Ferry And Powerboat Collide

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Some people seem to think the 100 yard security exclusion zone somehow excuses ferries etc from needing to follow the rules. If the ferry is the give-way vessel in a crossing situation, it would be incumbent on the ferry to take sufficient action to maintain its 100 yard exclusion zone.

Sorry, can't accept that. Where a VTS has been declared by an appropriate authority, then in accordance with COLREGs

"Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels."

With an Exclusion Zone in force, it is not the ferry's obligation to maintain the separation, it is totally incumbent on the other vessel.

Try a close crossing from starboard in front of a US Navy warship and telling them that they need to change course to maintain the 500 yard clearance

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by StuM

Sorry, can't accept that. Where a VTS has been declared by an appropriate authority, then in accordance with COLREGs

"Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels."

With an Exclusion Zone in force, it is not the ferry's obligation to maintain the separation, it is totally incumbent on the other vessel.

Try a close crossing from starboard in front of a US Navy warship and telling them that they need to change course to maintain the 500 yard clearance

Well put, Stu.

Folks, I kinda think we're dancing on the head of a pin here.

Dockhead's repeated and well presented points about his many readings of collision reports indicate that usually no ONE vessel is 100% at fault. That makes sense.

In this case, we have a starboard crossing but the recreational skipper was not only not at the helm and keeping a lookout, but he was in the head!

And the ferry exclusion zone was in effect. Negates the starboard crossing, in my mind. He should have been nowhere near crossing the bow of that ferry because from the video, not only would he be crossing within the exclusion zone, he would have been cutting a crossing very, very close anyway.

In addition, from an earlier post from a skipper who knew the recreational boater, he was a local in these waters and was returning to his home port which was just west of the incident, to the left of the camera view.

The boater should not have been surprised to see a ferry in waters that are like the back of his hand.

The ferry sounded five blasts when it became apparent that the boater was maintaining his course. It is unclear from the video whether or not the ferry actually began any kind of turn because the camera person was moving at the time. All we could see was the reverse props. One could make the point that the ferry actually did turn to starboard because the reverse prop wash is well to the port of the bow of the ferry near the end of the video. Hard to tell if it's true or because the camera person moved.

Stu's point about exclusion zones is pretty clear and makes sense.

The weather was clear. Video shows that.

So, unfortunately the ferry skipper is going to have to deal with bad things on his resume because some jerk decided to duck below in familiar waters fully knowing (challenge that!) that ferries ply that route in his own backyard.

My call? 100% on the boater. No excuse whatsoever.

Real world? 99% the boater, 1% ferry skipper (for not anticipating what some jerk would do!!!).

Ain't fair to the ferry skipper.

I think the talk of colregs Rules, VTS and TSS are overridden by the exclusion zone in this situation. I do understand, as Dockhead would remind us, that colregs do apply when dealing with bailouts from hazardous crossings.

What this thread does tell me though is that there are altogether too many clueless boaters up here (my new cruising grounds) from the reports made from those who sail here, and also, perhaps, from some of the nitpicking of the rules.

For goodness sake, stay out of the way of ferries. What's so hard? Yes, there are a lot of them. That's why you have eyes and a neck to turn your head.

[SV DestinyAscen]

Originally Posted by StuM

Sorry, can't accept that. Where a VTS has been declared by an appropriate authority, then in accordance with COLREGs

"Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels."

With an Exclusion Zone in force, it is not the ferry's obligation to maintain the separation, it is totally incumbent on the other vessel.

Try a close crossing from starboard in front of a US Navy warship and telling them that they need to change course to maintain the 500 yard clearance

After the USS Cole, you'll probably get shot at by the coast guard

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by StuM

Sorry, can't accept that. Where a VTS has been declared by an appropriate authority, then in accordance with COLREGs

"Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels."

With an Exclusion Zone in force, it is not the ferry's obligation to maintain the separation, it is totally incumbent on the other vessel.

Try a close crossing from starboard in front of a US Navy warship and telling them that they need to change course to maintain the 500 yard clearance

Better to look at the CFR - you'll find the relevant regs in chapter 2 of the Coast Pilot: United States Coast Pilot®
The Puget Sound section is chap 13, btw. I couldn't find anything that treats ferries in the VTS as being in a TSS, other than a snippet about fishing vessels not fishing on some ferry routes - that's a little like a small part of rule 10.

Anyhow, if you check para (e) of 165.1317, it says:

(e) The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times

within a large passenger vessel security and safety zone.

Navigation rules are 72 Colregs, which is also in there somewhere. If the stand on vessel has to maintain its course and speed, then the ferry as give-way vessel has to either ensure the sanctity of its own safety zone, or allow the stand on vessel to pass through it. Of course if the ferry is the stand on vessel, then the give way vessel must ensure it remains outside of the zone or request clearance to enter, when taking avoiding action.

I wrote a bit about some of the other issues being discussed, but it was somehow lost in a time-out, so I'll revisit those when I have more time tomorrow.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If the stand on vessel has to maintain its course and speed, then the ferry as give-way vessel has to either ensure the sanctity of its own safety zone, or allow the stand on vessel to pass through it. Of course if the ferry is the stand on vessel, then the give way vessel must ensure it remains outside of the zone or request clearance to enter, when taking avoiding action.

Now this just makes good sense. If the safety zone somehow superseded the other COLREGS then the ferry would in effect have a free pass to completely ignore the rules of the road. I've seen nothing to support such an interpretation.

[Thomea]

Yikes!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Now this just makes good sense. If the safety zone somehow superseded the other COLREGS then the ferry would in effect have a free pass to completely ignore the rules of the road. I've seen nothing to support such an interpretation.

Alternatively, if COLREGS supercedes the exclusion zone, then there is no onus on any vessel to observe it. Clearly the intent is not to force ferries to give a wide berth to smaller vessels, it is quite the opposite.

I repeat COLREGS Rule 1 (a):
Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority...

[waltdrechsler]

I sail Puget Sound regularly. Ferries have a posted schedules and operate over the entire area daily. You know where they are going to be. They are constantly providing information over VTS. Puget Sound is not some local lake where you start your boat like your car and drive to your destination. There are a multitude of elements that you should be aware of to navigate these waters for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. If you are not willing to invest time and resources in navigation, safety, traffic, weather, tides, etc, than maybe you are better off on shore. We enjoy boating in Puget Sound immensely but we respect ourselves and our fellow boaters enough to educate ourselves and boat safely. That means always keeping a watch and respecting the limited maneuverability of larger vessels even if it is not convenient for us or we don't "have to". There are rules, then there is common sense.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by StuM

Alternatively, if COLREGS supercedes the exclusion zone, then there is no onus on any vessel to observe it.

Not at all!

A give-way vessel should alter course/speed to clear the stand-on vessel's exclusion zone (and usually at an even greater distance as dictated by prudent seamanship). The effect of the exclusion zone would be to create a larger "virtual ship" that must be avoided.

And yes, that also means that if the vessel with the exclusion zone is the give-way vessel, then it should alter course/speed so that its exclusion zone does not impinge on the stand-on vessel.

Any other interpretation makes no sense. And I wouldn't claim that COLREGS *supercedes* the exclusion zone, merely that COLREGS still apply.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Not at all!

A give-way vessel should alter course/speed to clear the stand-on vessel's exclusion zone (and usually at an even greater distance as dictated by prudent seamanship). The effect of the exclusion zone would be to create a larger "virtual ship" that must be avoided.

And yes, that also means that if the vessel with the exclusion zone is the give-way vessel, then it should alter course/speed so that its exclusion zone does not impinge on the stand-on vessel.

Any other interpretation makes no sense. And I wouldn't claim that COLREGS *supercedes* the exclusion zone, merely that COLREGS still apply.

To me, this is the best interpretation of the exclusion zone/col regs conundrum.

Well said, Paul!

Jim

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by waltdrechsler

I sail Puget Sound regularly. Ferries have a posted schedules and operate over the entire area daily. You know where they are going to be. They are constantly providing information over VTS. Puget Sound is not some local lake where you start your boat like your car and drive to your destination. There are a multitude of elements that you should be aware of to navigate these waters for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. If you are not willing to invest time and resources in navigation, safety, traffic, weather, tides, etc, than maybe you are better off on shore. We enjoy boating in Puget Sound immensely but we respect ourselves and our fellow boaters enough to educate ourselves and boat safely. That means always keeping a watch and respecting the limited maneuverability of larger vessels even if it is not convenient for us or we don't "have to". There are rules, then there is common sense.

Walt, I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you on this. I've not seen any comments to the contrary.

And I won't say it again after this, but please assume that I am a careful, conscientious, and courteous boater. I give the ferries all the room I can, and do so in a manner that causes no confusion.

But I am interested in the details of the rules, and how they intersect.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

To me, this is the best interpretation of the exclusion zone/col regs conundrum.

Well said, Paul!

Jim

Thanks, but we all know that plain language and common sense often have no relevance when it comes to legal interpretations!

[TacomaSailor]

Why do posters here think there is a VTS in effect? This collision has nothing to do with the VTS or traffic separation zones.

The VTS ends with a 0.6 NM radius separation ring around the Buoy Y "TC" which is mid-channel on a line from Neil Pt (Maurray Island) to Dash Pt (mainland), which is 1.6 NM from the collision area.

The Puget Sound VTS ends - ENDS - ends 1.6 NM EAST of the collision zone. Therefore Rule 10 is not relevant!

Puget Sound has a lot of local regulations so it is not possible to generalize what regulations apply. One needs to read the actual chart and ALL the notes

[TacomaSailor]

Originally Posted by SV DestinyAscen

After the USS Cole, you'll probably get shot at by the coast guard

What unadulterated BS! I regularly sail my 40' cutter and 16' fun boat around San Diego Bay and am frequently within 20-yards of Navy ships including the largest carriers and nuclear subs.

Occasionally a Naval Security boat will ask me to hold my course or tack away if one of the Navy ships is maneuvering but most of the time they just come by and take a look.

Just this morning I watched a half dozen fishing boats, sail boats, and harbor cruise boats pass within 20 yards of the Teddy Roosevelt (CVN 71) while she sat at a North Island dock.

Last weekend I sailed a 33' catamaran past four docked Naval vessels along Pt Loma/Ballast Pt and passed within 50-yards of several of them.

[TacomaSailor]

An important detail to keep in mind about the Puget Sound VTS and TSS.

Each directional lane (Northbound or Southbound) is 0.5 NM wide and there is one 0.25 NM separation zone between them.

Once south of Pt Defiance, which is the west end of Dalco Passage where the collision occurred, the channels and passages are typically 0.25 to 0.75 NM wide. Therefore, it is not possible to have a VTS and TSS in such narrow and confined water.

Pleasure craft are not supposed to travel north or south bound in the VTS lanes or separation lanes. They are encouraged to cross them as quickly as possible. But, that is not possible in the narrow water south of Vashon Island.

And, the large commercial traffic heads east into the Port of Tacoma and would not be transiting Dalco Passage. There is only the occasional break bulk freighter headed south to the Port of Olympia. I find only one ocean going vessel scheduled to pass south of Pt Defiance during the month of December 2016.

Any discussion of VTS and TSS relative to the collision in question is irrelevant!