Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 49101112131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 148
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by nortada View Post
    What defines a fairway?

    Must it be a buoyed channel?
    Not always, but for the most part:

    § 2 Definitions:
    1. Fairway The term “fairway” denotes those parts of navigable waters that are marked or delimited by any one or more of the visual signs described under Items B.11 through B.13 of Annex I to the pre-sent Ordinance or, when they are not so marked or delimited, those parts of such waters that are designated for the through passage of vessels to or from inland waterways; any such fairway shall be deemed a “narrow channel” in terms of the International Regulations for Preventing Col-lisions at Sea, 1972, as amended;

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman_E View Post
    I have not followed all this and have not time to read all the posts, but if I am correct that the container ship was proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, it does not matter a bit if the schooner was also doing so because by definition a tacking vessel is making turns. It does not say so in the quoted regulations but presumably vessels traveling in opposite directions in the fairway are normally expected to pass port to port.
    Passing port to port is a natural consequence of complying with Rule 9 (and 14 for that matter); there are sections in these regs that cover the exceptions to that, specifically "§ 22 Exceptions from the requirement to proceed on the starboard side of a fairway"

  3. #133
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Summer Walton, Winter Iberia
    Posts
    9,587

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by nortada View Post
    What defines a fairway?

    Must it be a buoyed channel?
    Quote Originally Posted by requiem View Post
    Not always, but for the most part:
    Thanks - not your fault but a typical wishy- washy definition that can be interpreted in anyway one wishes.
    Last edited by nortada; 19-06-19 at 15:39.
    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿Neither a Remainer or a Leaver be. Hoping for the best but planning for the worst✔️

  4. #134
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    North from the Nab about 10 miles
    Posts
    8,830

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by nortada View Post
    Thanks -not your fault but a typical wishy- washy definition that can be interpreted in anyway one wishes.
    Thats because the regs try to deal with real life situations which can not easily be predicted.
    Is Conservation for wildlife or conservationists?
    http://boatownersresponse.org.uk

  5. #135
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    37,257

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman_E View Post
    .....It does not say so in the quoted regulations but presumably vessels traveling in opposite directions in the fairway are normally expected to pass port to port.
    Normally yes, but there are plenty of cases where green to green is acceptable.
    A small vessel travelling a short distance between two points on its left bank will often just keep left for that short distance, maybe with VHF contact with opposing vessels or under port control. You will hear this on Ch 11 in Portsmouth.
    Where there is a small craft channel alongside the main channel, it is often bi-directional, so inshore craft often pass craft in the main channel green to green.

    My understanding of this incident is that the Schooner was for a long time outside the fairway, the box boat was in the fairway well to the right side, and expected the schooner to stay outside or right on the edge of the fair way and pass green to green.

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Plymouth
    Posts
    8,403

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by john_morris_uk View Post

    I haven’t made up anything.

    .

    Eh up.

    You said:

    ",,,,,you are stuck on the idea that the sailing vessel was not a big ship"

    Truth is, I have never said anything about the size, or relative size, of either vessel. It's an irrelevance.

    You said:

    " yours and others assumptions that the big ship has rights because it’s ‘obviously a large vessel in a restricted or narrow channel’..."

    Fact is I have said nothing at all about the rights of anyone in this matter and have made no assumptions about any of it. However,
    ....after hundreds of posts about the incident, here and in other places, I commended the novel approach of finding and studying the relevant documentation - read again my post 88.

    So, after taking the eccentric line from the outset, looking at totally the wrong regulation and persisting in the face of fair contrary evidence. Capping it off by misreading that evidence - you have some neck for complaining about other's: "...silly knee jerk reaction"

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bristol Channel
    Posts
    777

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by john_morris_uk View Post
    I completely agree - but I was trying to get people to see beyond the silly knee jerk reaction of "It was a yacht in a narrow channel and therefore the ship was automatically the stand on vessel because it was bigger (and commercial was mentioned earlier which a complete red herring and nothing to do with IRPCS).

    The yacht shouldn't impede because it was sailing. It's one of the very few exceptions to the power sail rule. Nothing to do with size.
    The old rhyme comes to mind:-

    "He was right dead right as he sailed along.
    But he's just as dead as if he was wrong."

    Bad luck in carryout a difficult tack in a restricted channel or simply showing off by trying to sail when the iron topsail should be used? Lucky no one was killed
    Last edited by oldmanofthehills; 19-06-19 at 11:02.
    A boat is for going places

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    9,348

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by oldmanofthehills View Post
    The old rhyme comes to mind:-

    "He was right dead right as he sailed along.
    But he's just as dead as if he was wrong."

    Imprudent behaviour or simply showing off by trying to sail when the iron topsail should be used? Lucky no one was killed
    Probably none of the above. With the foresail and a staysail only she ought to have been able to reach along the lee side of the channel but we would all rather be on the weather side, wouldn’t we, particularly as in this case the weather side is also the starboard side. We don’t know what was astern of the little boxboat. Maybe there was not an immediate opportunity to pass under her stern. But the proximate cause of the collision was the misunderstanding of the helm order.

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Farnham, Surrey
    Posts
    21,149

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by doug748 View Post
    Eh up.

    You said:

    ",,,,,you are stuck on the idea that the sailing vessel was not a big ship"

    Truth is, I have never said anything about the size, or relative size, of either vessel. It's an irrelevance.

    You said:

    " yours and others assumptions that the big ship has rights because it’s ‘obviously a large vessel in a restricted or narrow channel’..."

    Fact is I have said nothing at all about the rights of anyone in this matter and have made no assumptions about any of it. However,
    ....after hundreds of posts about the incident, here and in other places, I commended the novel approach of finding and studying the relevant documentation - read again my post 88.

    So, after taking the eccentric line from the outset, looking at totally the wrong regulation and persisting in the face of fair contrary evidence. Capping it off by misreading that evidence - you have some neck for complaining about other's: "...silly knee jerk reaction"
    Perhaps I quoted or referenced you in particular by mistake.

    Read back and see how others mentioned size and spurious assumptions.

    I agree it’s nothing to do with size.

    However, some people’s understanding of IRPCS is poor IMHO.

    Too many people still make their collision avoidance decisions on erroneous and spurious assumptions such as ‘it’s a commercial vessel’ or ‘its bigger than me’. Both of these were implied at various points in this thread.
    Last edited by john_morris_uk; 19-06-19 at 13:41.
    Semper aliud

  10. #140
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    37,257

    Default Re: Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by john_morris_uk View Post
    .....
    Too many people still make their collision avoidance decisions on erroneous and spurious assumptions such as ‘it’s a commercial vessel’ or ‘its bigger than me’. Both of these were implied at various points in this thread.
    In port, commercial vessels tend to be operating in channel and under Harbour Authority control or local regs, so very often do indeed have extra rights over leisure craft. But the bigger sailing vessels can be part of the same regime sometimes, megayachts and tall ships even need to take on a pilot sometimes. I think the threshold in the Solent is round about J-class or 'junior tall ship'?

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 49101112131415 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to