Thread for Basic COLREGS Questions

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

And what happens in court in the aftermath of a collision?

Would it not be argued that a sailing boat with engine on, but not in gear, could have easily engaged its gearbox to avoid the collision?

Of course it would.

That's been the advice since before 1874.

See Charles Bushell, The Rigger's Guide and the Seaman's Assistant: Containing Practical Instructions for Completely Rigging Ships. 5th ed. The Hard, Portsmouth: Griffin & Co. 1874. p. 221.

In court both are found quilty. That has nothing to do with the engine on the sailboat, running or not, cone or not, gear on or not, not even if there were no engine in the first place.
Might be argued but the point is both failed to avoid the collision

Teddy

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

In court both are found quilty. That has nothing to do with the engine on the sailboat, running or not, cone or not, gear on or not, not even if there were no engine in the first place.
Might be argued but the point is both failed to avoid the collision

You're of course correct on your last point, Teddy.


Going back to 1874 for a second: in those days, a vessel took a long time to build up steam: bring the boilers up to temp; check the pressures; etc.

The argument in 1874 was that if the boilers were hot, then why would the skipper not engage the propulsion gear to avoid a collision? So skippers were found negligent if they had steam up and did not use their propulsion gear to avoid or minimise the collision.

And each of us has the duty to avoid the collision.

So ... if you have an idling engine, or if you can turn on an engine by turning a key and pressing a button, why not do so to avoid a collision? Would you not be negligent if you refused to do so and reasonably could have done so to avoid or minimise the collision? Using all means available, as it were.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by StuM

That is quite clearly "A vessel proceeding under sail". Whether it is "also being propelled by machinery " is unclear. Where's your cone?

Regardless, even if one could consider such a boat "under sail" as opposed to steadying sails, a cone is not required for a boat under 12 meters.

[Olddan1943]

In a maritime court, blame is always distributed. The more guilty you are, the greater percentage of blame will be assigned to you. No one gets off scot-free.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Regardless, even if one could consider such a boat "under sail" as opposed to steadying sails, a cone is not required for a boat under 12 meters.

Unless you go beyond the bounds of the US Inland Rules.


(COLREGs makes no such length distinction).

[Bill Seal]

According to the "pecking order" list, a seaplane is at the bottom.
So a Grumman Goose coming in for a landing at 70 kts is the "give way" vessel???

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

According to the "pecking order" list, a seaplane is at the bottom.
So a Grumman Goose coming in for a landing at 70 kts is the "give way" vessel???

Nope:
No requirement to give way - just to keep "well clear of in general". And only when "on the water"

Rule 18 e. A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.

Note the second sentence. Once a risk of collision exists, the seaplane is no different to any other power driven vessel and may well be stand-on.

[evm1024]

See: Local News | Ore. Pilot In Accident To Regain License | Seattle Times Newspaper

Davidson, an Oregon Air National Guard pilot and flight instructor, was flying a float plane on July 31 and was practicing touch-and-go landings on the Willamette River, about 10 miles north of Salem.

As he was taking off from the river, Davidson's plane struck a canoe carrying Kenneth Breivogel, 41, and Shawn Breivogel, 36, of Boring. Their two young children also were in the boat but were not injured.

Davidson is charged with two counts of criminally negligent homicide. He is scheduled to enter a plea in his criminal case Dec. 16 in Yamhill County Circuit Court.

A $22 million negligence claim filed by relatives of the Breivogels also is pending.

On Wednesday, a National Transportation Safety Board judge suspended Davidson's license effective Sept. 2, when the FAA initially revoked his license. The suspension will last a total of 270 days.

Judge Patrick Geraghty of Denver said that Davidson's behavior was reckless and that the pilot violated four FAA rules, including not keeping a minimum safe altitude and for overtaking and not giving right of way to another vessel.

Davidson testified that he never saw the family or their canoe.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Judge Patrick Geraghty of Denver said that Davidson's behavior was reckless and that the pilot violated four FAA rules, including not keeping a minimum safe altitude and for overtaking and not giving right of way to another vessel.

I'd suspect inaccurate reporting there.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'd suspect inaccurate reporting there.

That case was in 1994. I would guess that we should read that as failure to give way.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by evm1024

That case was in 1994. I would guess that we should read that as failure to give way.

And according to the reporter, it was a FAA rule

[a64pilot]

I’d like to know which four FAR’s he violated, I’d suspect he really didn’t.
However a seaplane is an airplane until it lands on the water, after landing and before take off, it’s a boat, and being a boat, it’s not subject to the FAR’s but presumably Colregs.
However it seems the accident occurred in the inflight phase, where it was an airplane, and subject to the FAR’s
I can tell you that FAR’s are somewhat vague and subject to interpretation, they are not as clear cut as you would think.

At least that was they way I was taught when I got my seaplane rating.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by StuM

And according to the reporter, it was a FAA rule

14 CFR 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
(d) Overtaking. Each aircraft or vessel that is being overtaken has the right-of-way, and the one overtaking shall alter course to keep well clear.

Ironically, the FARs appear to be quite liberal in assigning right-of-way. In contrast, the California Vehicle Code (and other states, from what little I've seen) only explicitly assigns right-of-way in one particular instance. (Bonus internet points if you know which one!) In no other case does the law explicitly grant a right-of-way; instead it only specifies when it must be yielded.

[GRIT]

I tried Google, and Duck Duck Go, but couldn't find what a WAFI was.

Could someone kindly explain to me what that term means?

Thank you.
Paul.

[Adelie]

Derogatory term uses by professional mariners to refer to sailboats:
Wind Assisted F-ing Idiot