Sailboat Right of Way

[savoir]

You sound just like my mother. I'm sure glad I wasn't either of these guys or I might have copped a right spanking.

Come to think of it . . . . .

[Tempest245]

Saucy,

A Vessel Restricted in it's ability to Maneuver ( RAM) is a status given to certain vessel dues to " The nature of their work" ( Rule 3)
It includes vessels like: aircraft carriers, pipelayers, dredges, certain tows etc.

The was a 45' recreational sailing vessel under power. I see no RAM status.

What you're proposing is that it's a narrow channel that the 45' cannot deviate from.
( Rule 9) If that were the case; which can only be assumed, since it hasn't been stated in the OP then the 45' vessel could/should have sounded a danger signal.

Instead, they slowed down the 1st time to allow the sailing vessel to pass in front of their bow. Which seems perfectly appropriate.

If the small sailboats account in post # 18 is accurate, they sound obnoxious. It would have been very easy to fall off behind or pinch up a bit and slow down, or short tack, to let the 45' boat pass. I've done it many times.

I'm with Bash on this. While the Rules may? favor the small sailboat; Their conduct was unsafe. It presumes that the other skipper can glean your intentions or will act in a manner that is appropriate. You should not create doubt in a crossing situation. Actions to avoid close quarters should be made in Good Time..is substantial, and does not result in another close quarter situation.
The small sailboat pushed the close quarter situation not once but twice.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But I give up trying to convince you

You've convinced me that you have a truly remarkable talent for selective reading. One last attempt with an example:

A sailboat, moving slowly due to wind and current is 500 yards inside the outer limit of a 2-mile wide traffic lane. The lane is deep and free of navigational hazards across its breadth. A containership comes out of the haze 3 miles away going 18 knots, 400 yards inside the outer limit. The sailboat can not be considered to be impeding, because there is more than a mile and a half of safe water between the sailboat and the inner limit of the lane, in which the containership can safely pass, avoiding the sailboat by several hundred yards and remaining well within the traffic lane. The containership must keep clear of the sailboat. The sailboat should stand-on.

If the lane is only 1000 yards wide, and the sailboat is right in the centre of it, when the containership comes out of the haze (as above), then it is incumbent on the sailboat to do what it can to increase the amount of sea-room. Regardless, the containership is required to take action to avoid the sailboat. The containership might(should) slow down and steer to one side or the other of the sailboat. Throughout this, the sailboat is still required to do what it can to give the big ship more room to pass.

[HappySeagull]

OP:"The vessel under power slows as a 20 foot sailboat tacks from port to starboard directly across its bow."
How far away?SV is on port tack...
No problem.Then:
OP:"After the small boat passes and is well to starboard,(still on port tack?or already tacked and now heading back?) the larger boat speeds up to cross behind the smaller boat's stern"(No,SV must be on strbrd)
so MV is accelerating when SV is "well to strbrd " which I guess means it was very near the strbrd shore where SV naturally tacked....onto strbrd tackper: SV says"We tack onto starboard and knew we could easily cross him and wait on the far left side as he passed.(This implies they were still well ahead of MV-note they expected to wait on far Port side after crossing but does not agree with OP's take..) But as usual he's not familiar with tacking a small boat out the fairway and slows down. (again?)Now our plan is destroyed. There's no way we want to wait in irons for him to pass.(wait on PORT SHORE?)He's practically stopped so we quickly tack back (SV on port shore? goes Onto port tack) across his bow. It's close but there's no way he can hit us.Then he speeds up."
Meanwhile MV says "The smaller boat under sail then tacks back(this would be STRBRD tack) across the channel in the opposite direction directly in front of the vessel under power creating immediate danger in a crossing situation"Nothing about slowing again...

It seems far as SV can tell,they are avoiding well enough-they expect to wait after crossing,otherwise,they would maybe even have to free sheets and RUN to get round MV stern...so elect to cross and wait on far shore.but MV wrecks it by slowing down ? I don't get that compared to MV's description of slowing down...Then speeds up and tries to ram....OP sees strbrd tack,SV says Port tack.oh,oh...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You've convinced me that you have a truly remarkable talent for selective reading. One last attempt with an example:

A sailboat, moving slowly due to wind and current is 500 yards inside the outer limit of a 2-mile wide traffic lane. The lane is deep and free of navigational hazards across its breadth. A containership comes out of the haze 3 miles away going 18 knots, 400 yards inside the outer limit. The sailboat can not be considered to be impeding, because there is more than a mile and a half of safe water between the sailboat and the inner limit of the lane, in which the containership can safely pass, avoiding the sailboat by several hundred yards and remaining well within the traffic lane. The containership must keep clear of the sailboat. The sailboat should stand-on.

If the lane is only 1000 yards wide, and the sailboat is right in the centre of it, when the containership comes out of the haze (as above), then it is incumbent on the sailboat to do what it can to increase the amount of sea-room. Regardless, the containership is required to take action to avoid the sailboat. The containership might(should) slow down and steer to one side or the other of the sailboat. Throughout this, the sailboat is still required to do what it can to give the big ship more room to pass.

I understood you perfectly well the first time. Your idea is that an obligation which burdens a sailing vessel to "not impede" (under, for example, Rule 9), does not cancel the obgliation of the motor vessel to "keep clear of" the sailing vessel under Rule 18. Your idea is that "not impeding" and "keeping clear of" are two different things which do not interact with each, so that one can be burdened by the Rule 9 obligation of "not impeding" without losing the status of the stand-on vessel created by Rule 18.

Your example is not a Rule 9 situation, and coincidentally is almost exactly the situation discussed here: http://www.nautinst.org/colRegs/arti...sOct03Syms.htm. Your example is intended to illustrate what "not impede" means. But the experts here conclude that "not impede" is impossible to interpret in the very situation which you give as an example.

I admit that the meaning of the phrase "not impede" in the Colregs is hard to understand. But Rule 18 -- which establishes the obligation of the motor vessel to "keep clear of" the sailing vessel, specifically says "except where Rule 9 otherwise requires". So my argument is that the motor vessel in a Rule 9 situation is not burdened by Rule 18 and is absolutely the stand-on vessel in a Rule 9 encounter with a sailing vessel. My argument is that Rule 18 is specifically subordinated to Rule 9.

In my opinion, this is quite clear from the words "where Rule 9 otherwise requires". BUT I do admit that Rules 16 and 17, which talk about standing-on and giving-way, mention only "keeping clear of" and do not say anything at all about "not impeding".

AND -- I did find some sources which agree with your idea. I still don't agree with it, but I admit that you are not the only person who thinks like this. See: http://www.nautinst.org/colRegs/arti...sOct03Syms.htm

So it's a very interesting question indeed, and I have submitted it to the RYA legal staff for their opinion. I will post their answer.

It's such an interesting question, by the way, that many expert commentators admit to a much less certainty about the meaning of the phrase "not impeding" than you insist on. One expert commentator wrote:

"The inescapable conclusion is that the whole concenpt of 'not to impede' regardless of its apparent logic or how well deliberated and drafted, simply does not appear to work in practice."

The Nautical Institute - Colregs Correspondence -1

There have been many proposals to replace the phrase "not to impede" in the Colregs with "keep clear of".

We'll see what the RYA says about; it's quite interesting.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We'll see what the RYA says about; it's quite interesting.

RYA = Royal Yachting Association

It's some sort of governing body, apparently.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Bash

You seem to be forgetting the fact that the sailboat tacked under the bows of the powered boat, causing him to throttle back, and then came back to do it a second time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this was not a smart sailor. He either didn't know or didn't care about the rules, and he either didn't know or didn't care that the other vessel was there.

This is my assessment as well. It is never smart for ANY vessel power or sail to create a close crossing situation and expect the other vessel to alter course or speed to avoid you.

[capn_billl]

So far good discussion. If nothing else it has resulted in a review of COLREGS, and that is always a good thing.

[capn_billl]

Avoiding collisionsSeaways Jan 2004Captain John Wilde Crosbie BL, FNI, Dublin, Ireland Captain Nicholas Cooper, in his ‘Captain’s Column’ (November 2003), describes an encounter between two ships which goes to the very heart of the problem of making rules for the avoidance of collisions at sea. You have the con and Nick Cooper’s scenario presents you with a ship on your port side crossing ahead with a CPA of less than two miles. This is a typical crossing situation leading to close quarters and risk of collision rather than actual collision. Your assessment is that risk of collision exists and you expect the other ship to alter course to take your stern. However, the other ship makes a different assessment of the situation and determines that risk of collision does not exist. She does not give way and at a range of four to five miles you are in the horns of a dilemma.
Nicholas Cooper’s advice is to keep your ship safe and if you are not comfortable with the situation the other ship is forcing you into, then get out of it. He advises you to get out with a broad alteration to starboard; to run away from the other ship and show her your port quarter; to force her to take your stern as she ought to have done in the first place. This advice to you from Captain Cooper is entirely consistent with the 1972 rules for avoiding collisions at sea. However, the problem is that in this situation you are applying the rules to avoid close quarters and risk of collision rather than an actual collision. In the majority of these cases the original CPA position of the other ship will lie to starboard of your ship. In all likelihood, your alteration to starboard will simply take you to this original CPA position of the other ship just in time to meet her there.
The scenario described by Captain Cooper demonstrates very cogently why mathematical solutions to the collision problem, and the collision avoidance diagrams which they have spawned, do not work at sea. There is no panacea in altering course to starboard. There is only one natural rule for avoiding collision at sea: Never ever, if you are taking action to either avoid collision or risk of collision, cross the path of the other ship.


Here it is from the COLREGS experts mouth.

[Pyxis156]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't port or starboard tack only come into play when both vessels are under sail? I don't think the tack the sailboat under sail is on has any bearing to this situation, does it?

Originally Posted by HappySeagull

OP:"The vessel under power slows as a 20 foot sailboat tacks from port to starboard directly across its bow."
How far away?SV is on port tack...
No problem.Then:
OP:"After the small boat passes and is well to starboard,(still on port tack?or already tacked and now heading back?) the larger boat speeds up to cross behind the smaller boat's stern"(No,SV must be on strbrd)
so MV is accelerating when SV is "well to strbrd " which I guess means it was very near the strbrd shore where SV naturally tacked....onto strbrd tackper: SV says"We tack onto starboard and knew we could easily cross him and wait on the far left side as he passed.(This implies they were still well ahead of MV-note they expected to wait on far Port side after crossing but does not agree with OP's take..) But as usual he's not familiar with tacking a small boat out the fairway and slows down. (again?)Now our plan is destroyed. There's no way we want to wait in irons for him to pass.(wait on PORT SHORE?)He's practically stopped so we quickly tack back (SV on port shore? goes Onto port tack) across his bow. It's close but there's no way he can hit us.Then he speeds up."
Meanwhile MV says "The smaller boat under sail then tacks back(this would be STRBRD tack) across the channel in the opposite direction directly in front of the vessel under power creating immediate danger in a crossing situation"Nothing about slowing again...

It seems far as SV can tell,they are avoiding well enough-they expect to wait after crossing,otherwise,they would maybe even have to free sheets and RUN to get round MV stern...so elect to cross and wait on far shore.but MV wrecks it by slowing down ? I don't get that compared to MV's description of slowing down...Then speeds up and tries to ram....OP sees strbrd tack,SV says Port tack.oh,oh...

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Pyxis156

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't port or starboard tack only come into play when both vessels are under sail? I don't think the tack the sailboat under sail is on has any bearing to this situation, does it?

you are correct that the tack only matters in crossing situtions between two boats under sail. The post you quoted was attempting to make sense out of the original post, which was a bit ambiguous in terms of the facts that led to one boat impeding the other. I suspect that HappySeagull was merely attempting to figure out the path the sailboat had taken, given the ambiguity of the OP.

[Dockhead]

Below is what I sent to the RYA legal staff. If anyone wants to write an opposing, supporting, or supplementary view, I will be glad to forward it to be considered together with mine.

Scenario: A motor-driven vessel is navigating within a narrow channel and cannot safely navigate outside this channel. A sailing vessel which can navigate safely outside the channel is crossing this channel. No overtaking situation exists.
Questions:
1.What are the burdens and privileges (if any) of the SV skipper under Rule 9(b) and Rule 18(a)(iv) and why?
2.Does the burden of the SV skipper under Rule 9(b) cancel his privilege under Rule 18(a)(iv) throughout the encounter, or does the privilege under Rule 18(a)(iv) come back into force when a “risk of collision” exists or when the vessels are in sight of one another?
3.Is the MV skipper entitled to stand-on in an encounter with the SV? Must the SV skipper give way? Or must the MV skipper give way notwithstanding the fact that he is privileged by Rule 9?
The problem:
Rule 9 requires the burdened skipper to not impede the privileged vessel. Rule 18 requires the burdened skipper to keep clear of the privileged vessel. When one vessel is obligated to not impede the other vessel, and the second vessel is obligated to keep clear of the first vessel, which vessel is the stand-on vessel, and which is the give-way vessel, in an encounter with risk of collision?
My interpretation:
The precise meaning of the obligation to not impede is notoriously difficult to interpret and has been much discussed. An attempt was made to clarify the meaning of “not impeding” with the later adoption of Rule 8(f), which states that (a) a vessel burdened with the obligation to not impede must take early action to allow sufficient sea-room for the passage of the privileged vessel; that (b) the burdened vessel is not relieved of its obligation [to not impede] if approaching the other vessel such that a risk of collision exists, and that (b) the privileged vessel in an encounter where an obligation to not impede exists remains fully obligated to comply with the rules [of Part B] when the vessels are approaching one another so as to involve a risk of collision.
In my opinion, the meaning of the obligation to “not impede” is not all that obscure. It is, first of all, more general than the obligation to “keep clear” created by the other rules. It is found only in Section I and therefore applies in all conditions of visibility, including (a) when ships are not in sight of one another, so that Section II rules have not yet come into force, but an obligation to “not impede” also applies in cases when (b) ships are in sight of one another, so that the Section II rules are also in effect. In my opinion, Rule 8(f)(ii) makes the point that an obligation to “not impede” does not disappear when a risk of collision exists – that is, an obligation to “not impede” is not replaced by obligations to “keep clear” under Section II when these come into effect when a risk of collision appears, but rather, continues in full force and effect throughout the encounter.
In my opinion, the obligation to “not impede” is broader than the obligation to “keep clear”. Keeping clear is an obligation which applies in a close encounter (by definition – when vessels are in sight of each other). As long as ships pass at a safe distance, and as long as this passing is achieved without any illegal maneuvers, such as turning to port in front of a ship to the port of the maneuvering ship, an obligation to keep clear has been fulfilled. An obligation to “not impede” is broader and stronger, and applies at a greater distance, so that the burdened vessel is obligated not merely to pass at a safe distance in an encounter, but to take early action to give plenty of sea room well before the situation becomes a close encounter. That is exactly the meaning, in my opinion, of Rule 8(f)(i). But when an obligation to “not impede” exists, and the situation develops into a close encounter with a risk of collision, the obligation continues in full force and effect, and creates an obligation on the part of the burdened vessel to give way, althout Rule 9 says nothing about standing-on or giving way. So in effect, the obligation to “keep clear” is a lesser and narrower obligation which is included within the greater and broader concept of “not impeding”. So in a situation where the vessels are in sight of one another or are in a close quarters situation, an obligation to “not impede” is identical to an obligation to “keep clear”.
Some confusion is created by the fact that standing-on and giving-way is discussed only in Section II – Vessels in Sight of One Another. Does this mean that none of the obligations to “not impede” creates any obligations or rights to stand-on or give-way? I have seen some interpretations to this effect. But in my opinion this is absurd. If a vessel is obligated to “not impede”, and it fails to avoid impeding to such an extent that a risk of collision comes into existence, and if the Colregs specifically say that the obligation to “not impede” continues after a risk of collision has developed, then how in the world could the burdened vessel fulfill its obligation to “not impede” without giving way? Note that Rule 17, Action of the Stand-On Vessel, does not create any right to stand on. This right is created merely by implication by the obligation of the other vessel to keep clear; nowhere in the Colregs is any right to stand on specifically created. So I don’t see why the right could not be implied by the obligation of the other vessel to not impede, if the situation has developed into an encounter with a risk of collision. Rule 17 creates an obligation to stand-on in certain circumstances, where the other vessel is obligated to keep clear. In my opinion, this in no way contradicts the idea that obligations to “not impede” create a right to stand on the part of the privileged vessel and an obligation to give way on the part of the burdened vessel, when the situation has developed so far as to create a risk of collision. Whether or not Rule 17 creates an obligation of the privileged vessel in a “not impede” situation to stand-on is more complicated. If an obligation to “keep clear” in implied by and included within an obligation to “not impede”, which I think is logical, then such an obligation might be created by Rule 17. But that is not really part of the problem at question here.
There has been a great deal of discussion about how Rule 9 burdens and privileges interact with the burdens and privileges of Rule 15. In crossing situation between two power-driven vessels, it seems that one vessel might be privileged by Rule 9 while the other vessel is simultaneously privileged by Rule 15. Which rule has priority? I am not sure; Rule 15 does not mention Rule 9 or any priority between them. See: http://www.nautinst.org/colregs/articles/seawaysOct03Syms.htm for a discussion of this situation. In my opinion it would be an absurd situation for one vessel to be privileged by an obligation by the other vessel to “not impede”, while the second vessel is simultaneously privileged by an obligation of the first vessel to “keep clear”. One cannot stand-on and force another vessel to maneuver while at the same time fulfilling an obligation to not impede. There must be priority between obligations to keep clear and obligations to not impede. But our problem is different.
Our problem is different, because the privileges and burdens between a motor-driven vessel and a sailing vessel are governed not by Rule 15, but by Rule 18. And Rule 18 specifically states that it applies “except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise apply”.
Therefore, in my opinion, the answer to our problem is the following:
1.The sailing vessel is burdened by Rule 9 both prior to any close quarters situation, and in fact prior to the vessels being in sight of one another, as well as during the whole course of any encounter involving risk of collision.

2.The sailing vessel is at no time privileged by Rule 18, since Rule 18 is specifically subordinated to Rule 9, and at no point can be considered the stand-on vessel in such an encounter. Indeed, using common sense, standing-on by the sailing vessel in this situation might easily cause the motor vessel to go aground, exactly the result which Rule 9 is specifically intended to prevent.

3.In any such encounter which has developed to the point of involving a risk of collision, the motor-driven vessel has a right to stand-on, and possibly an obligation to do so, and the sailing vessel has an obligation to give way.

4.Obviously, like in all other situations involving a risk of collision, the motor vessel is obligated to maintain a proper watch, take any action which it might take to avoid a collision only in a proper way, and in fact is obligated to maneuver itself in case the sailing vessel fails to give way or otherwise fails to maneuver effectively.

All of this seems fairly clear to me from the plain meaning of the Colregs (to the extent they can be said to have plain meaning at all). But some of participants in our forum violently disagree. There exists a view, strongly held, that the sailing vessel in the hypothetical encounter can somehow be the stand-on vessel pursuant to its privilege under Rule 18 even though it may be burdened at the very same time by an obligation to not impede under Rule 9. In support of this position, comments by Cockcroft and Lameijer, in A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, are offered, which imply that contrary to my view, the sailing vessel in our situation which is burdened by a Rule 9 obligation to not impede will nevertheless become the stand-on vessel under Rule 18 once the encounter develops into a risk of collision, which thus burdens the motor vessel even as the motor vessel continues to be privileged by Rule 9. This, to my mind, absurdity – how can the sailing vessel simultaneously stand-on and yet avoid impeding the motor vessel? -- is explained away by Cockcroft and Lameijer by the fact that a stand-on vessel is permitted to take action itself by Rule 17(a)(ii). To my mind this patently weak argument is entirely contradicted by the phrase in Rule 18 which says “except when Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise imply”, which establishes priority of Rule 9 over Rule 18, but obviously not everyone accepts this, including some of our most esteemed forum participants, and some authorities at the exalted level of Cockcroft and Lameijer.
So it really is a complicated question. Please tell us your opinion. Thousands of Cruisers Forum participants are waiting with bated breath.

[Tempest245]

Dockhead,

With all due respect to the moderator, this scenario is not what was presented by the OP of this thread. We do not know if it was a narrow channel that could not be safely navigated outside of by the larger vessel, nor do we know if an overtaking situation existed or not.

After 177 posts we may never know, since the OP hasn't returned to clarify.

Perhaps, you might want to begin a new thread, posing this new scenario.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Your idea is that "not impeding" and "keeping clear of" are two different things which do not interact with each, so that one can be burdened by the Rule 9 obligation of "not impeding" without losing the status of the stand-on vessel created by Rule 18.

Now, this is an interesting discussion! To be more accurate, my idea is that "not impeding' and "keeping clear of" are two different things which do interact with each other. In both scenarios I described, the containership remained the give-way vessel. In the scenario where the sailboat was required to not impede, you could consider that the need to manoeuvre in order to not impede would be equivalent to Rule 17(a)(ii) or 17(b) actions by a stand-on vessel. Cockcroft and Lameijer also make that argument.

Your example is not a Rule 9 situation, and coincidentally is almost exactly the situation discussed here: The Nautical Institute - Colregs Survey 2: "Not to Impede". Your example is intended to illustrate what "not impede" means. But the experts here conclude that "not impede" is impossible to interpret in the very situation which you give as an example.

I've actually read Capt Syms' essay before, and I am more than aware that "not impede" is the most misunderstood section of the colregs. I developed my opinion on the subject over many years, and having had many discussions and having read many dissertations, such as Capt Syms'.

I admit that the meaning of the phrase "not impede" in the Colregs is hard to understand. But Rule 18 -- which establishes the obligation of the motor vessel to "keep clear of" the sailing vessel, specifically says "except where Rule 9 otherwise requires". So my argument is that the motor vessel in a Rule 9 situation is not burdened by Rule 18 and is absolutely the stand-on vessel in a Rule 9 encounter with a sailing vessel. My argument is that Rule 18 is specifically subordinated to Rule 9.

That's an interesting interpretation. I don't agree with it, but see where you're coming from. Certainly worthy of further discussion.
C&L do have an opinion on this:

Except where Rules 9, 10

and 13 otherwise require

Sailing vessels, vessels of less than 20 metres in length and vessels
engaged in fishing must comply with Rules 9(b) and 9(c), respectively,
when in a narrow channel, and with Rules l0(j) and 10(i),
respectively, when in a traffic lane.

A vessel about to cross a narrow
channel or fairway must comply with Rule 9(d). However, the above
Rules are mainly concerned with avoiding the development of risk of

collision.

A power-driven vessel following a traffic lane, or proceeding
along a narrow channel to which she is restricted for safe navigation,

is

not relieved of her obligation to comply with Rule 18(a)

when risk of collision exists (see page 64).

There have been many proposals to replace the phrase "not to impede" in the Colregs with "keep clear of".

Even that's not an ideal solution. In my example, the sailboat is hardly able to clear the path by its manoeuvre alone, so requiring the containership to stand-on would not be a good idea. There have also been many proposals to make the definition of "not impede" less ambiguous. And to remove the various contradictions from the rules. Wouldn't that be nice?

We'll see what the RYA says about; it's quite interesting.

I'm interested to see what they say, but I'm not sure I'd consider the RYA as the definitive authority on the subject. I do agree it's quite interesting.

[HappySeagull]

Originally Posted by Bash

you are correct that the tack only matters in crossing situtions between two boats under sail. The post you quoted was attempting to make sense out of the original post, which was a bit ambiguous in terms of the facts that led to one boat impeding the other. I suspect that HappySeagull was merely attempting to figure out the path the sailboat had taken, given the ambiguity of the OP.

Yes,thanks.That's what I am trying to do...I mention starbrdtack/Port tack because it somewhat describes the sailboats direction and ability to maneuver. It's never going to harness my imagination though!So easy to make assumptions without more detail.