Ferry And Powerboat Collide

[Smokeys Kitchen]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

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.

I agree you probably won't get shot; at least not right away, but I agree with waltdrechsler about rules and common sense. Last weekend I was sailing and was way out of the traffic zone but one of the escort boats just kept me pinned up against Bainbridge so that I had to turn the engine on and motor a little until the boat they were watching went by. I wasn't arguing.

I've also had a ferry sound their horn at me when I was under spinnaker and gybing in front of them; not in a traffic lane, but I moved out of their way none the less.

I think its been alluded to, but I believe the ferry captain also has a duty to his/her passengers. Any abrupt maneuvers would have to take them into account. Hard stops or turns may have people on the floor getting injured and the captain would be responsible for that as well.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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:

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.

What an interesting question!!

I think we're at the point of angels dancing on the head of a pin, but it's just interesting.

I would interpret this somewhat differently.

I don't think the Exclusion Zone has anything to do with maneuvering, and I don't actually see why the ferry would have an obligation to maneuver to maintain his own exclusion zone, any more than he would be obligated to maneuver to avoid being impeded under Rule 9. I think that collision avoidance process is governed by the COLREGS, period, and that the exclusion zone is a separate obligation of the pleasure vessel. I think that the order of maneuvering in a risk of collision situation is not changed by the existence of the exclusion zone.

And so the exclusion zone becomes something like the duty to "not impede" under Rules 9 and 10, which likewise do not change the order of maneuvering under the steering & sailing rules.


That's just a guess, but this seems most logical to me, and most practical.

[Lodesman]

I think it's important to note that Stu left out a very important part of rule 1 when he quoted it:

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 sea-going vessels if such special rules conform as closely as possible to these Rules

(my bold to show Stu's omission)

"Special rules" are not expected to countermand the colregs. I can't see how it would otherwise be interpreted that if the colregs are in full effect and the stand-on vessel shall maintain its course and speed, that it would be expected to also not maintain its course and speed in order to avoid the zone? Frankly if a ferry is give way, it should avoid any other vessel by at least 100 yards - it would be an egregious act of poor seamanship to do otherwise. If restrictions exist that would require a closer passing than that, the CFR impels the ferry to permit the other vessel to transit the zone anyway.

I respectfully disagree with those that think Nap Tyme should have "not been there in the first place." If that's the route he was taking to where he was going and there were no usage restrictions, then why the hell should he not be there? The ferries should and will follow the rules.

That brings us to a word on narrow channels. Rule 9 was written with the idea that a vessel, by virtue of its size or draught (draft for our American readers) would be unable to manoeuvre as necessary to avoid a collision as turning to port or starboard would cause it to impact the side of the channel or run aground. This is why the rule doesn't specify what constitutes a narrow channel, as that definition is entirely dependent on the vessel(s) involved - what's narrow for an aircraft carrier, isn't for a guy in a canoe. That said, Dalco Passage, where this happened is at least a mile wide, and the ferry was going across it - and clearly not constrained in its ability to alter port or starboard as there would be miles of safe water in either direction. Rule 9 is clearly not involved in this situation.

So neither narrow channel, nor TSS rules apply - I stand by my assertion that the ferry felt Nap Tyme should have given way - either because it had been overtaking, or because it altered course.

[boatman61]

Damn..!! working on that theory on a busy day on the water a ferry would be hard pressed to maintain a schedule.. it'd be zigzagging all over the shop.

[Lodesman]

Dalco Passage isn't Tokyo Wan - not that much traffic to avoid. And half the traffic would presumably need to give way to the ferry

[SV DestinyAscen]

[QUOTE=TacomaSailor;2276082]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.[/QUOTE

Quite a bit of difference between docked at home port and underway. when one of the attack boats leave for patrol from Norfolk - I'd like to see someone try getting within 50 yards.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

> if such special rules conform as closely as possible to these Rules

I think it's important to note that Stu left out a very important part of rule 1 when he quoted it: (my bold to show Stu's omission)
.

That's not what any of my multiple my copies of COLREGs says. The full sub-para reads:

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. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.


No ifs or buts.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Damn..!! working on that theory on a busy day on the water a ferry would be hard pressed to maintain a schedule.. it'd be zigzagging all over the shop.

Let's look at the INTENT of the VTS and its rules.

It is to ensure UNIMPEDED travel for ferries and other large craft.

To say that a ferry surrounded by an exclusion zone has to zigzag around every sailboat and small craft approaching from starboard while on it's scheduled route is just crazy.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by StuM

Let's look at the INTENT of the VTS and its rules.

It is to ensure UNIMPEDED travel for ferries and other large craft.

To say that a ferry surrounded by an exclusion zone has to zigzag around every sailboat and small craft approaching from starboard while on it's scheduled route is just crazy.

For the moment, forget about the exclusion zone. Do you believe that a ferry has the right/obligation to obey the COLREGS crossing rules? In the WA State Ferry case, the ferry is not in a TSS lane, is not in a narrow channel, and is not restricted in its ability to maneuver. Or, may the ferry continue unimpeded, even if this means that it is violating the regular stand-on/give-way rules that the rest of us follow?

The exclusion zone only makes for a bigger zig-zag, but it doesn't (or shouldn't?) otherwise change the problem. This issue existed long before there were exclusion zones.

And I'm happy to give way to the ferries. I do it all the time. I would just like to know where (in the published rules) the ferries apparently get these special rights.

[krisb007]

This thread is an interesting read.

So just out of curiosity, what would people say if that power boat had instead been a sailboat under sail? Then should the ferry alter course in that case or should the sailboat change course to stay out of the exclusion zone?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

For the moment, forget about the exclusion zone. Do you believe that a ferry has the right/obligation to obey the COLREGS crossing rules? In the WA State Ferry case, the ferry is not in a TSS lane, is not in a narrow channel, and is not restricted in its ability to maneuver. Or, may the ferry continue unimpeded, even if this means that it is violating the regular stand-on/give-way rules that the rest of us follow?

The exclusion zone only makes for a bigger zig-zag, but it doesn't (or shouldn't?) otherwise change the problem. This issue existed long before there were exclusion zones.

And I'm happy to give way to the ferries. I do it all the time. I would just like to know where (in the published rules) the ferries apparently get these special rights.

But you can't forget about the exclusion zone. That is the crux of the matter.

Reading CFR 165.1317, we find this:

Large Passenger Vessel means any cruise ship over 100 feet in length carrying passengers for hire, and any auto ferries and passenger ferries over 100 feet in length carrying passengers for hire such as the Washington State Ferries, M/V COHO and Alaskan Marine Highway Ferries.

Large Passenger Vessel Security and Safety Zone is aregulated area of water established by this section, surrounding large passenger vessels for a 500-yard radius to provide for the security and safety of these vessels.

When within a large passenger vessel security and safety zone all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course and must proceed as directed by the on-scene official patrol or large passenger vessel master.

No vessel or person is allowed within 100 yards of a large passenger vessel that is underway or at anchor, unless authorized by the on-scene official patrol or large passenger vessel master.

That seems fairly definitive to me. The ferry master can direct any small pleasurecraft within 500 yards to turn away or do anything else he considers necessary for the safety and security of his vessel and the pleasure craft must "keep clear" of the smaller 100 yard zone unless the ferry master specifically authorises him to do otherwise.

This is exactly where the ferries get their "special rights"!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's not what any of my multiple my copies of COLREGs says. The full sub-para reads:

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. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.


No ifs or buts.

A distinction that makes no difference. I posted the Canadian Rules - but fine have it your war, you omitted a whole sentence that makes a big difference to your assertion.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by krisb007

This thread is an interesting read.

So just out of curiosity, what would people say if that power boat had instead been a sailboat under sail? Then should the ferry alter course in that case or should the sailboat change course to stay out of the exclusion zone?

To my mind yes.. as long as propulsion of some form exists the pleasure vessel is obliged to give unrestricted passage to ferries during operating hours.
But then I'm biased having worked as a Boatmaster Grade 2 operating vessels capable of up to 220 passengers.. idiots are a common occurrence in the Solent.. and dinghy racers are the bane of Cross Channel Ferries operating out of Poole..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

A distinction that makes no difference. I posted the Canadian Rules - but fine have it your war, you omitted a whole sentence that makes a big difference to your assertion.

Actually, the wording does make a difference. But regardless of which wording you choose, "conform as closely as possible to" is the critical wording. It does not say "conform to"

That is a classic example of "lawyer speak" which essentially makes that clause or sentence totally ineffective.

The CFR has been drawn up to cover a situation where large pleasure vessels have priority over small pleasure craft, so it is "as close as possible" to COLREGs while overriding certain rules.

If Regulations didn't override any rules, there wouldn't be any need for Rule 1(b) in COLREGs at all.

[malbert73]

Someone earlier wondered whether it takes longer in a ferry to activate reverse? Maybe captain was working on this causing delay? I think ferries like this have 2 engines and props, right? Maybe it takes some time to start the other engine and slow ferry down? Or do they keep both engines on at all times when running- the "reverse" one at idle?


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum