Professional Pilot ignoring Colregs

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Portage_bay

Consider the entire situation. The ship is picking up her pilot, it is on a course decided by the pilot boat's captain and the pilot. As the pilot enters the bridge the captain will appraise the pilot of the entire situation hopefully including his conversation with you. The pilot will be in contact with whatever authorities and control agencies he must observe. He's going to be busy. You make no mention of other traffic in the area. The colregs steering and sailing rules apply to two vessels behavior, how many others are in the vicinity?
There was no other traffic in the vicinity. Also no traffic exiting San Juan harbor. The two ships noted here had the ocean all to themselves.

The ship will then immediately increase speed and make for the harbor. A large cargo vessel can accelerate quickly, but it cannot turn or stop so quickly. A recreational boat can however maneuver very quickly. Taking all that under consideration and after first contacting the cargo ship and being told they are awaiting the pilot's arrival on the bridge I would understand that rule #2 is to be seriously considered.

I submit that by calling the freighter, we were observing rule 2 - we did what we should do to avoid getting in a potentially dangerous situation. The error here was that the ship did not return our call, even though they said they would once the pilot had come to the bridge and been apprised of the situation

Perhaps you misread my OP

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

I read your post twice. And took the time to look up San Juan harbor. Even looked for a sea buoy where ships often wait for pilot. You said you were following the coast so it's reasonable to assume you were within a mile or so of the 1-2 buoy ---- that's "Open Ocean?"

You were there, I wasn't but from the bleachers, hard to imagine a situation where a pilot boarding a boat is open ocean. What did you expect them to do? Throttle back to 5.9 knots so as to not overtake you? Divert into outbound portion of the entrance? What exactly should they have done in your mind?

Outside of being eager to assert your rights, why didn't you divert slightly to the west side just outside the channel? There is plenty of water there and the ZoC for water depth there is very high due to commercial harbor.

Actually, we weren't "Trying to assert our rights" we WERE trying to avoid a potentially nasty situation by calling the freighter and agreeing who was going to go first, what everyone's intentions were etc.

By the by - the freighter was lying ahull when we called him

[Love2 boat]

All I can say is Wow! My life or be delayed 15 mins on a cruise. I know which one I would pick. And it is not your book.

[NorthCoastJoe]

We are in and around ship traffic all the time in San Francisco Bay. I don't understand your need to communicate with them. Common sense says just alter course. Your tiny boat vs: ship, who can move out of the way easier, not him.

With the ship traffic around us we simply stay out of the way. When we need to change course we make a very visible move to make it easy for the pilot to see our intentions. We do this motoring and while sailing too, stay out of the way of the big ships.

I really don't understand your problem. There was a lot of space for you to stay out of the way. It would be better spend your time turning the wheel than grabbing the microphone.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Please see above - I believe you have not read my original post clearly

thank you

Yep, this is common problem on forums. Some folk don't bother to read and understand the post, they just got to tell you their (misinformed) opinion.

Originally Posted by carstenb

Actually, we weren't "Trying to assert our rights" we WERE trying to avoid a potentially nasty situation by calling the freighter and agreeing who was going to go first, what everyone's intentions were etc.

By the by - the freighter was lying ahull when we called him

You approached the situation in a professional and courteous way. Understandably you expected a professional and courteous response from a pilot but he failed to do so.

From his later reply, it would appear that if you had had a boat bigger than than his, he would have deferred to you. I think we now have the measure of the pilot...

[5BTM]

A change of heading from 090 to 000 and staying on it long enough to make my intentions clear would have been my choice.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Actually, we weren't "Trying to assert our rights" we WERE trying to avoid a potentially nasty situation by calling the freighter and agreeing who was going to go first, what everyone's intentions were etc.

By the by - the freighter was lying ahull when we called him

I understand your position. I just don't agree with it. This type of situation happens all the time - VHF is increasingly a poor means of communication. Should be different but it's not. If you've done as much cruising as you claim, should be no surprise.

You had a lot of options open to you; the ship had few.

As far as use of "burden," I understand your reaction. I used it as a noun in the prejoritive. It is still a word in the English language and has not been retired.

I was not the one who originally cited Rule 9(b). But it does seem to apply, though a bit murky. You claim the situation was open ocean which is hard to reconcile with your other statements that you were transiting the coast and the ship had boarded a pilot.

In the end, you feel you were screwed. Given your recounting of the situation, I (like several others) simply do not agree. You seem to be relying on technicalities. Even if you're right about the crossing situation, you're wrong on so many other metrics. You saw the ship board a pilot. You saw the ship put on speed headed to port. You've undoubtedly hailed many vessels with zero response. You had ample opportunity to alter course slightly and not make it a capital crime.

One person who disagrees with you. I think you were either wrong, or dead right.

[SailingHarmonie]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Actually, we weren't "Trying to assert our rights" we WERE trying to avoid a potentially nasty situation by calling the freighter and agreeing who was going to go first, what everyone's intentions were etc.

By the by - the freighter was lying ahull when we called him

OK, let's say, for sake of argument, that the pilot was 100% wrong and you were 100% right. What now? You want everybody on the internet to agree with you? You want personal validation that you were right? You want a special feeling of righteousness? This (the internet) is the wrong place to get a consensus on any of those things.

If everybody who thought they had ever been wronged in reference to the ColRegs posted a whine here, there would be no bandwidth left for anything else.

What you might not realize is that in the International Rules (which apply in the "open ocean" off San Juan) making passing arrangements on VHF is not part of the rules. So, technically, you were actually not following the rules when you initiated that communication, and they had no obligation under the rules to respond to you, or even follow any passing arrangements made that way. US Inland Rules, where it is assumed that everybody speaks English, do allow the use of a VHF to make passing arrangements, but those do not apply where this took place. I do understand that this is a part of the international rules more broken than any other, but if you want to be a fo'cs'le lawyer about it...

There are many, many harbor entrances where a 1/4 mile separation--even from super-PANAMAX sized ships--is completely routine. Just by way of example, when a US SSBN (USA nuclear ballistic missile submarine) is transiting the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay all they ask for is 500 yard (1/4 mile) standoff from other vessels, and believe me, they are WAY more touchy about approaching traffic, of any size, than you will ever be. If you insisted on a 1 mile CPA it might take you a week to get through the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel.

[Wotname]

The VHF communication was established and proceeded normally. Both masters understood the situation and come to a mutual agreement. The pilot then joins the bridge, fails to honour the agreement made just minutes before between the masters of the two vessels and does his own thing. When called out, he responds with very unprofessional statement.

The pilot is a prat. The master of Boat B should have pulled rank and at least let Boat A know they were powering up and proceeding without any agreement to dispense with the ColRegs.

The master has the final responsibility for the safety of the ship, even when a pilot is onboard. The pilot is only an expert advisor with local knowledge of local areas.

Since we have a situation where it is best to communicate, we call the ship on the VHF and saying we we want to ensure both boats understand each others intentions. the skipper informs us that the pilot is on board and coming up to the bridge and lets wait for him

Fine with us, we continue (we are the stand on). Suddenly we can see the ship increase her speed...

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Egads! A Pilot quoting the "Law of Tonnage"????? And totally ignoring the Colregs?

Feel your pain and am sorry for your frustration.


Called a freighter yesterday to ask which way they were turning at the harbor exit so we could stay out of their way. We'd already circled so we wouldn't meet them in the channel. Not even the courtesy of a reply.

[JPA Cate]

Pilot may not be a prat. May not be a native English speaker. May have had another ship waiting, especially if someone was off duty, and under time or other pressure. May have wanted to get to the entry to the harbor ahead of the sailboat, for reasons unknown to us. It is always possible that there is something unknown to all of us at work here, even a labor dispute is possible. However, I can surely understand carstenb not liking how he was spoken to.

There is somewhere we used to go where sometimes we share a channel with big shipping, and even though it is not the US, when they are overtaking us --they motor faster than we do -- Jim contacts them via VHF and tells their pilot our plans, to hug the starboard side of the channel, where there is depth for us, whereas the other side has bits of sandbanks which interfere. Usually they thank us. Maybe some WAFI sailors don't maintain their watch astern, too. I think it is the uncertainty about how on top of thing some sailors aren't that is a huge problem with relying heavily on ColRegs, and it is the reason why what I would call defensive driving is also important, even though it is not what is "legal" in the sense of correctly following Colregs.



Ann

[carstenb]

I am simply amazed at the vitriol that is being spouted here. For those that have read my OP and other comments, we called the ship in order to AVOID any potentially dangerous situation.

We did not sail into any dangerous situations. I noted that had we CONTINUED to hold speed and course when we saw him speed up, THEN we would have ended in a close CPA.

WE did not continue with speed and course, we slowed down and laid ahull while he passed and proceeded into the harbor. At no time was there an acute situation
But this was due to our observing Rule #2.

Sorry fellas - but you apparently still are not reading the OP.

To each their own opinion. Ours is still that the pilot/master of the vessel should have called us back to inform us that they were going to enter the harbor ahead of us.

After 8 years of sailing across much of the world and entering many large and busy harbors, I can say that this is one of only two times out of many that a ship has not spoken with us on the VHF and agreed who was going to do what and in what order..

Normally we find that big ships like the communication and they are quite happy when we call them so everyone is on the same wavelength

Your experiences may vary

cheers

[Wotname]

^^^

[Fore and Aft]

Carsten B the way I see it is you have a person earning a living and a leisure sailor bobbing around the ocean. Maybe the pilot has just had enough and didn't feel like opening up a dialogue over the radio with yet another private boat. You make it sound obvious what the logical move with the yacht is. Then the pilot has to spell it out to you. Odds on what gesture he was making with his spare hand while everyone on the bridge is watching.
It's really no different to the courtesy I give truckies when I am driving. We're both sharing road, but one of us is earning a living. Sure the rules apply equally, but I am happy to bend a little.
Cheers

[TrentePieds]

Sez Fore n Aft:

"We're both sharing road, but one of us is earning a living. Sure the rules apply equally, but I am happy to bend a little."

Précisément!

Show the man your stern. I call it my "turn tail and run" rule. Removes risk of collision thereby rendering COLREGS moot :-)

TrentePieds