Professional Pilot ignoring Colregs

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

. . . I'd like to know how often folks get a response to their VHF call. From experience, I can tell you that sailors rarely respond to VHF hails, probably because their main radio is below decks. . .

I almost always get responses to my VHF calls. It's been years since a ship ignored one of my calls.


Call them by name, use proper radio procedure, sound professional, and don't call when they're obviously busy with something, and they nearly always answer. Don't ask or say anything stupid and you will nearly always be happy with the results of the call.


Only once in decades of sailing did any watchkeeper on a ship ever refuse to alter course to give me a bit of room when politely asked, when there was some reason why I couldn't deal with it myself (usually because I'm already hard on the wind and can't alter to windward without tacking).


That said I would not call a ship which is in the process of boarding a pilot or entering a harbor. That falls under the "obviously busy with something" category in my opinion.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by carstenb

For those who are suggesting that we put our boat into a danger situation - no we immediately hove to and allowed the ship to enter the harbor.

Many professional skippers of large ships refer to leisure sailors as WAFIs and with good cause. Mostly they do so because many leisure skippers decide to make up their own rules, Law of tonnage, Business before pleasure and all the other self-made rules. It is incumbent on us to follow the Colregs - which we did in this instance

At no point have I suggested you put your boat into danger. Nor have most other replies.

With respect to all cruisers on this and other forums.
I worked for quite a few years as an OOW on UK registered Ships big and Little round the UK N Sea. EU and world wide.
I have worked as an OOW or Higher on Canadian register ships big and little primarily on the west coast.

I had never heard the term WAIF until I saw it on sailing forums many years later or ever heard it used by any Professional mariner I ever worked with anywhere.
Certainly not used where I work.

My Conclusion having first seen the Term on a British Yachting Forum.
The Term WAFI was coined and is used by Yachtsmen to Refer to Other Yachtsmen.

Stand on maintain co and speed following the rules fine and dandy I give way easy no big deal. Have a nice day.

Giveaway anyway if its works for you, Fine and dandy but please do it early and make it bold and easily seen and please do not turn towards to go round my stern JIK I am altering for you as a give way vessel. This would be very dangerous for you.

For those who chose not to impede, you are a scholar and a gentleman thankyou it is appreciated.

For those who stand on and impede. Oh well no big deal I just avoid you, As I have learned reading forum collreg threads. Oh well Probably a YM.

Sometimes small boats do silly things, It happens, Regularly, You deal with it and move on.
It rare for it to be unpredictable. Silly but not unpredictable.

Sailboats actually are much less likely to be problem than power boats or fishing boats. Combined with being relatively slow,
I just goes around them.

truthfully I have known a few Profesional Mariners who drive aggressively (translate to tonnage rule if like)
I reserve term ending in FI for those guys.
They are risking their license, career, livelihood and freedom.
Worse they are risking other people's lives.

Unfortunately.
Quite some years ago. Someone I knew personally
killed a couple of recreational boaters.
After the enquiry was published he was asked to resign.
I was quite surprised he wasn't charged, I guess he had a good Lawyer

So no we don't call you WAFI's
Or get worked up about what you choose to do.

If you do something unwise. You are risking your life and your crews life not mine.
Honestly few sailors do.

Its mostly small powerboats. Some slightly bigger PBs. Some are like moths to flame. They just want to cross ahead.
I've come close but not killed any yet.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is no point at which the narrow channel rule [Rule 9] "takes over". The regular steering & sailing rules remain in effect even when Rule 9 comes into play.

They do remain in effect, but the initial obligations can seem contradictory. In this case it might be the difference between the OP standing on or finding a way to avoid impeding. I'm more curious here about what's consistent within the Rules.

We could also say Rule 9 isn't in play here at all, after all neither vessel was actually in such a channel. There are two reasons I consider it. First the Ever Smart case, considering a ship "on final approach", and second the actual geography: if giving way puts the ship out of position for entry, then one could argue it was already being affected by the channel and thus OP should not have impeded.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

For those who are suggesting that we put our boat into a danger situation - no we immediately hove to and allowed the ship to enter the harbor.. . .

I've sailed a good few miles with the OP, including through some of the world's busiest seaways, and can guaranty that what he says here is true. He is very careful and thorough in such situations.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by requiem

They do remain in effect, but the initial obligations can seem contradictory. In this case it might be the difference between the OP standing on or finding a way to avoid impeding. I'm more curious here about what's consistent within the Rules.

We could also say Rule 9 isn't in play here at all, after all neither vessel was actually in such a channel. There are two reasons I consider it. First the Ever Smart case, considering a ship "on final approach", and second the actual geography: if giving way puts the ship out of position for entry, then one could argue it was already being affected by the channel and thus OP should not have impeded.

I would also be interested in a discussion of when (if) rule #9 comes into play. Further up someone claimed that "Special circumstances" came into play. Try as I might, I'm simply not able to envision what "special circumstances" are at play just because a ship is taking on a pilot in calm open waters. Certainly we were nowhere near a situation where the rules came into play WHILE the pilot was boarding. After the pilot boarded, there can be no discussion of "special circumstances"

RE the "final approach" argument. Just to play devils advocate here. I could argue that speeding up to 10 knots and crossing in front of a boat coming from starboard is certainly a violation of the rules. Indeed, even if the ship wants to use the "final approach" argument, then I submit that 10 knots is an excessive rate of speed for running in a "final approach". Especially since the seas were calm and there was no apparent reason to enter a harbor at that speed unless it was because the Pilot wanted to get home and have a hot breakfast.

[Uricanejack]

Read rule 9 again at your leisure

R9 is Titled Narrow Channels
Para A,B,C,D,E and F all use the phrase "narrow channel or fairway"

So where does the fairway begin?

IALA have a wee floaty thing called a "Fairway Buoy"
Fairway Buoy's being optional, So are all the other's The port and chanel may or may not have one.

My simple little brain tells me R 9 applies from the fairway buoy.
If you have really deep pockets, argue the minutia in court.
The rest of us just use common sense. Otherwise known as "The practice of good seamen"
Which refers us back to your particular favourite R 2

Para G for some reason "narrow channel"

So if for some reason you ever feel like anchoring in a fairway go ahead its ok. At least as far as R 9 goes.

Other than not call you back and being flippant or rude.
At what point did the Piloted vessel endanger your vessel?
According to your post.
The ship would have passed ahead?
CPA 1/4 mile.

Did you call the ship because it did not call back or Due to R 17
Your post it was R 2.
Your Post indicated you acted based on R 2

Are you saying the Ship did not comply with R 15 and R 16.
Are you saying you decided to take action as per R 17 a 1 a 11?
Why?

Your devils argument suggests the ship approaching the chanel entrance at 10k was not a safe speed based on? Your presence?

Trying as you might. You can't envision why most of us other ordinary (hopefully good) seamen are not agreeing with you.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I almost always get responses to my VHF calls. It's been years since a ship ignored one of my calls..

Agreed, ships almost always answer though smaller local cargo ships aren't great responders. Coastal or offshore, mixed bag with commercial fishing vessels. Powerboats are pretty good at responding. Sailboats are less apt to respond.

The OP posted his grievance, and believes he was 100% in the right as far as COLREGs. I think there are some lessons here. I know I learned I was wrong when I initially applied "Restricted Ability to Maneuver " - that only applies to vessels engaged in some sort of work that severely limits their maneuverability. In re-readinf Rule 2 closely, it's pretty clear to my eyes that while there is a general obligation to follow the Rules, there is also an obligation to make adjustments if the situation reasonably or foreseeable warrants it (so called "special circumstances," an undefined term). I think the vast majority of mariners would at least consider that a ship in a channel or on approach to a channel is enough of a special circumstance that you should just stay out of the way, especially when you have an easy alternative as the OP did. I am also reminded that when transiting harbors with commercial traffic, Ch 14 should be monitored (or have VHF on scan).

Some teachable moments......if you're open.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I would also be interested in a discussion of when (if) rule #9 comes into play. Further up someone claimed that "Special circumstances" came into play. Try as I might, I'm simply not able to envision what "special circumstances" are at play just because a ship is taking on a pilot in calm open waters. Certainly we were nowhere near a situation where the rules came into play WHILE the pilot was boarding. After the pilot boarded, there can be no discussion of "special circumstances"

RE the "final approach" argument. Just to play devils advocate here. I could argue that speeding up to 10 knots and crossing in front of a boat coming from starboard is certainly a violation of the rules. Indeed, even if the ship wants to use the "final approach" argument, then I submit that 10 knots is an excessive rate of speed for running in a "final approach". Especially since the seas were calm and there was no apparent reason to enter a harbor at that speed unless it was because the Pilot wanted to get home and have a hot breakfast.

I think, as it seems the OP does, that "special circumstances" is nonsense, from the point of view of the Rules.

There is a recent English Supreme Court case on a related question, which overturns some previous case law. See: https://www.shiplawlog.com/2021/03/0...rossing-rules/. The Court held, among other things, that being in the process of taking on a pilot does not relieve the vessel from any obligations under the crossing rules.

There is no clear definition of a "narrow channel or fairway" in the Rules, but a vessel navigating in a fairway "on its leads" into a harbor entrance is logically a Rule 9 situation. From the fairway buoy, or 3 miles, or whatever is reasonable.

As to application of Rule 9 in the OP's case -- I think the crux of this matter is that the ship considered it should not be impeded as per Rule 9 and expected the OP to move out of the channel. There is a question whether OP was nonetheless still stand on as the ship approached from behind but I think that's academic. In fact the OP did move out of the channel and heave-to, which neatly resolved the issue without creating any risks.

End of story, no?

Well, wait a minute, was the ship hot-rodding at 10 knots? Someone in the thread pointed out there are strong currents in that entrance. Maybe the ship needed all 10 knots to be safe in that. We can't know. I wouldn't worry about it.

Should the ship have drifted around waiting for the OP to get into the harbor before proceeding? Unreasonable in my view, considering that the OP could easily move out of the way.

Should the pilot have called the OP back to tell him his intentions, and ask the OP to stand off a bit and let the ship pass? That would have been polite, and safer. HOWEVER, the bridge is a very busy place 3 miles or whatever from a harbor entrance -- there is a lot to think about, orders to give to a lot of people, a lot of activity. I don't think it's surprising that a VHF call to a rec sailor got deprioritized in those circumstances.

Should the OP, not waiting for communication from the ship, seeing the ship accelerate, have moved out of the channel immediately? That's what I think I would have done, but then again, I wasn't there, so that's Monday morning quarterbacking.

[Dockhead]

And to clarify -- the reason why I would not have called, seeing the ship accelerate, is because the intention of the ship is obvious. There is nothing to discuss on the radio. He intends to go straight into the harbor entrance, and I'm not comfortable with the CPA.

For me that's an obvious situation, with only one course of action -- move out of the way.

It may be that he IS comfortable with the CPA, OR that he expects me to move. Which of these is irrelevant, because in either case, I'm going to take action, and the same action, because I don't care whether or not he's comfortable -- it's my judgement and my responsibility which governs my action.

VHF calls are for when you don't understand what the other vessel intends to do, or when you want to ask the vessel for some particular action. Neither of these applies here, according at least to how I understand the situation.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Just to play devils advocate here. I could argue that speeding up to 10 knots and crossing in front of a boat coming from starboard is certainly a violation of the rules. Indeed, even if the ship wants to use the "final approach" argument, then I submit that 10 knots is an excessive rate of speed for running in a "final approach". Especially since the seas were calm and there was no apparent reason to enter a harbor at that speed unless it was because the Pilot wanted to get home and have a hot breakfast.

For a large ship I wouldn't consider 10 knots particularly excessive, especially considering the need to maintain steerage. An earlier comment (post 114) mentioned strong cross-currents in the area, and the Coast Pilot notes:

Caution
When approaching the entrance channel (Bar Channel), with quartering and following seas that are especially predominant in winter, speeds of not less than 10 knots are recommended. This requirement for speed permits sufficient time to commence turning into Anegado Channel while maintaining ship control

I'm not sure I posted it earlier, but the set-up here is quite similar to SF: ~2.6 miles from the sea buoy / boarding point to the fairway, and ~3 miles to the first buoy pair. Within the bay 10-15 knots is normal for ships.

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

Read rule 9 again at your leisure
So where does the fairway begin?

IALA have a wee floaty thing called a "Fairway Buoy"
Fairway Buoy's being optional, So are all the other's The port and chanel may or may not have one.

My simple little brain tells me R 9 applies from the fairway buoy.

I think it's hard to argue that it applies from the buoy (or boarding area) for a few reasons; first, one can see from the density map on MarineTraffic that traffic converges not at the boarding area, but rather at the location of the charted fairway (the "do vessels treat it as a narrow channel" test), and second, that a fairway must also be "narrow" for the rule to apply. That the fairway is charted is also fairly definitive.

Farwell's notes that (unlike Rule 10) Rule 9 doesn't address the approaches to a fairway, mentioning that it would instead need to be guided by practices of good seamanship so long as it didn't conflict with ColRegs.

For the sake of discussion, suppose we replace OP with a small bulk freighter that was following the coast and not intended to enter the harbor. How might that change things for you?

[rslifkin]

I'd say 10 kts is fast for a harbor entrance in the sense that it doesn't fit well into the flow of other boats, many of which may be slower, so the ship will require a disproportionately large amount of space in front of it to avoid catching up to other vessels. However, if they need to do 10 kts for whatever reason, that's fine.

Thinking about it, a ship needing to enter a harbor significantly faster than most other traffic would be a good time for a sécurité call indicating their approach speed and requesting other vessels give them space to be able to maintain speed.

[TrentePieds]

Ref. #174

Conceptually correct and succinctly expressed!

Let's have more of that, plz!

TP

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think, as it seems the OP does, that "special circumstances" is nonsense, from the point of view of the Rules.

There is a recent English Supreme Court case on a related question, which overturns some previous case law. See: https://www.shiplawlog.com/2021/03/0...rossing-rules/. The Court held, among other things, that being in the process of taking on a pilot does not relieve the vessel from any obligations under the crossing rules.

There is no clear definition of a "narrow channel or fairway" in the Rules, but a vessel navigating in a fairway "on its leads" into a harbor entrance is logically a Rule 9 situation. From the fairway buoy, or 3 miles, or whatever is reasonable.

As to application of Rule 9 in the OP's case -- I think the crux of this matter is that the ship considered it should not be impeded as per Rule 9 and expected the OP to move out of the channel. There is a question whether OP was nonetheless still stand on as the ship approached from behind but I think that's academic. In fact the OP did move out of the channel and heave-to, which neatly resolved the issue without creating any risks.

End of story, no?

Well, wait a minute, was the ship hot-rodding at 10 knots? Someone in the thread pointed out there are strong currents in that entrance. Maybe the ship needed all 10 knots to be safe in that. We can't know. I wouldn't worry about it.

Should the ship have drifted around waiting for the OP to get into the harbor before proceeding? Unreasonable in my view, considering that the OP could easily move out of the way.

Should the pilot have called the OP back to tell him his intentions, and ask the OP to stand off a bit and let the ship pass? That would have been polite, and safer. HOWEVER, the bridge is a very busy place 3 miles or whatever from a harbor entrance -- there is a lot to think about, orders to give to a lot of people, a lot of activity. I don't think it's surprising that a VHF call to a rec sailor got deprioritized in those circumstances.

Should the OP, not waiting for communication from the ship, seeing the ship accelerate, have moved out of the channel immediately? That's what I think I would have done, but then again, I wasn't there, so that's Monday morning quarterbacking.

Point about the court case, The case involved 2 ships. One arriving One departing. Two V/L roughly equivalent. Plus some other vessel to further confuse the comm's and the issue.

The OP to the Thread gives no distance from channel entrance just open water. So OP had no channel to move out of otherwise the requirement to not impede gets involved. Which still doesn't help the ships its still give way.
The OP contends he is simply following the rules as one of two PDV.
The channel entrance not relevant.

The OP makes original call The ship stopped or slow at this time No Risk of collision exist.
The OP logic R 2. suggesting willing to depart from rules as per R 2.
Speaks to capt. wait and see result. No decision yet. The option is now on the table the OP put it there.

The OP has already started to depart from the rules. He has opened the door.
Back to your excellent explanation of MCA recommendations on VHF.
important
Pilot arrives he was not party to this first call. What he thinks and why he does what he does is unknown.

Ship starts making way, heading for channel entrance a reasonably predictable outcome.
The missing bit the OP is expecting a VHF call.

The ship speeds up Risk of collision or close quarters exists. According to the OP.
10 knots 1/4 mile CPA. where? open water. no mention of distance from chanel entrance.
Anyway he is not happy. OK

2nd call, Pilot I'm bigger. ect No longer R 2 R 17

Op determines time to depart from rules and takes action.
It's not a departure from the rules it is as per R 17
The result the vessels pass safely.

Where would the CPA have occured open water or closer to the channel entrance.
Presume CPA involves crossing ahead.

In any event time to CPA ie where will the CPA occur is important.

Is 10 knot reasonable? For a ship its relatively slow.
Hard to say a speed is safe or not safe or appropriate with out a lot more info. Safe speed a whole topic of its own.

Where will we be when at collision point?
What's next how wide is chanel am i expecting other vessel movements.

Rule 15 some of the wording becomes important.
The phrase "If the circumstances admit"
Entering a channel a potential reason not to go to starboard may reasonably be a time when the circumstances do not admit.

Would I pass 1/4n CPA ahead of a 40ft sailboat doing 6 kn in a relatively confined water of a chanel entrance. Probably if i thought it was safe for both vessels. Depends on headings lots of other things.
The time to CPA wasn't mentioned. its important
We are being quite generous to the OP accepting it would be open water if he was motor sailing along the coast and planning to turn into chanel entrance.

Putting ship on to collision course with the sailboat and forcing other vessel to give way. Would be downright dangerous.

I expect the Pilot quickly assessed the situation at the time and future options and picked an option he believed was safe. For both vessels.
Planning to pass 1/4 mile ahead in relatively more open water where both vessels would be lining up for the entrance rather than in confined water acceptable.
The problem is the way the VHF was used by both vessels.

Perception of what is open water might vary

How could the Pilot asses it so quickly?
You look, you see, you know, local knowledge.

The Pilot may not like pass arrangements with random boats.
So
I'm sorry I don't do passing arrangements on working channels please got to VTS CH X or just decline.
He was annoyed grumpy a jerk.

The Pilot would have been better of to leave his humour and comment of air.
And just assured the OP he had him in sight and would keep clear.

Depending upon where the CPA would have been. The requirement to not impede may or may not have applied.
Which would not have relieved the ship from its requirement to keep clear anyway.

[El Pinguino]

We still have no indication about how far offshore the OP was but we must assume that prior to reaching the channel centreline extension - which the big ship is on - the OP is going to alter to stb to 180. So risk of collision will cease to exist. If risk of collision and the ship - on the channel centreline - altered for the OP the OP would be obliged to maintain course, would end up on the eastern/port side of the channel and in conflict with any outward traffic. Not a clever place to be.
Now regarding the speed. If the 786 foot ship was indeed passing 1/4 mile ahead of the OP any reduction of that speed would reduce the CPA.
We have no idea what sort of ship we are talking of here but for any modern ship 10 knots is not 'hotrodding it'. For a bulker its 'half ahead' - for a 786 foot container ship its probably nearer 'slow ahead'.

[Kd9truck]

All I know is if I hit another boat with my boat while underway, I did not do my job as a captain.