Collision avoidance at night

[Juho]

Originally Posted by StuM

For the purpose of the rules, if it's got a means of powered propulsion, it's a power driver vessel, regardless of whether it has masts and sails or not.

It's "3(c)...sailing vessel... UNDER SAIL...." not "equipped with sails".
i.e it's only a sailing vessel when it is underway with no engine propulsion.

(Please don't get into a discussion about a becalmed sailing vessel )


That's what a lot of poorly trained sailors get wrong. They think that they are a sailing vessel because they have a mast.


Note there is no difference in the light/sound requirements between a motor vessel and a vessel equipped with sails when it it anchored. , Nor when it is engaged in fishing, not under command, restricted in ability to manoeuvre etc even if it is under sail.

If you look at 9 (b), it has much the same effective restriction as 18(d)i but is explicitly stated.
"9(b)...or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway. "

Good observations. It makes sense to say that also all sailboats that have a motor are "power-driven vessels". The question that I presented seems to boil down to a simpler question. Is rule/definition 3(c) a requirement in the sense that if one has sails up (providing propulsion, or maybe temporarily becalmed) and one's motor is not providing propulsion (could maybe still be running), then that sailboat _must_ be considered a "sailing vessel"?

In that case rule/definition 3(b) would cover all vessels that have means of powered propulsion, except when excluded from this category based on 3(c).

The alternative reading of 3(c) would be that a sailboat could stay in the "power-driven vessel" category if it indicates so (using lights and shapes). It would not be a violation of COLREGs to sail without motor and show one's steaming light. That would be just giving up one's "sailing vessel" status.

Note that I still assume these categories to be separate, i.e. from COLREGs point of view there is no way a vessel could be simultaneously seen both as a "power-driven vessel" and a "sailing vessel".

You wrote "if it's got a means of powered propulsion". From this point of view a sailboat can technically meet both definitions (3(b) and 3(c)) at the same time. But it would have to choose either category from the COLREGs point of view. Or alternatively, it would be forced to pick the latter one whenever possible (although this is not explicitly stated in the rules).

My best intrepretation is that we are approaching the limits of accuracy level of the rules. I can't find a point in the rules that would clearly tell which interpretation is correct. If not defined, then maybe the looser interpretation is correct. Or maybe one should follow the common or established way of reading the rules, whatever it is.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Juho

Good observations. It makes sense to say that also all sailboats that have a motor are "power-driven vessels". The question that I presented seems to boil down to a simpler question. Is rule/definition 3(c) a requirement in the sense that if one has sails up (providing propulsion, or maybe temporarily becalmed) and one's motor is not providing propulsion (could maybe still be running), then that sailboat _must_ be considered a "sailing vessel"?

In that case rule/definition 3(b) would cover all vessels that have means of powered propulsion, except when excluded from this category based on 3(c).

The alternative reading of 3(c) would be that a sailboat could stay in the "power-driven vessel" category if it indicates so (using lights and shapes). It would not be a violation of COLREGs to sail without motor and show one's steaming light. That would be just giving up one's "sailing vessel" status.

Note that I still assume these categories to be separate, i.e. from COLREGs point of view there is no way a vessel could be simultaneously seen both as a "power-driven vessel" and a "sailing vessel".

You wrote "if it's got a means of powered propulsion". From this point of view a sailboat can technically meet both definitions (3(b) and 3(c)) at the same time. But it would have to choose either category from the COLREGs point of view. Or alternatively, it would be forced to pick the latter one whenever possible (although this is not explicitly stated in the rules).

My best intrepretation is that we are approaching the limits of accuracy level of the rules. I can't find a point in the rules that would clearly tell which interpretation is correct. If not defined, then maybe the looser interpretation is correct. Or maybe one should follow the common or established way of reading the rules, whatever it is.

]
Rule 3(c). "The term 'sailing vessel' means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used."

You do not get to choose your status. Just having propelling machinery doesn't give you the option of being treated as a power-driven vessel. Only if you are using propelling machinery do you have the status of a power-driven vessel.

As far as I understand the purpose of your question -- you would like for smaller vessels not limited to a channel to not interfere with your deep draft vessel which is limited to a channel.

I can relate to this problem -- happened to me more than once in Poole Harbour with a long and winding channel through the harbour which I with 2.5 meters draft can't operate outside of, that fleets of small racing boats would descend kamikaze-like on me, expecting me to give way.

The answer to your question is not CBD, but Rule 9: "A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway."

"A vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel" can be any vessel, including a sailing vessel, which is what you clearly are if you are under sail with the motor off.


CBD is not really about channels, and I have never once seen any kind of vessel showing CBD in a channel. CBD is particularly about "draught in relation to navigable water", so in particular very deep draft ships which cannot navigate freely in waters where other vessels can. I've seen vessels CBD in the North Sea for example, and there are so-called "deep water routes" for such vessels. The main purpose of CBD is to call attention to the fact that a certain vessel is not able to navigate freely where others are (and therefore can't maneuver to give way), and the obligation is the same as with Rule 9 -- don't impede (not indeed, give way).

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You do not get to choose your status. Just having propelling machinery doesn't give you the option of being treated as a power-driven vessel. Only if you are using propelling machinery do you have the status of a power-driven vessel.

I guess one can also say that a sailboat can choose to become a "power-driven vessel" whenever it wants by turning on the motor and running the propeller on idle. The question thus is if turning the propeller is a mandatory requirement (or if singnalling that one has fallen into the "power-driven vessel" category is enough).

As far as I understand the purpose of your question -- you would like for smaller vessels not limited to a channel to not interfere with your deep draft vessel which is limited to a channel.

I haven't had so far any strong preference on either direction. (I'd like to understand the COLREGs, and them to be clear and understandable.) But yes, if the answer to my original question is "yes", then that would be one of the possible use cases. Also sailboats may sometimes be restricted in some way in their ability to manoeuvre. And I'd support equal rights to all.

If I would have the privilege of rewriting the COLREGs, I'd probably make the rules simpler, just listing few levels of limitations in ability to manoeuvre, that all boats can use if they meet the requirements (fishing, draft, diving, drifting,...). Sailing might be a slightly different category because of the wind related rules between "sailing vessels".

I can relate to this problem -- happened to me more than once in Poole Harbour with a long and winding channel through the harbour which I with 2.5 meters draft can't operate outside of, that fleets of small racing boats would descend kamikaze-like on me, expecting me to give way.

That's a good example of a situation where it would make sense to signal some level of restricted manoeuvrability.

The answer to your question is not CBD, but Rule 9:

In most cases the narrow channel related rules could be enough. Maybe the Canadians are right. The rules could be simplified. There may however be a need to show the limitations by some signals since it may not be easy for other vessels to understand that your vessel has a deep keel.

I've seen vessels CBD in the North Sea for example, and there are so-called "deep water routes" for such vessels.

I guess those "deep water routes" are not easily visible to other vessels, and they can not be easily identified as "narrow channels", and there is a need to show the restictions using lights or shapes. Also here I think that generic signals might work.

[SaltyMetals]

Let me throw another aspect of reality into the sail/power paradox. Apart from the fact that i doubt most sailing vessels in the 35-50ft range have all the correct lights to show CBD at night (in which case probably best to revert to VHF) there is another problem.

If you are motor sailing and therefore have the steaming light ON there is often a problem of poor vis of the steaming light bec it would be behind the genoa and therefore only show a greatly reduced light such as a glow rather than a bright light with the correct vis distance. The solution is probably to reduce or close the genoa since the engine is ON anyway and producing enough speed.
Andrew

[GeneM]

This thread has gone viral; it's good to see many are paying attention to the rules. I have some more quick comments.

The sailboat to windward HAS to be crossing to be in risk of collision (constant bearing). It's showing a green light. At sailboat speeds, the heading of the windward boat must be across the track of the leeward boat. Even if it is a 12m racing cat doing 30 knots at night, it's still probably crossing.

Some have said that after one boat turns, the giveway situation is new. That's not correct unless there is a rule violation. Once in risk of collision, the giveway-standon assignments remain. If one boat violates the rules, then the Special Circimstances rule applies.

By the rules, constant bearing and decreasing range means "in risk of collision" even at 20 miles away. Practically, violating the rules at 20 miles will give a new setup, but a judge would have to decide that if there was a collision.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GeneM

By the rules, constant bearing and decreasing range means "in risk of collision" even at 20 miles away. Practically, violating the rules at 20 miles will give a new setup, but a judge would have to decide that if there was a collision.

I think legal precedent has established there is an outer limit to the point where "risk of collision" exists; this is not a fixed range, but a judgment based on many factors, not least of which is the relative speed between the vessels. Cockcroft describes this as the first of four stages in a risk of collision situation - and iirc places it at 6-8NM for commercial ships. Obviously small slow-moving sailboats could move this in to 3-4 NM or less depending on the situation.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by SaltyMetals

Let me throw another aspect of reality into the sail/power paradox. Apart from the fact that i doubt most sailing vessels in the 35-50ft range have all the correct lights to show CBD at night (in which case probably best to revert to VHF) there is another problem.

I agree that there are few boats carrying all the necessary lights for anything unusual including CBD Rule 28 allows three vertical red lights without mandating them. Just to make things interesting, US Inland Rules don't include Rule 28 - in US waters inside the COLREGS demarcation line CBD doesn't exist. *sigh*

Regardless, in my opinion, solid communication is always in order in the real world in the case of doubt by any party. As you say: VHF. That of course goes well beyond discerning the intent of a multiple choice exam question.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Juho

I guess those "deep water routes" are not easily visible to other vessels, and they can not be easily identified as "narrow channels", and there is a need to show the restictions using lights or shapes. Also here I think that generic signals might work.

Exactly. This is the whole purpose of CBD. You are a super deep draft vessel and you are in what seems to other vessels like open sea. But actually you are limited in your ability to maneuver in a way which is not obvious to other vessels. So you put up CBD signals.

Originally Posted by Juho

. . . I guess one can also say that a sailboat can choose to become a "power-driven vessel" whenever it wants by turning on the motor and running the propeller on idle. The question thus is if turning the propeller is a mandatory requirement (or if singnalling that one has fallen into the "power-driven vessel" category is enough).

I am not comfortable with this "gaming" of the Rules. They say "using" the machinery -- it means, you should be getting propulsion from it. The important thing is what are you? You should not seek to seem to be something different than what you really are. If you're a sailing vessel, then be a sailing vessel, and follow the Rules as they were designed for you.

Anyway none of our boats needs CBD status. We are not deep enough to create any weird problems like those for which CBD was designed. Rule 9 really covers it for us. Those dinghy racers should be instructed that ocean going yachts can't navigate outside the Poole Harbour channels, and that they are obliged to not impede. That's the problem, not any absence of a signal. A signal in this case wouldn't make any difference. A young dinghy racer who doesn't think about Rule 9 won't even recognize a CBD signal, I can assure you. The only signal you need is 5 blasts on the horn.

If you are sailing outside of a channel, and prepare to cross a channel where another vessel is navigating, it should be pretty obvious whether or not that vessel is limited to the channel and whether Rule 9 applies. If in doubt, assume it does. By default, you should not cross channels in a way which impedes vessels in them, even if the Rules don't require that in every case. If everyone would do that, then this problem wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by Juho

. . . Also sailboats may sometimes be restricted in some way in their ability to manoeuvre. And I'd support equal rights to all.. . . That's a good example of a situation where it would make sense to signal some level of restricted manoeuvrability.. . .

Neither do we need RAM. RAM is all about the nature of a vessel's work, like laying cables, or dredging. Nothing we do is anything like that.


Our limitations of maneuver are well covered by the rules which apply to sailing vessels. It's generally easier for us to stand on since course changes require sail trim changes or evolutions like tacking, therefore power driven vessels ordinarily give way first.



There was a time, a long time ago, when I dreamed about re-writing the COLREGS. With time I've understood that there is far more wisdom in there, than was immediately apparent to me. Now my only dream is to understand them more perfectly, and apply them, more faithfully!

[Juho]

Originally Posted by SaltyMetals

Let me throw another aspect of reality into the sail/power paradox. Apart from the fact that i doubt most sailing vessels in the 35-50ft range have all the correct lights to show CBD at night (in which case probably best to revert to VHF) there is another problem.

If you are motor sailing and therefore have the steaming light ON there is often a problem of poor vis of the steaming light bec it would be behind the genoa and therefore only show a greatly reduced light such as a glow rather than a bright light with the correct vis distance. The solution is probably to reduce or close the genoa since the engine is ON anyway and producing enough speed.
Andrew

Rule 21(a) says: "Masthead light" means a white light placed over the fore and aft centreline of the vessel showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 225 degrees and so fixed as to show the light from right ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the beam on either side of the vessel.

The light should show an unbroken arc. Use of (opaque) genoa may thus violate the rules, if the "masthed light" is behind the genoa. There is a similar problem with the motoring cone.

Also ANNEX I says that there should be no obstructions.

ANNEX I (2)(f)(i) says: The masthead light or lights prescribed in Rule 23(a) shall be so placed as to be above and clear of all other lights and obstructions except as described in sub-paragraph (ii).

I guess nothing stops putting lights and shapes somewhere near the pulpit. That would be nice also from the sailboats own point of view since pointing the light at a big white sail may destroy night vision. High up in the mast, above the genoa could be ok too. ANNEX I (2) gives minimum heights but not maximum heights.

If my interpretation is correct, many sailboats are built so that motorsailing with genoa is not possible/legal at night because of the location of the steaming light ("masthead light").

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Those dinghy racers should be instructed that ocean going yachts can't navigate outside the Poole Harbour channels, and that they are obliged to not impede. That's the problem, not any absence of a signal. A signal in this case wouldn't make any difference. A young dinghy racer who doesn't think about Rule 9 won't even recognize a CBD signal, I can assure you. The only signal you need is 5 blasts on the horn.

I've found that racers (and I raced for over 30 years) often have a distorted view of priorities. It turns out that in most jurisdictions you don't have to be racing to register a protest. If you can figure out the sponsoring club or organization, five blasts and a follow-up phone call to register a protest has a pretty rapid impact on racer behaviors. A phone call to the local newspaper and a draft article about inconsiderate racers imposing on innocent recreational boaters doesn't go amiss either.

Don't get mad. Get even.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am not comfortable with this "gaming" of the Rules. They say "using" the machinery -- it means, you should be getting propulsion from it. The important thing is what are you? You should not seek to seem to be something different than what you really are. If you're a sailing vessel, then be a sailing vessel, and follow the Rules as they were designed for you.

"Sailing vessels" are not as manoeuvrable as "power-driven vessels". This can be seen as the main argument behind differences in their "steering and sailing rules". We could say that the biggest limitation of "sailing vessels" is that they can not go upwind. For this reason they can not always follow the same rules as vessels that are not dependent on wind direction. Sailboats are also a bit slower to manoeuvre.

If a sailboat starts using its motor, its manoeuvrability will be close to that of other "power-driven vessels", and same rules can thus be applied. From this point of view a natural time to move from "sailing vessel" status to "power-driven vessel" status is when one has "power-driven vessel" level manoeuvrability. A sailboat whose motor is already running but its propeller is not, is quite capable of going upwind whenever needed. Also a sailboat whose motor is not running but that could be started whenever needed, could fall in the same category.

Following this approach, we could be so liberal that we would allow sailboats to pick either category depending on their ability and willingness to motor upwind whenever needed. Some sailboats do not have a motor, so we must keep open the option to stay in the "sailing vessel" category. Those sailboats that have a motor, could in principle be classified permanently as "power-driven vessels", but for some reason they are not.

I will not draw any final conclusions from this. Just saying that if manoeuvrability is the key difference between those two categories, rules for changing status between "sailing vessel" and "power-driven vessel" could be derived from the availabillity, possibility and willingness to use those capabilities. Sailboats with motor already have the option to change status. (If there are some "excessive privileges" in the rules, that is maybe it.) The rules should be clear and be based on some rational rationale.

Anyway none of our boats needs CBD status.

Rule 9 really covers it for us.

In practice, probably yes. In theory there could be situations where rule 9 does not cover everything.

Those dinghy racers should be instructed that ocean going yachts can't navigate outside the Poole Harbour channels, and that they are obliged to not impede. That's the problem, not any absence of a signal.

I think ability to indicate the status could sometimes be useful. Other sailors do not necessarily always understand the situation without explicit signalling. All sailors might e.g. not be local sailors. Situations where signalling clearly helps might not be very common though.

A young dinghy racer who doesn't think about Rule 9 won't even recognize a CBD signal, I can assure you.

Current rules are quite complex, and most sailors do not know all of them. I mentioned already earlier that if I would redesign them, I'd try to make them more generic (e.g. shape X means privilege, two Xs mieans more privileges). That should be easy to understand to all.

Neither do we need RAM. RAM is all about the nature of a vessel's work, like laying cables, or dredging. Nothing we do is anything like that.

Current rule are indeed focused on different kind of activities. My preference of having generic rules that would not be very tightly tied to any particular activities applies also here. But the rules are what they are, so we will follow them as they are. I'm now wondering if I should become a commercial fisher using a sailboat .

Our limitations of maneuver are well covered by the rules which apply to sailing vessels.

Yes, but it is an open question if also sailboats have sometimes some additional special needs.

It's generally easier for us to stand on since course changes require sail trim changes or evolutions like tacking, therefore power driven vessels ordinarily give way first.

That is one good approach to describing the differences.

There was a time, a long time ago, when I dreamed about re-writing the COLREGS. With time I've understood that there is far more wisdom in there, than was immediately apparent to me.

I agree that there is more wisdom in them that one understands at the first or fifth reading of them. But I don't believe they would have been written in the best possible way.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I've found that racers (and I raced for over 30 years) often have a distorted view of priorities. It turns out that in most jurisdictions you don't have to be racing to register a protest. If you can figure out the sponsoring club or organization, five blasts and a follow-up phone call to register a protest has a pretty rapid impact on racer behaviors. A phone call to the local newspaper and a draft article about inconsiderate racers imposing on innocent recreational boaters doesn't go amiss either.

Don't get mad. Get even.

Racers and cruisers are not a good mix. A good racer uses his privileges and rights to the last drop he can identify. A good cruiser avoids any such close call conflict situations. Maybe there should be a rule that racers shall always keep out of the way on non-racing vessels.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Juho

Racers and cruisers are not a good mix. A good racer uses his privileges and rights to the last drop he can identify. A good cruiser avoids any such close call conflict situations. Maybe there should be a rule that racers shall always keep out of the way on non-racing vessels.

As you clearly know there is. If cruisers protested more often, it would be honored more consistently.

What racers don't know when I'm bearing down on them as stand-on that I called the start line and buoy roundings from the foredeck (often in the pulpit) for 30 years. I'm okay in close quarters - often more okay than they are. I shan't be bullied by shrieks of "we're racing." Five blasts and here I come, Rules 2, 7, and 8 well in mind. When they yell at me I yell "Protest!"

But I have a warped sense of humor and can put my boat where she needs to be.

I am much more circumspect with customer boats. Still not shy about five blasts and a protest.

I despise bullies.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

As you clearly know there is. If cruisers protested more often, it would be honored more consistently.

What racers don't know when I'm bearing down on them as stand-on that I called the start line and buoy roundings from the foredeck (often in the pulpit) for 30 years. I'm okay in close quarters - often more okay than they are. I shan't be bullied by shrieks of "we're racing." Five blasts and here I come, Rules 2, 7, and 8 well in mind. When they yell at me I yell "Protest!"

But I have a warped sense of humor and can put my boat where she needs to be.

I am much more circumspect with customer boats. Still not shy about five blasts and a protest.

I despise bullies.

I have had a lot of unpleasant tangles with racers in the Solent, which is full of thousands of them, all overdosed on testosterone.



I never had such problems with motorboaters anywhere, like this. Actually in UK waters, motorboaters are on average probably more courteous and skillful than the average sailors are.



I agree with Juho and would go further even than what he says -- there is a total collision of mentality between a cruiser following the letter and spirit of the Rules, and a racer pushing his advantage. Under the Rules, you would just never press another vessel, force it to maneuver, intentionally get into close quarters. It's just not the way it works. And all the shouting.



Unlike Auspicious, I don't really like to push back. However I will admit to having been very, very naughty one day single handing on the Solent. I was motoring, and some hot J Boat was out practicing, and tacked right under my bows, expecting me to throw in a crash stop, or put the helm over, or something. I don't know what. Right under my bows. As if that is somehow ok to maneuver right into an in extremis close quarters situation.



I was on autopilot and was standing not behind and not quite next to the helm. And I just stood there. And just stood there. 31 95/100 registered tonnes of Moody 54 vs 8000kg of J40. Until they freaked out and crash tacked back, of course shouting and cursing a blue streak. Missing by a meter or so probably.


Yeah, I know, that was really really bad, and I swear I'll never do anything like that again

[Auspicious]

Instances that come to mind.

J/22 fleet (draws 4') sailing across a narrow 8' channel in 6+' boat. The ones passing in front of me seemed expect me to stop (or turn and run aground) and the ones passing behind seemed to expect me to keep going. Five blasts and I kept going, wrote down sail numbers, and called in a protest. Three DSQs from that.

Following a racing fleet up Chesapeake Bay. They're all fully crewed flying chutes. I was singlehanded with my chute up. Lots of room. They round a navigation mark being used as a racing mark and spread out across the Bay (tactics based on where the wind was, tidal current choices). I'm windward boat and on starboard tack and have nowhere to go. Five blasts at least three times. Protested and two DSQs (I was pretty busy and didn't get a chance to write down all the sail numbers). Major disruption in the sailing club as it changed the rankings for the entire season.

Feeder race for the Solomons Screwpile Races which I was sailing down to watch. Just one boat pulling the "we're racing" card. Again, singlehanded. They're getting so close they can hear a level voice. I had commercial traffic I'd already negotiated with and was not disposed to change that when I was stand-on. "We're racing" led to five blasts and another DSQ.

I don't consider that I'm pushing. I am refusing to be bullied by racers, despite 30 years of racing myself. I will give a wide berth when I can, partly from politeness and partly from the expectations that they'll do something stupid.

In fairness, the opposite applies. I've taken the stern of another cruising boat rather closely by their lights that upset them. Sometimes I run into them later and we have a talk that usually resolves with adult beverages.