Ferry And Powerboat Collide

[StuM]

Originally Posted by TJ D

Hello, forum.

It's worth noting that small recreational vessels (any not participating in VTS) do not EVER have right of way over commercial vessels participating in VTS. This situation is not limited to just the traffic lanes, but applies throughout the sound.

Do you have a reference for that?

[TJ D]

It falls under rule 9. The relevant regs are cited on local charts as well, but those are now buried on board as we left WA some time ago...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

I don't believe that the ferries are participating in VTS, and this one was not operating in a VTS lane. It was not the powerboater's obligation to keep clear, other than the 100-yard exclusion zone. It *was* the obligation of both vessels to operate according to COLREGS, and neither one did so.

It would have been prudent and polite for the powerboat to alter course early enough that his intentions would be obvious, but this is not a COLREGS obligation.

So a question: Does the 100-yard exclusion zone have priority over all other COLREGS requirements? Does it negate the regular stand-on / give-way rules? I honestly don't know.

What specifically is this "100 yard exclusion zone" ?

Your use of the words "other COLREGS requirements" suggests that this is a COLREG requirement??

[StuM]

Originally Posted by TJ D

It falls under rule 9. The relevant regs are cited on local charts as well, but those are now buried on board as we left WA some time ago...

DO you mean COLREGS Rule 9 ,Narrow Channels?

I don't see anything in that which is relevant to this case.

[boatman61]

My understanding is the same as TJD's..
Ferries and other commercial shipping in inshore waters have priority and pleasure craft are obliged to stand clear in most places I've been.. however Darwin is ever present.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just asking - would the ferry captain get some credit for watching, signalling, and taking action that, although the collision was not prevented, it was much less severe? Enough to make it like 75% - 25% responsibility (trawler - ferry)?

Interesting question -- and I think the answer is probably yes.

I have read a lot of collision cases. One vessel does often get "credit" if there was genuinely not much it could do to avoid the collision, and did its best, even if its best was not quite enough to prevent the accident.

This is a somewhat weak argument since there is almost ALWAYS something either vessel could do, to prevent the accident, despite the actions of the other.

In this case, based on what little we know, it's not really clear whether it was like that or not.

[nigel1]

Couple of articles which are pertinent to the case, even if one of the articles is aimed at sail boats in confined waters, it goes a long way to explain the situation in these waters.
Interesting, I had not realised that Puget Sound is not considered a Narrow Channel for the purposes of the Colregs.

The second article, would appear to make an attempt to define a Narrow Channel, if you have trouble getting to sleep, this article comes highly recommended.

[Sandero]

Did not read this thread... Did the Ferry blast its horn or try to stop or change course? What were the speeds of the vessels? At what point did either take action. If this has been answered I apologize.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Sandero

Did not read this thread... Did the Ferry blast its horn or try to stop or change course? What were the speeds of the vessels? At what point did either take action. If this has been answered I apologize.

Watch the video in the 1st post and contribute your analysis afterwards..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Couple of articles which are pertinent to the case, even if one of the articles is aimed at sail boats in confined waters, it goes a long way to explain the situation in these waters.
Interesting, I had not realised that Puget Sound is not considered a Narrow Channel for the purposes of the Colregs.

The second article, would appear to make an attempt to define a Narrow Channel, if you have trouble getting to sleep, this article comes highly recommended.

Thank you, the first link has answered my questions nicely. This is clearly the relevant information in this case.

"...a large passenger vessel security and safety zone has been established by 33 CFR 165.1317 within Puget Sound. This regulation applies to Washington State Ferries. The zone extends 500 yards around a moving ferry, and all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course (bare steerageway) and proceed as directed by the ferry master or on-scene Coast Guard patrol. No vessel or person is allowed within 100 yards of a ferry that is underway unless permission is granted by the ferry master or on-scene Coast Guard patrol. "

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

What precautionary area?

The English language is imprecise - I was referring to the precautionary area to the east, that Nap Time would have had to pass through prior to the collision, if he had been on a steady course along the dashed line. Without knowing from where he was coming, we can't necessarily rule out this possibility, but I thought it improbable that he had been steady on that course from the beginning of the interaction with the ferry.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Sandero

Did not read this thread... Did the Ferry blast its horn or try to stop or change course? What were the speeds of the vessels? At what point did either take action. If this has been answered I apologize.

Watch the video with your sound on.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TJ D

For the purposes of Colregs, the entire navigational area of WA inside Cape Flattery is considered to be restricted maneuverability for the big commercial guys, ferries included, and it is incumbent on non-participating vessels to keep clear.

With respect, this is nonsense. And your understanding of rules 9 and 10 needs a little work. These are "shall not impede" regimes, but where collision risk is involved the relevant steering and sailing rules are in full effect.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TJ D

It falls under rule 9. The relevant regs are cited on local charts as well, but those are now buried on board as we left WA some time ago...

Rule 9 is an excellent illustration of why it is harmful and wrong to think about "right of way".

It's important to understand how the Rule 9 obligations work.

Not only does Rule 9 not give anyone any kind of "right of way", it doesn't even make anyone a stand-on vessel.

Rule 9 directs the vessel under 20 meters or a sailing vessel, to "not impede" the vessel which can only navigate within the narrow channel. "Not impeding" means staying far enough out of the way, that a risk of collision situation never arises in the first place. In practice, that means staying out of the narrow channels to the extent possible and crossing them only when the coast is clear.

But IF a risk of collision situation arises -- even if it's due to the fault of the pleasure vessel, then the normal rules come into effect at that point, and whoever would otherwise be obligated to stand on, must stand on, etc.


So Rule 9 is really irrelevant to how the vessels were supposed to maneuver, once things got hairy.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

The problem with using the word "privileged" as a synonym for "stand on" is that "privileged" carries all those other synonyms such as "rights", "benefits", "entitlements","freedoms" etc. All of which are the very antithesis of the real obligation to maintain course and speed.

And as we've seen some believe that "burdened" means "obliged to give way", while others believe it means "less able to maneouver".

Best to just avoid the terms completely.

Indeed. The terms "burden" and "privilege" were consciously banished from the COLREGS, and for good reasons. It's not just a question of style.

Here's a good explanation:

"[B]ack in the day, vessels were designated as 'privileged' and 'burdened.' The privileged boat would hold her course and speed and the burdened boat would take 'early and substantial' action to avoid the collision. What the Coast Guard noticed through court cases though was that skippers involved in collisions would claim that they had "the right of way" or that they had 'privileges.' This implied something that doesn't exist in The Rules - that you have no affirmative obligation to avoid a collision at sea, no matter how much 'in the right' you are. So, The Rules were changed to remove this unintended subtlety. Just about every reference to the term 'right of way' was removed from The Rules and the terms 'privileged' and 'burdened' were changed to 'stand-on' and 'give-way,' respectively. Their courses of action were retained ñ the stand-on vessel would hold her course and speed and the give-way vessel would take early and substantial action to avoid a collision -- plus one caveat. Under Rule 17(b), if the closing conditions between the two* vessels has deteriorated to the point that action by the give-way vessel solely can no longer avoid a collision at sea, the stand-on vessel is 'required' to take the best action it can to avoid the collision.

Rule 2 also clearly states that a skipper 'may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.'"

http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.c...EGs-part-1.pdf