Drifting fishermen

[jmh2002]

I think you totally misunderstood the point.

Dockhead is the voice of reason in this case. It's important to follow the rules step by step, not 'just' do what you want how or whenever you feel like it because you think you are 'avoiding a collision'.

That creates confusion which can cause further or worsen collision situations (eg: the classic altering to Port error).

[sailingbare]

I had a great one. I was heading steadily SE about 8-10 mph on a wide open lake. The only other boat in sight started motoring on a course that would cross in front of my bow. There was a lot of distance between us and nothing but open water around, so I decided to hold course and watch. Eventually, he disappeared from my view behind my sails. I expected to see him appear on the other side, but he didn't. After several seconds, I leaned out to see around the sails, and there's the fisherman sitting dead in the water, maybe 10 boat lengths in front of me, opening his tackle box!
Nothing but miles of open water around and this guy stops to fish directly in front of an approaching sailboat!
I made a 90 degree left turn for separation, then back 90 right to resume course. I looked over at the fisherman, and he is looking totally oblivious, asking "what?".
Just. Wow.

[S/V Adeline]

This thread reminds me of the class to receive vessel endorsement. Homemade video, where the wife is recording her husband being a complete 'jet ski' moron. All kinds of tricks and such but staying roughly in about a 20ft circle area. Soon you hear six or seven loud blasts over a period of approximately 6-8 seconds.
At that point a huge powerboat on plane goes through the scene.
We really dont know how far away the powerboat saw the jetski but it gave 8 seconds of audible warning.
Powerboat was the stand on vessel. Jet ski was give way. Marine police cited powerboat as being at fault for failure to avoid collision.
The wife has the distinction of filming her husband's death.
As the Marine Police put it, the moral of the video is every skipper is obligated to avoid a collision whenever possible, regardless of vessel designation.

[Seacod]

[QUOTE=Shenandoah52;2972517]Ok, here's what I'm not getting... a drifting fishing boat is supposed to move out of the way of a sailboat if the fishing boat sees a sailboat heading its' way?"


A power vessel drifting is making way. There is no special status for recreational drift fishing.... The choice to be without power was just that a choice. The sailboat cannot necessarily perceive the distinction between a boat under power or not. The drifting boat has posted no signal, and is in a navigable waterway.... Bottom line the drifting fisherman has chosen to be not under command or power <without signal> because he feels like fishing....
One thing though...a lot of these situations would be under Inland Rules and/or county Town State rules...Colregs not always the final arbiter location location location....

Cod

[StuM]

Originally Posted by CFS Klopas

Illinois, the state in question, specifies which light combinations may constitute an emergency signal, unapproved vehicles may not use these: equipped with alternately flashing red, blue, red and white, red and blue, or red in combination with white or blue lights.

It goes on to say: (d) The use of red (or blue) oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on fire, rescue, or other emergency watercraft

For foreigners, this mirrors the law that applies to cars.

625Â*ILCSÂ*45/Â*Boat Registration and Safety Act.

Thanks for clearing that up.


So "flashing red and yellow" is not an emergency signal under state legislation and there is no conflict between the Inland Rules "flashing red and yellow does not grant ROW" and the State legislation "emergency signals have ROW". (if you will pardon my paraphrases )

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ctskip

If not “ burdened “, then how about “obligated”?

Same issue.


Why do peole keep on trying to come up with other expressions when the actual wording is clear and precise. ("Stand on" and "Give way")



Both vessels are obligated.


One to "keep her course and speed", the other to "take early and substantial action"

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by JBsurfin

"Avoiding a collision at all costs is good advice, and ultimately you must do that. " According to the Regs, thats the ultimate answer. period.. So what other answer should/could there be? "Oh, I had Right of Way"?, will never fly if you had the opportunity to avoid collision. In the end, your job as skipper, is to "just" avoid the collision. Why do you think they wrote the Reg in that manner.

"What other answer" there could be is the answer to the OP's question -- who had what obligations? Who was supposed to stand on; who was supposed to give way? These are relevant questions in any case. And the answer are all in the thread above.


At the end of the day, the OP was obligated to safely maneuver around the fisherman, and avoid the collision. You and I agree on that.



But that's at the end of the day. Before getting to that point, the OP needed to first understand that he had an obligation to stand on so that the fishermen could have a chance to maneuver in the way that they liked in order to prevent the collision. Standing-on is not a privilege, it's not a right, it's nothing like right of way -- it's an obligation, and it's very clearly written that way in Rule 17 -- "shall keep her course and speed". Not "may keep her course and speed." Not "may do what she wants, because it's the other vessel's problem to keep out of the way".



The OP needed to do that just long enough to be pretty sure that the fishermen had no intention of maneuvering at all, then he's free to make his own move.


So it's not indeed "just avoid the collision". That's true, but there's more to it than that.



In an obvious case like this, that phase might last like two seconds, but you still can't skip it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

. . .


Both vessels are obligated.


One to "keep her course and speed", the other to "take early and substantial action"

Indeed. And if we WOULD talk about "burdened", the really burdened vessel is the stand-on vessel, because he has no right to do anything except hold his course and speed, at least until he's released from that obligation by Rule 17(a)(ii).


The give-way vessel by contrast is obligated to keep out of the way by early and substantial action, but does have the right to determine how to do it -- pass ahead, pass astern, change course, change speed, whatever. This is important. The obligation to stand on is important so that the give-way vessel can implement the maneuver of his choice -- so that the give-way vessel can take control of the crossing.


So talking about the give-way vessel being "burdened" is really harmful and misleading, leading to grave misconceptions about how the whole system works.

[StuM]

[QUOTE=Seacod;2978012]

Originally Posted by Shenandoah52

A power vessel drifting is making under way.

FIFY!

[cpisz]

Ok. I will bight. So if the fishing boat was drifting such that it's stern is visible to the sailboat is the sailboat now considered to be overtaking the motor boat? If overtaking then the sailboat is the give way vessel. If not then what defines overtaking?

In my opinion the sailboat has the ability to avoid a collision while the boat fishing needs to get its lines in and start the engine before it can move. So if it went to court I all not confident the sailboat would win.

[Jimmyhenry]

In NZ. My friend has this exact situation. His boat actually collided with the fishing boat. The eventual court case found that both boats were underway. And it found that neither had attempted to avoid the collision. So it found both were at fault equally.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by cpisz

Ok. I will bight. So if the fishing boat was drifting such that it's stern is visible to the sailboat is the sailboat now considered to be overtaking the motor boat? If overtaking then the sailboat is the give way vessel. If not then what defines overtaking?

Not just "stern visible", it is lot more specific than that.
(Again, if you have to ask, you need to (re)read COLREGs.)


Rule 13
Overtaking
(a). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of part B, sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.
(b). A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.
(c). When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.
(d). Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

In my opinion the sailboat has the ability to avoid a collision while the boat fishing needs to get its lines in and start the engine before it can move. So if it went to court I all not confident the sailboat would win.

There is no "win or lose". There will be a certain percentage of blame apportioned to each vessel in the event of a collision according to their respective actions/inactions.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jimmyhenry

In NZ. My friend has this exact situation. His boat actually collided with the fishing boat. The eventual court case found that both boats were underway. And it found that neither had attempted to avoid the collision. So it found both were at fault equally.

That's not unusual. Generally it takes two to cause a collision and it is frequently the case that the blame is apportioned roughly equally.

[Old fella]

Originally Posted by JBsurfin

"Avoiding a collision at all costs is good advice, and ultimately you must do that. " According to the Regs, thats the ultimate answer. period.. So what other answer should/could there be? "Oh, I had Right of Way"?, will never fly if you had the opportunity to avoid collision. In the end, your job as skipper, is to "just" avoid the collision. Why do you think they wrote the Reg in that manner.

Exactly

[jmh2002]

No, not exactly. Please see the previous posts.

The lack of basic COLREGS knowledge here, or at least the application thereof, is really quite frightening.