Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Seamanship & Boat Handling (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f90/)
-   -   Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f90/collision-avoidance-cones-of-uncertainty-and-appropriate-cpa-189919.html)

robbievardon 28-08-2017 19:10

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Better watch out people,according to Dockhead there is no such thing as "right of way" and it seems his views are the only acceptable ones. Most of the time the posts seem to suggest 2 vessels meeting which should really be easy to deal with. In reality the problems arise when there are many boats involved, and it seems to me that little thought is given to the fact that masters of merchantmen have to be like good chess players working out 5 or more moves ahead.Follow the Regs but make your moves early and all is well I say.

Pelagic 28-08-2017 19:53

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2466641)
Better watch out people,according to Dockhead there is no such thing as "right of way" and it seems his views are the only acceptable ones. Most of the time the posts seem to suggest 2 vessels meeting which should really be easy to deal with. In reality the problems arise when there are many boats involved, and it seems to me that little thought is given to the fact that masters of merchantmen have to be like good chess players working out 5 or more moves ahead.Follow the Regs but make your moves early and all is well I say.

Robbie, I don't think DH said that but tried to change the mindset of those who look at right of way as a black and white issue

Many people do not fully understand the intent of
Rule 17
b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
and
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.

robbievardon 28-08-2017 20:28

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Pelagic,unfortunately my last post was based on postings from another thread on the C regs in which he made this comment. Unfortunately I tend to dump old thread posts so can't give you the link, perhaps you could pose the question to him on this thread?

robbievardon 28-08-2017 20:44

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Pelagic, you could try http//cruiserforums/f57/thread-for-basic-colregs-questions-189778-new-post.html/ that is the best I can do as it seems I have been banned from that thread,so cannot quote from it. obviously asked the wrong questions or posed the wrong answers!!!

ramblinrod 30-08-2017 21:49

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic (Post 2466677)
Robbie, I don't think DH said that but tried to change the mindset of those who look at right of way as a black and white issue

Many people do not fully understand the intent of
Rule 17
b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
and
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.

I think the whole issue at hand, is the assumption that everyone who knows colregs, believes "right-of-way" to mean something different than "stand-on".

I don't believe this is true.

When referring to collision avoidance, I use "right-of-way" and "stand-on" as synonyms.

I have yet to meet a single person who knows colregs, who on a starboard tack, would do anything but "stand-on", when told they have "right-of-way" over a port tack boat on a collision course.

Why use another term than the defined term in Colregs? Why ever use different words to represent the exact same thing? Every language on the planet is full of them. Why? Variety is the spice of life.

StuM 30-08-2017 22:19

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468178)
Why use another term than the defined term in Colregs? Why ever use different words to represent the exact same thing? Every language on the planet is full of them. Why? Variety is the spice of life.

And a god-send to lawyers. :biggrin:

Dockhead 31-08-2017 01:55

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468178)
. . . I have yet to meet a single person who knows colregs, who on a starboard tack, would do anything but "stand-on", when told they have "right-of-way" over a port tack boat on a collision course.

Why use another term than the defined term in Colregs? Why ever use different words to represent the exact same thing? Every language on the planet is full of them. Why? Variety is the spice of life.

OK, I respect that, and your idea is well-stated.

But do you really think that this hypothetical person, being told he has "right of way", really knows that he is NOT free to maneuver?

"Right" means -- right -- perogative, you can do what you want -- continue on, or stop, or turn, or whatever. Standing on is just the opposite of that.

Does that really not bother you at all? I'm not going to tell you what should or should not bother you. But do you understand, at least, why it bothers us?

StuM 31-08-2017 03:39

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 2468237)
OK, I respect that, and your idea is well-stated.

But do you really think that this hypothetical person, being told he has "right of way", really knows that he is NOT free to maneuver?

"Right" means -- right -- perogative, you can do what you want -- continue on, or stop, or turn, or whatever. Standing on is just the opposite of that.

Does that really not bother you at all? I'm not going to tell you what should or should not bother you. But do you understand, at least, why it bothers us?

OK, one final attempt to state my opinion as plainly as I can, then I'll shut up about this specific issue.

The key point which I stress when teaching new sailors is that they have no rights under COLREGs - only obligations. Using the term "right of way" immediately conflicts with that fundamental concept and can impart the wrong message.

There is one simple, officially recognised phrase which reinforces the correct message - "stand on"

It doesn't matter if the person using the expression understands that when they say "right of way" they actually mean "obligation to stand on", The problem arises when a less knowledgeable sailor hears it used and believes that he has does indeed have "right" to manoeuver as he wishes.

Ergo, it would be safer for everyone on the water if we all stopped using the misleading expression.

ramblinrod 31-08-2017 07:01

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 2468237)
OK, I respect that, and your idea is well-stated.

But do you really think that this hypothetical person, being told he has "right of way", really knows that he is NOT free to maneuver?

"Right" means -- right -- perogative, you can do what you want -- continue on, or stop, or turn, or whatever. Standing on is just the opposite of that.

Does that really not bother you at all? I'm not going to tell you what should or should not bother you. But do you understand, at least, why it bothers us?

First, I object to the person ("standing on" when advised they have right of way) being referred to as "hypothetical", any more so than the one, when told "right-of-way" would do anything different but "stand on", and suddenly start evoking "rights" they clearly don't have.

Again, in my experience, if someone knows colregs, and is told they have "right-of-way" on starboard tack, they would know that to mean the same thing as "stand-on", and that is exactly what they would do.

Being told they have "right-of-way" to someone who knows colregs, does not invoke some crazy knee jerk reaction to start exercising "rights" they don't have.

Similarly, if someone is at the wheel who does not know colregs, it doesn't matter whether they are told to "stand-on" or they have "right-of-way", THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. The immediate reaction is, "What does that mean?" They will not start making guesses with someone's expensive vessel and crews safety in their hands.

If they are that ignorant to colregs, it would be wise for the person advising to ensure they know what either term means in that situation.

Using the regulation defined term "Stand-On", with someone who does not understand the underlying regulation, means absolutely nothing to them.

I completely disagree that anyone in their right mind, would suddenly start trying to invoke any kind of real or fictitious land right or suddenly turn toward someone trying to avoid them, because the other does not have "right-of-way". This is the most flagrant "strawman" argument of this whole discussion.

I agree that when teaching the regulations or writing an exam, it is best to use the most proper terms.

However, when talking with buds, who know the regs, one can use "stand-on" and "right-of-way" synonymously, and it makes no freaking difference whatsoever.

The next discussion will use one of about 1000 different terms to represent the attractive single lady at the end of the bar, and everyone will know that to mean "unwed female homo sapien". To insist they use that term, instead of any of the others that mean the exact same thing to everyone, is ludicrous.

We could get grammar police in here to jump all over everyone who doesn't apply it perfectly (according to them). Wouldn't that be fun?

Again, nitpicking on the words commonly used, because they are not the specific words used in the regulations, when applied in a context that we all know what it means, is just a waste of bandwidth.

When on a starboard tack, anyone who does not know what to do, with respect to a port tack boat on a collision course, should not be in control of the vessel. If they should be in control of the vessel, either term may be used synonymously, without detrimental effect.

To insist others use the exact term defined in the regulations every reference to the situation, in a cruisers forum, is just someone with too much time on their hands, attempting to make themselves feel superior by "correcting" (belittling) others, IMHO.

Dockhead 31-08-2017 07:18

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468379)
First, I object to the person ("standing on" when advised they have right of way) being referred to as "hypothetical", any more so than the one, when told "right-of-way" would do anything different but "stand on", and suddenly start evoking "rights" they clearly don't have.

Again, in my experience, if someone knows colregs, and is told they have "right-of-way" on starboard tack, they would know that to mean the same thing as "stand-on", and that is exactly what they would do.

Being told they have "right-of-way" to someone who knows colregs, does not invoke some crazy knee jerk reaction to start exercising "rights" they don't have.

Similarly, if someone is at the wheel who does not know colregs, it doesn't matter whether they are told to "stand-on" or they have "right-of-way", THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. The immediate reaction is, "What does that mean?" They will not start making guesses with someone's expensive vessel and crews safety in their hands.

If they are that ignorant to colregs, it would be wise for the person advising to ensure they know what either term means in that situation.

Using the regulation defined term "Stand-On", with someone who does not understand the underlying regulation, means absolutely nothing to them.

I completely disagree that anyone in their right mind, would suddenly start trying to invoke any kind of real or fictitious land right or suddenly turn toward someone trying to avoid them, because the other does not have "right-of-way". This is the most flagrant "strawman" argument of this whole discussion.

I agree that when teaching the regulations or writing an exam, it is best to use the most proper terms.

However, when talking with buds, who know the regs, one can use "stand-on" and "right-of-way" synonymously, and it makes no freaking difference whatsoever.

The next discussion will use one of about 1000 different terms to represent the attractive single lady at the end of the bar, and everyone will know that to mean "unwed female homo sapien". To insist they use that term, instead of any of the others that mean the exact same thing to everyone, is ludicrous.

We could get grammar police in here to jump all over everyone who doesn't apply it perfectly (according to them). Wouldn't that be fun?

Again, nitpicking on the words commonly used, because they are not the specific words used in the regulations, when applied in a context that we all know what it means, is just a waste of bandwidth.

When on a starboard tack, anyone who does not know what to do, with respect to a port tack boat on a collision course, should not be in control of the vessel. If they should be in control of the vessel, either term may be used synonymously, without detrimental effect.

To insist others use the exact term defined in the regulations every reference to the situation, in a cruisers forum, is just someone with too much time on their hands, attempting to make themselves feel superior by "correcting" (belittling) others, IMHO.

OK, well, so that you know, I don't think that too many people on here argue for correct terminology in order to "feel superior by 'correcting'" other people. So that you know -- the term we've been discussing here bothers some of us simply because it expresses a persistent and widespread misunderstanding -- not one you suffer from! But many do. Believe it or not, some people just genuinely want to share knowledge and help others understand something better, with no other motive than that.

Pelagic 31-08-2017 08:42

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

I think its great to have our COLREG assumptions challenged and thank Dockhead for shepherding us thru these friendly but lively discussions.

Exile 31-08-2017 09:06

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic (Post 2468446)
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

I think its great to have our COLREG assumptions challenged and thank Dockhead for shepherding us thru these friendly but lively discussions.

What he said. :thumb:

ramblinrod 31-08-2017 09:11

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 2468393)
OK, well, so that you know, I don't think that too many people on here argue for correct terminology in order to "feel superior by 'correcting'" other people. So that you know -- the term we've been discussing here bothers some of us simply because it expresses a persistent and widespread misunderstanding -- not one you suffer from! But many do. Believe it or not, some people just genuinely want to share knowledge and help others understand something better, with no other motive than that.

Please, many devote countless hours to the education of the boating public, myself included.

Now lets knock down this prolonged "strawman argument".

Who exactly are all these people your are referring to, who understand colregs, and yet when told they have "right of way", do anything but "stand on"?

In my opinion, there probably isn't any, not one.

If they understand colregs (and adhere to them), and the conditions exist, they will stand on, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If they do not understand colregs (or do not adhere to them) their actions will be unpredictable, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If someone is in a maritime hearing and knows their @$$ is in a sling, they may try any tactic to get out of it, including claiming they had some kind of "right" to justify their action, because someone happened to use the word "right" in part of the communication.

When my wife (a very capable sailor) is taking over the helm, I may advise the intended destination, course I've been holding, and tell her to "keep the red markers to the right".

I may say "right" instead of "starboard", because in that context, IT MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. She is not going to jump to the conclusion that I meant from a different perspective than looking toward the bow and take then down the left, just as she will not assume I referred to her right to a fair trail, right to free speech, right of freedom of religion, or any other of a number of "rights" she may have in a different context.

"Stand-on" or "right of way", in the context of "burden vs privilege", with respect to collision avoidance , to anyone with any business being in control of a vessel is understood to mean exactly the same thing.

Show me one person to whom it doesn't.

Anybody here?

Speak up now or forever hold your peace.

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

It is unreasonable to believe that everyone on this forum would understand them to mean exactly the same thing, but all, most, many, or even any competent boaters elsewhere, wouldn't.

Again, incompetent boaters get in collisions because they don't know what the %$^ they are doing, or simply don't care about the regulations, not because somebody used a synonymous term in proper context. To even claim such a thing is to admit total ignorance, or just a weak tactic to attempt to weasel out of responsibility to adhere to colregs.

robbievardon 31-08-2017 09:16

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Rod you are wasting your time arguing with a Lawyer who knows best !! I thought the whole idea here was to help sailors avoid collisions not spend hours of nit picking over words to prove "superior knowledge" If you are teaching sailing or should it be boating that any one who uses words other than those written in the rules to explain the meaning of those rules should be applauded for understanding that their students may grasp the principle far quicker and more to the point Remember the rule more easily. To suggest that the teacher is talking down to the students and insulting them is pathetic. Were I to talk to you on a subject of which you had no knowledge using words you were not familiar with would you be insulted, or if I by using other words you were familiar with made it easier to understand? I posed a question to you some while back about the dreaded phrase "right of way" which you declined to answer on the basis that my question did not fall within the scope of the cregs but was a local Port issue. Where exactly is the line drawn between the 2.? As I recall you were interested in writing a book to help define the c regs better to help sailors avoid collisions. My request would fall into that scenario surely. In another (to me baffling response) regarding understanding stand on/give way situation you refer to the give way vessel being in control over the stand on vessel. Any poor soul who reads the rules is bound to be utterly confused, but you of course will say that you qualify this statement by continuing to explain your logic. What is the difference between that and saying "right of way" in an explanation of a less obvious term "stand on"? Please do not come back to me with the usual kind of response which ignores the question in favour of comments like spelling mistakes and wrong meaning words/grammar.
As a separate issue, for those who seem to feel electronics are the answer to collision avoidance bear in mind the US Navy have now recovered the bodies of the 10 seamen lost in the collision between a tanker and their warship. secondly I have just finished a book by Abby Sunderland on her attempt to sail non stop solo without assistance around the world. She suffered a loss of power to feed all her electronics early in her attempt and had to put into port. Later going round the Horn her auto pilot went a little crazy, followed by her standby autopilot a short time later.All these systems were brand new and part of a complete refit for her round the world attempt. Lastly back in the 70's I was working for the oil industry, and our ship had KH radar,which I thought was a really good piece of equipment. Over winter we would get a lot of force 5 weather and regular 8 to 9 gales. It was a little disconcerting to discover just how easy it was to in reducing clutter,wipe out existing small boats.

conachair 31-08-2017 09:25

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic (Post 2468446)
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

I think its great to have our COLREG assumptions challenged and thank Dockhead for shepherding us thru these friendly but lively discussions.

Agree :thumb:

And wouldn't it be nice to stick to the subject, IPRCS & what we do in the real world.
If people like to use terms not in the IRPCS to get something across or for teaching then fair enough, but such discussions are just added noise on a thread like this, would be nice to stay on track which is best done sticking to the current IPRCS text.IMHO

Please :peace:

Exile 31-08-2017 09:42

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468379)
First, I object to the person ("standing on" when advised they have right of way) being referred to as "hypothetical", any more so than the one, when told "right-of-way" would do anything different but "stand on", and suddenly start evoking "rights" they clearly don't have.

Again, in my experience, if someone knows colregs, and is told they have "right-of-way" on starboard tack, they would know that to mean the same thing as "stand-on", and that is exactly what they would do.

Being told they have "right-of-way" to someone who knows colregs, does not invoke some crazy knee jerk reaction to start exercising "rights" they don't have.

Similarly, if someone is at the wheel who does not know colregs, it doesn't matter whether they are told to "stand-on" or they have "right-of-way", THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. The immediate reaction is, "What does that mean?" They will not start making guesses with someone's expensive vessel and crews safety in their hands.

If they are that ignorant to colregs, it would be wise for the person advising to ensure they know what either term means in that situation.

Using the regulation defined term "Stand-On", with someone who does not understand the underlying regulation, means absolutely nothing to them.

I completely disagree that anyone in their right mind, would suddenly start trying to invoke any kind of real or fictitious land right or suddenly turn toward someone trying to avoid them, because the other does not have "right-of-way". This is the most flagrant "strawman" argument of this whole discussion.

I agree that when teaching the regulations or writing an exam, it is best to use the most proper terms.

However, when talking with buds, who know the regs, one can use "stand-on" and "right-of-way" synonymously, and it makes no freaking difference whatsoever.

The next discussion will use one of about 1000 different terms to represent the attractive single lady at the end of the bar, and everyone will know that to mean "unwed female homo sapien". To insist they use that term, instead of any of the others that mean the exact same thing to everyone, is ludicrous.

We could get grammar police in here to jump all over everyone who doesn't apply it perfectly (according to them). Wouldn't that be fun?

Again, nitpicking on the words commonly used, because they are not the specific words used in the regulations, when applied in a context that we all know what it means, is just a waste of bandwidth.

When on a starboard tack, anyone who does not know what to do, with respect to a port tack boat on a collision course, should not be in control of the vessel. If they should be in control of the vessel, either term may be used synonymously, without detrimental effect.

To insist others use the exact term defined in the regulations every reference to the situation, in a cruisers forum, is just someone with too much time on their hands, attempting to make themselves feel superior by "correcting" (belittling) others, IMHO.

Well, someone with the motivations you ascribe to them in your last para. would need to have the reader actually feel "belittled" by the "nitpicking," no? And how is a forum poster supposed to know if a reader is, like you, knowledgeable about the Colregs or, as so many posts in these types of threads reveal, confused by "right of way" vs. "stand on?" I, for one, appreciate what you call "nitpicking" because it furthers my understanding, but I probably don't have as much experience on the water as you. But when I hopefully accrue a higher level of experience, I can't imagine ever feeling "belittled" over someone correcting me on just about anything, provided the correction had merit that is.

It's not unlike Stu & others with a lot of know-how correcting posters who misstate "amps" vs. "amp hours" when trying to resolve an electrical problem. For someone like me still struggling to learn my own boat's electrical system, confusing the two terms usually screws me up, and the "nitpicking," i.e. the appropriate correction, always helps me follow the discussion and maybe learn something.

With respect Rod, there are all sorts of people with different levels of experience & knowledge who frequent these forums to learn more about the Colregs, and it extends far beyond the crowd of frequent posters who are generally well seasoned sailors. You are absolutely correct that such people are unlikely to confuse the terms, but I can speak from my own experience as well as frequent posts I read that people more accustomed to what "right of way" means on the road will often misinterpret what "stand on" means on the water. In fact I just read an example of this on another thread. So what's the big deal?

Exile 31-08-2017 09:46

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelagic (Post 2468446)
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

Maybe it'll help if the classes aren't referred to as "Rules of the ROAD!" Only kidding, but the "on the road" mindset does seem to be a chronic source of confusion.

robbievardon 31-08-2017 09:54

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
In another post I mentioned regarding "right of way" and a trip on a cargo vessel up a river which could only be made during spring tides and entailed intentionally running aground and then waiting for the tide to refloat us before repeating the exercise. I would love to hear views as to whether any "right of way" existed or not and what signals should be displayed. For those who argue about the correct use of words, comment on this. Same ship, same Captain came to lie at anchor awaiting tide and whilst waiting he mentioned it had been a rough passage to such an extent that he had lost his cargo crane from the main deck. He then jovially corrected himself by saying he had not actually lost it as he knew where it was, so many fathoms down in the North Sea at location X by X Should sailors be regarded as "Lost at sea" if the place of demise is known?

Pelagic 31-08-2017 10:48

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile (Post 2468512)
Maybe it'll help if the classes aren't referred to as "Rules of the ROAD!" Only kidding, but the "on the road" mindset does seem to be a chronic source of confusion.

Exactly!.... I expect that originated from IMO fighting with stubborn Navy types when first trying to create some form of order as marine trade got busy and faster

Dockhead 31-08-2017 10:53

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468476)
Please, many devote countless hours to the education of the boating public, myself included.

Now lets knock down this prolonged "strawman argument".

Who exactly are all these people your are referring to, who understand colregs, and yet when told they have "right of way", do anything but "stand on"?

In my opinion, there probably isn't any, not one.

If they understand colregs (and adhere to them), and the conditions exist, they will stand on, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If they do not understand colregs (or do not adhere to them) their actions will be unpredictable, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If someone is in a maritime hearing and knows their @$$ is in a sling, they may try any tactic to get out of it, including claiming they had some kind of "right" to justify their action, because someone happened to use the word "right" in part of the communication.

When my wife (a very capable sailor) is taking over the helm, I may advise the intended destination, course I've been holding, and tell her to "keep the red markers to the right".

I may say "right" instead of "starboard", because in that context, IT MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. She is not going to jump to the conclusion that I meant from a different perspective than looking toward the bow and take then down the left, just as she will not assume I referred to her right to a fair trail, right to free speech, right of freedom of religion, or any other of a number of "rights" she may have in a different context.

"Stand-on" or "right of way", in the context of "burden vs privilege", with respect to collision avoidance , to anyone with any business being in control of a vessel is understood to mean exactly the same thing.

Show me one person to whom it doesn't.

Anybody here?

Speak up now or forever hold your peace.

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

It is unreasonable to believe that everyone on this forum would understand them to mean exactly the same thing, but all, most, many, or even any competent boaters elsewhere, wouldn't.

Again, incompetent boaters get in collisions because they don't know what the %$^ they are doing, or simply don't care about the regulations, not because somebody used a synonymous term in proper context. To even claim such a thing is to admit total ignorance, or just a weak tactic to attempt to weasel out of responsibility to adhere to colregs.

I know lots and lots and lots of sailors, even some pretty experienced ones, who either don't know anything about the Rules, or who don't think the Rules apply to them, or who follow purely invented schemes of maneuvering, contrary to the Rules, and based on some fantasies about which vessels are "more burdened" or "more maneuverable" than others, and I could go on and on. So this "person" is absolutely not a "straw man", and is not even rare.

I am not really a "terminology nazi" -- people using the word "right" instead of "starboard" doesn't bother me all that much (although it's not exactly the same thing), I don't say "head" instead of "toilet" (I believe it really means the room, not the fixture), I use the word "rope". But "right of way" bothers me, for the reasons stated by various people. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine -- to each his own.

daletournier 31-08-2017 11:00

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
I've been off line for nearly four weeks, I see CF is still entertaining. How we manage to complicate these issue's is amazing..lol.
Modern technology the ais is number one, if in open water a ship is going to pass within 3/4nm sometimes 1nm of me I radio him. I greet him with good evening/morning sir and ask him to acknowledge that he has seen me, I let him know that I will do my best to maintain my current course and speed as best I can subject to conditions, are you happy with this? If conditions are tuff I let him know. Never not had a ship answer my calls when called by name.
Never had a problem, I then keep an eye on the ais and the stanchion method if possible. I've had many ships change course to be accomodating.

Ive literally passed dozens of ships in the last several weeks, and maybe a couple if 100 over the years? they have all been obliging, in fact several are curious about the idiot bobbing around in the middle of no where and want to chat.

Regarding right of way, they are bigger faster and can kill you, I show respect, that's my colreg.

robbievardon 31-08-2017 11:15

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Rod, apologies my post #94, question was supposed to be for Dockhead , first sentence for you.

Dockhead 31-08-2017 11:22

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468518)
In another post I mentioned regarding "right of way" and a trip on a cargo vessel up a river which could only be made during spring tides and entailed intentionally running aground and then waiting for the tide to refloat us before repeating the exercise. I would love to hear views as to whether any "right of way" existed or not and what signals should be displayed.

"Right of way" absolutely exists on rivers, both in concept (you have the right to go ahead and maneuver as you like) and in terminology. Explained well by the U.S. Coast Guard:

"5. Who has the "right of way" on the water? The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)). Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10). The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances"

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_5

That's the official U.S. Coast Guard information site.



Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468518)
For those who argue about the correct use of words, comment on this. Same ship, same Captain came to lie at anchor awaiting tide and whilst waiting he mentioned it had been a rough passage to such an extent that he had lost his cargo crane from the main deck. He then jovially corrected himself by saying he had not actually lost it as he knew where it was, so many fathoms down in the North Sea at location X by X Should sailors be regarded as "Lost at sea" if the place of demise is known?

I'm glad someone thinks that terminology can also be FUN! :)

My answer to this would be that "lost" does not only mean "can't be located". It also means "can't be recovered". Both meanings are absolutely correct. If for example we talk about my "lost youth" -- well, I know where it is . . . :) But it's still "lost".

Like your captain, I've also "lost" gear in the North Sea. I know where it is, too. :) But it's still lost.

ramblinrod 31-08-2017 11:35

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 2468554)

I am not really a "terminology nazi" -- people using the word "right" instead of "starboard" doesn't bother me all that much (although it's not exactly the same thing)...

I rest my case!

Move to dismiss!

;-)

Dockhead 31-08-2017 11:36

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468479)
Rod you are wasting your time arguing with a Lawyer who knows best !! I thought the whole idea here was to help sailors avoid collisions not spend hours of nit picking over words to prove "superior knowledge" If you are teaching sailing or should it be boating that any one who uses words other than those written in the rules to explain the meaning of those rules should be applauded for understanding that their students may grasp the principle far quicker and more to the point Remember the rule more easily. To suggest that the teacher is talking down to the students and insulting them is pathetic. Were I to talk to you on a subject of which you had no knowledge using words you were not familiar with would you be insulted, or if I by using other words you were familiar with made it easier to understand? I posed a question to you some while back about the dreaded phrase "right of way" which you declined to answer on the basis that my question did not fall within the scope of the cregs but was a local Port issue. Where exactly is the line drawn between the 2.? As I recall you were interested in writing a book to help define the c regs better to help sailors avoid collisions. My request would fall into that scenario surely. In another (to me baffling response) regarding understanding stand on/give way situation you refer to the give way vessel being in control over the stand on vessel. Any poor soul who reads the rules is bound to be utterly confused, but you of course will say that you qualify this statement by continuing to explain your logic. What is the difference between that and saying "right of way" in an explanation of a less obvious term "stand on"? Please do not come back to me with the usual kind of response which ignores the question in favour of comments like spelling mistakes and wrong meaning words/grammar. .
. .

I can't quite perceive what the question is here -- sorry. Are you asking why I think that the Rules should be taught to inexperienced people using the right terminology?

Well, I think that's a pretty standard approach to teaching anything, isn't it? You try to introduce the students to the terminology in parallel with introducing them to the concepts. Unfamiliar terms become familiar as part of the process of learning, together with unfamiliar concepts. In fact in my opinion, it would be weird to teach something like, say electronics, and avoid terms like anodes and cathodes just because the students start the class not knowing what they are.

So "Were I to talk to you on a subject of which you had no knowledge using words you were not familiar with would you be insulted, or if I by using other words you were familiar with made it easier to understand?" Well, actually, I would appreciate it, if I'm learning something unfamiliar from you, if you would not talk down to me. If I want to learn a new subject, I will really want to learn the correct terminology, and I will stop and ask you if I don't understand something. Certainly I would never be insulted. On the contrary, I would be grateful to you for explaining. That's just me, but I am trying to directly answer your question.

If there were other questions which I didn't understand, please ask them and I will answer.

StuM 31-08-2017 15:21

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468379)
To insist others use the exact term defined in the regulations every reference to the situation, in a cruisers forum, is just someone with too much time on their hands, attempting to make themselves feel superior by "correcting" (belittling) others, IMHO.

Please! It's this sort of insulting remark that got the other thread shut down. Can't we just keep this civil and discuss the matter without denigrating others? :peace:

StuM 31-08-2017 15:33

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile (Post 2468512)
Maybe it'll help if the classes aren't referred to as "Rules of the ROAD!" Only kidding, but the "on the road" mindset does seem to be a chronic source of confusion.

Even if you are only kidding, thanks for pointing that out.

One of the subjects in the "Learn To Sail Keelboats" course that I am conducting in October is currently titled "Rules of the Road".

I'm going to re-name it just to help students have the right* mindset ! :thumb:


*right as in correct, not as in entitlement :)

StuM 31-08-2017 15:42

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 2468587)
My answer to this would be that "lost" does not only mean "can't be located". It also means "can't be recovered". Both meanings are absolutely correct. If for example we talk about my "lost youth" -- well, I know where it is . . . :) But it's still "lost".

Like your captain, I've also "lost" gear in the North Sea. I know where it is, too. :) But it's still lost.

As I tell the missus when driving around a strange city. I'm not lost, I'm just temporarily geographically uncertain.

Exile 31-08-2017 15:56

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM (Post 2468762)
Even if you are only kidding, thanks for pointing that out.

One of the subjects in the "Learn To Sail Keelboats" course that I am conducting in October is currently titled "Rules of the Road".

I'm going to re-name it just to help students have the right* mindset ! :thumb:


*right as in correct, not as in entitlement :)

Maybe both sides of the right of way/stand on debate are "correct." It's not so much the exact terminology but newbies' associating it with their own experiences on the road. If nothing else, "stand on" would be new terminology and so perhaps a better way of dispelling old assumptions? :confused:

Exile 31-08-2017 15:58

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM (Post 2468768)
As I tell the missus when driving around a strange city. I'm not lost, I'm just temporarily geographically uncertain.

And how does that one sell?? :whistling:

robbievardon 31-08-2017 16:27

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
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?

AKA-None 31-08-2017 16:43

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
So if I'm following along at home here and understanding what some are suggesting then right = obligation. And maybe I'm ignorant but they seem different. If I extend this to the US statement that is often on cop shows them when I'm read my rights I actually have an obligation to not say anything and must remain silent. Have I understood correctly???

robbievardon 31-08-2017 16:49

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
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.

transmitterdan 31-08-2017 17:23

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
George Carlin, may he Rest In Peace, got a lot of mileage out of goofy phrases that mean the opposite of what seems logical. We drive our cars on parkways and park our cars on driveways.

No one here is trying to belittle anyone. If you feel belittled then please try to understand no such thing is intended. If you can't believe that then try to find out from where that feeling is coming. It is not coming from posters in the forum. Please believe me.

StuM 31-08-2017 17:33

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468798)
A small adendum, what signals would the ship exibit in your opinion each time we ran aground, day and night?

Whatever Rule 30 specifies for the size of the vessel in question.

robbievardon 31-08-2017 18:18

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
StuM the question is is the signal hoisted and lowered to match the buoyancy of the ship?
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.

StuM 31-08-2017 18:29

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468846)
StuM the question is is the signal hoisted and lowered to match the buoyancy of the ship?

Yes. Aground is aground. Underway is underway. Rule 3(i) :)

Quote:

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.
This has been discussed several times. "shall not impede" doesn't confer any ROW. (Note that it's "shall, not "should")

"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.

Rule 8.(e)(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.

StuM 31-08-2017 18:41

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468846)
"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.

Actually, Sections b-f do not list vessel which should not impede the above vessel.
They only list situations where certain classes of vessel shall not be impeded. The most relevant being sect (b): A vessel of less than 20 metres 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.

Cockcroft again:
Small craft and sailing vessels are therefore expected to take early action to keep well clear of vessels which can only navigate within the channel or fairway, without waiting to determine if risk of collision exists. This Rule does not relieve a power-driven vessel which is restricted to the channel from her obligation to keep out of the way of a small power-driven vessel being overtaken or crossing from her starboard side, or of any sailing vessel, if there is risk of collision. Small vessels and sailing vessels are not required to avoid impeding the passage of all power-driven vessels of over 20 metres in length when in a narrow channel. Many power-driven vessels which exceed that length may be able to navigate outside the channel limits.
However, it is not only the passage of a vessel showing the lights or shapes to indicate that she is constrained by her draught which must not be impeded.
Small vessels should take the width and depth of the channel into account and, if in doubt, keep clear of vessels likely to be restricted.


robbievardon 31-08-2017 20:06

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
StuM I don't know where you are getting your information from? I will quote you my copy of the regs with amendments of 1983. Rule 9b. A vessel of less than 20 metres 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.
9c. A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.
9d a Vessel (rule 3a) shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely only navigate within such channel or fairway
9e Not a quote. Overtaking vessels are bound to keep clear of the vessel they are overtaking. I would hope that no one believes otherwise. I do not understand your logic on the obligation of a vessel restricted by her draft giving way to a small power driven vessel crossing from her starboard side.In unrestricted waters yes, but in a restricted channel do you expect the larger vessel to make a turn to starboard and run aground in the shallows? If the small vessel is crossing from port side it is the give way vessel or have I got that wrong too? As for the suggestion that vessels over 20 metres MIGHT be able to navigate outside the recognised channel you defeat the reason for having rules of the road. Well I think I will stand on because I think he can go out of the channel.Hard to not be rude with a suggestion like that.

StuM 31-08-2017 20:38

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468881)
StuM I don't know where you are getting your information from?

I'm getting my information from COLREGS and Cockcroft.

Quote:

I will quote you my copy of the regs with amendments of 1983. Rule 9b. A vessel of less than 20 metres 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.
9c. A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.
9d a Vessel (rule 3a) shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely only navigate within such channel or fairway
Yep, that's the same wording as my COLREGs. What do you disagree with in my post?

Quote:

9e Not a quote. Overtaking vessels are bound to keep clear of the vessel they are overtaking. I would hope that no one believes otherwise.
Nope, that's quite clear. If a tanker in a narrow channel is overtaking a small saiboat, the tanker is required to "keep clear" or "keep out of the way of" the sailboat. Rule 13(a).

Quote:

I do not understand your logic on the obligation of a vessel restricted by her draft giving way to a small power driven vessel crossing from her starboard side
This is where accurate wording is essential.
I didn't say that. I said "the above vessel" i.e. following on from your:
"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

IOW, we are not referring specifically to a vessel constrained by draft, but to any vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway..

That difference aside, even the vessel constrained by draft IS the give way vessel once a risk of collision exists. Rules 9(a)-(d) all refer to "not impede", not "give way"

Quote:

.In unrestricted waters yes, but in a restricted channel do you expect the larger vessel to make a turn to starboard and run aground in the shallows? If the small vessel is crossing from port side it is the give way vessel or have I got that wrong too? As for the suggestion that vessels over 20 metres MIGHT be able to navigate outside the recognised channel you defeat the reason for having rules of the road. Well I think I will stand on because I think he can go out of the channel.Hard to not be rude with a suggestion like that.
Please read my last quote from Cockcroft again.


1. Until a risk of collision exists, the small vessel is required to "not impede".
2. If the small vessels fails to do so, crosses from starboard and a risk of collision arises, THEN, 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.
3. Only once it becomes apparent that the large vessel is not taking action can the small vessel take action (to avoid the collision, not to "give way")


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:25.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.