you out on this, but you also need further study on Rule 9. IF Rule 9 applied (it doesn't in the Elbe as Ping pointed out), then the obligation of the schooner to "not impede" the ship, would not reduce the obligation of the power-driven ship to give way to sail. The clue is Rule 8(iii):


A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.


These principles are much misunderstood.

[MartinR]

I can only give my professional opinion, being up and down the Elbe many times on the bridge of big vessels.

Rules or no rules, the container ship had nowhere to go. Starboard was out, due to shallow water, port was out, due to meeting traffic, and would have been a bad choice anyhow, as the schooner obviously tried to cross ahead.

The order given was hard to port, and I think I can also see that they are trying to move the tiller to starboard for a second or so. They realise quickly that the boat is not responding and put the helm to the lee instead, sealing the fate of the vessel.

[Flagman101]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"A vessel of less than 20 m in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage. . . "


"Not impede" is not the same as "give way" under Rules 18, 19, 20. It's a different concept. I suggest further study.

No thanks. You may continue arguing in the choice of words but I know i would not have crossed in front of the containership so nobody would have to argue on my decisions.
French being my first language choosing to call the containership stand on was not one based on the dry COLREGS text but based on an easy to understand way of saying the sailboat should not have crossed in front of the containership.
It had no wear to go. And stopping these things takes a few miles.

End of message.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Flagman101

No thanks. You may continue arguing in the choice of words but I know i would not have crossed in front of the containership so nobody would have to argue on my decisions.
French being my first language choosing to call the containership stand on was not one based on the dry COLREGS text but based on an easy to understand way of saying the sailboat should not have crossed in front of the containership.
It had no wear to go. And stopping these things takes a few miles.

End of message.

No one argued with that. Of course whatever set of rules apply, you should stay out of the way of the ship. I think any idiot understands that.

I was merely objecting to the idea that Rule 9 would make the ship stand-on (if Rule 9 applied, which as Ping pointed out, it does not). This is false. Rule 9 does not work that way. A vessel not to be impeded, does not thereby become stand on. Rule 18 continues, whether or not Rule 9 is in play. It's a somewhat fine point, but nonetheless important.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No one argued with that. Of course whatever set of rules apply, you should stay out of the way of the ship. I think any idiot understands that.

I was merely objecting to the idea that Rule 9 would make the ship stand-on (if Rule 9 applied, which as Ping pointed out, it does not). This is false. Rule 9 does not work that way. A vessel not to be impeded, does not thereby become stand on. Rule 18 continues, whether or not Rule 9 is in play. It's a somewhat fine point, but nonetheless important.

A somewhat fine point as applied on the water, but perhaps dispositive in favor of the container ship after-the-fact. The use of the term "right-of-way" as opposed to the more common "give way/stand on" seems to be the lynchpin, no?

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by MartinR

I can only give my professional opinion, being up and down the Elbe many times on the bridge of big vessels.

Rules or no rules, the container ship had nowhere to go. Starboard was out, due to shallow water, port was out, due to meeting traffic, and would have been a bad choice anyhow, as the schooner obviously tried to cross ahead.

The order given was hard to port, and I think I can also see that they are trying to move the tiller to starboard for a second or so. They realise quickly that the boat is not responding and put the helm to the lee instead, sealing the fate of the vessel.

I also don't see or hear any movement or command to ease or trim sails either, which also seems odd.

I'm not familiar with this exact vessel but (as you well know I think) on many classic vessels putting the helm over can sometimes have very little effect, and without a corresponding sail trim adjustment the vessel simply continues on it's track.

A big ease and a big bear away to pass clear astern seems like it would have been simple enough, but personally I think that the Captain was confused about the rule situation right from the start - it seems to me that bearing away to port was never being considered, even before the video starts (given the relative angles).

This says to me says that the Captain was always expecting to cross ahead, and was always expecting the container ship to alter to starboard and go behind the schooner, so he therefore continues to hold course and speed.

Because of course, he didn't want to turn to port into what he expected the (altered) course of the container ship to be.

Hence the 5 short blasts at the last minute, as if to say "WTF, why aren't you altering to starboard mr container ship?" (like I expected).

Oh my, what an error of judgement to make

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

El Ping has straightened you out on this, but you also need further study on Rule 9. IF Rule 9 applied (it doesn't in the Elbe as Ping pointed out), then the obligation of the schooner to "not impede" the ship, would not reduce the obligation of the power-driven ship to give way to sail. The clue is Rule 8(iii):


A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.


These principles are much misunderstood.

Yes as always, both vessels have the obligation to avoid involvement of collision. It doesn't matter as to obligations of avoiding collision if someone was supposed to not impede the other and / or failed to impede another vessel. The schooner appears to have failed as to rule 9 of the International rules. I am clewless [spelled intentionally as if clueless] of the local Elbe rules and the implications and obligations of an derogation of the international rules. Does anyone have a reference to such local rules.

Having the derogatory rule of right of way under the local rules does not give one the right to collide. A vessel having the Right of Way does rather indicate the vessel that is not to be impeded.

right of way

noun

2.
the legal right of a pedestrian, vehicle, or ship to proceed with precedence over others in a particular situation or place.

Right of way implies priority.

Having the right of way, implies someone else is obligated to yield to those that have the right of way. Yielding is rather similar to being obligated to giving way. Having right of way seems to be more than just being a stand on vessel, it means you go first and others go second / later / or by alternate route or delayed time.

So yes it does seem that the schooner should have avoided being where it was and yet the containership also must act to avoid collision. The short video appears to show that the containership held course, at least there wasn't any significant change in course or speed. The containership may have been able to deviate from the collision course / unsafe distance by early decisive action, it didn't. If it had steerage capabilities it may have shifted to port [we don't know what oncoming traffic if any there was, or how close any oncoming traffic might have been] or it could have shifted to starboard and run into the shallows. It may have been less dangerous to run aground [a drastic kind of maneuver] then to run into the schooner, a relative degree of safety consideration. I big ship plowing into the mud seemingly being less hazardous then running broadside into a schooner full of passengers. The schooner was IMO at primary fault, but one has to ask if the containership did EVERYTHING it could do to avoid the collision, there often being a degree of mutual fault when collisions arise. E.g., communicate hazard and intentions with the schooner, communicate the need and intention to move to port into the middle or far side of the channel to give room to the schooner, to sound signals [even the danger signal of five blasts of the ships horn], or to steer away, or to slow or stop abruptly.

A complete investigation will undoubtedly occur and will make for an interesting read.

My take is that it was an avoidable incident.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Yes as always, both vessels have the obligation to avoid involvement of collision. It doesn't matter as to obligations of avoiding collision if someone was supposed to not impede the other and / or failed to impede another vessel. The schooner appears to have failed as to rule 9 of the International rules. I am clewless [spelled intentionally as if clueless] of the local Elbe rules and the implications and obligations of an derogation of the international rules. Does anyone have a reference to such local rules.

Having the derogatory rule of right of way under the local rules does not give one the right to collide. A vessel having the Right of Way does rather indicate the vessel that is not to be impeded.

* * *

It sounds like you're unnecessarily confusing the legal requirements in play. The local rules for the Elbe have already been posted and, as has been pointed out, they supersede Rule 9. This is not dissimilar to US Inland rules for major rivers with a lot of commercial traffic, fast-moving currents, etc. There have also been those with local knowledge posting that the container ship may likely have had no options to avoid collision. This may be why the local rules bestow it with "right of way" status as opposed to merely being "stand on" per the Int'l rules in open waters. The investigation will undoubtedly uncover the facts in this particular case, but the legal requirements that govern vessels transiting the Elbe River should not be confused.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

A somewhat fine point as applied on the water, but perhaps dispositive in favor of the container ship after-the-fact. The use of the term "right-of-way" as opposed to the more common "give way/stand on" seems to be the lynchpin, no?

Yes, absolutely . It's totally different from the rules in open water. But although the rules are all different, the result is roughly similar - you need to avoid creating a situation with a container ship which is trying to negotiate narrow waters with fast moving currents, like the Elbe. Even Rule 2 demands this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Yes as always, both vessels have the obligation to avoid involvement of collision.

No, no, it's not "as always". This rule means that the container ship nevertheless has to follow Rule 18 and give way once a risk of collision arises.

Originally Posted by Montanan

It doesn't matter as to obligations of avoiding collision if someone was supposed to not impede the other and / or failed to impede another vessel. The schooner appears to have failed as to rule 9 of the International rules. I am clewless [spelled intentionally as if clueless] of the local Elbe rules and the implications and obligations of an derogation of the international rules. Does anyone have a reference to such local rules.

Having the derogatory rule of right of way under the local rules does not give one the right to collide.

Ping quoted the German rules. Rule 9 does not apply here.


You are correct that nothing gives you the right to collide.

Originally Posted by Montanan

A vessel having the Right of Way does rather indicate the vessel that is not to be impeded.

Having the right of way and being the vessel which is not to be impeded, are quite different.

Here’s how it would work with different rules applying.

1. 1. Ship has right of way; schooner crossing under sail.
Ship carries on regardless, up to the point where a collision cannot be avoided except by the ship’s action alone. Schooner gets out of the way and stays out of the way and is always getting out of the way no matter what the ship does. Ship may but is not obligated to stand on.

2. 2. Rule 9 applies; schooner is obligated to “not impede”
Schooner must avoid getting into a risk of collision situation with the ship, before it develops. However, once a risk of collision arises, the ship must give way (to the extent it can) and the schooner is OBLIGATED to stand on. However, if the schooner doubts that the ship intends to maneuver, then it MAY maneuver itself. At the point when a collision cannot be avoided by the ship’s maneuver alone, then the schooner MUST maneuver. In a place like the Elbe, where the ship doesn’t really have effective maneuvering room, then the last proposition may apply from the beginning. But THEORETICALLY, at least, the schooner may be obligated at some point to stand on.

3. 3. Normal steering and sailing rules; open water.

Schooner is OBLIGATED to stand on; ship gives way. Until schooner has doubt about the ship’s intention – at which point it is free from the obligation to stand on and may now maneuver itself. Once a collision can no longer be avoided by the ship’s manuever alone, schooner is OBLIGATED to maneuver itself to avoid a collsion.

Originally Posted by Montanan

The schooner was IMO at primary fault, but one has to ask if the containership did EVERYTHING it could do to avoid the collision, there often being a degree of mutual fault when collisions arise. E.g., communicate hazard and intentions with the schooner, communicate the need and intention to move to port into the middle or far side of the channel to give room to the schooner, to sound signals [even the danger signal of five blasts of the ships horn], or to steer away, or to slow or stop abruptly.

A complete investigation will undoubtedly occur and will make for an interesting read.

My take is that it was an avoidable incident.

I agree entirely with all of that. That accurately describes the obligations of the container ship.