Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    23,119

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by ProDave View Post
    I am sure the other vessel does know the rules, he was a small tourist trip boat, so he bloody well should. That's what made me question had I got my understanding of the rules wrong, because he should know them better than me.
    That's where you went wrong. Tourist trip boats have right of way over all other craft. You should have known that.
    Far away is near at hand in images of elsewhere

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Home - Sothampton, Boat - Gosport
    Posts
    10,566

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    My reading of the colregs is that a risk of collision exists as soon as two vessels are approaching one another and the bearing of one from the other doesn't change appreciably - or enough in the event of meeting a large vessel. On that basis, there was a risk of collision from the moment the OP saw the other boat and thought, he could get a bit close, better keep an eye on him.

    In such a case, the other boat was technically incorrect to turn to port, but no harm was done. Maybe he had a good reason to want to be on that side of the channel.
    Steve
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    38,921

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stemar View Post
    My reading of the colregs is that a risk of collision exists as soon as two vessels are approaching one another and the bearing of one from the other doesn't change appreciably - or enough in the event of meeting a large vessel. On that basis, there was a risk of collision from the moment the OP saw the other boat and thought, he could get a bit close, better keep an eye on him.

    In such a case, the other boat was technically incorrect to turn to port, but no harm was done. Maybe he had a good reason to want to be on that side of the channel.
    I would have thought that anyone who sailed in Portsmouth Harbour would be fairly familiar with tripper boats going South down the East side of the harbour.
    Risk of collision will only happen if you don't consider that they very often do that.
    They tend to operate at the edge of the exclusion zone, so trying to pass them port-to-port can lead you into trouble.

    Much better to understand what they are doing and cross their bows a good way off.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,210

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by john_morris_uk View Post
    Sometimes that’s what you have to do...! I know I’m stating the obvious but IRPCS take precedence over what you ‘normally or want to do.’
    If the other craft turned to port before ColRegs came into play, he did nothing wrong.

    It depends how early he made the turn. If it was two small craft and more than a minute before they passed each other, and the turn was obvious, I don't see anything wrong with it. If it was 10 seconds before, that would be different.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alness / Black Isle Northern Scottish Highlands.
    Posts
    9,330

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    The important thing to remember here is both boats were keeping watch, both boats saw each other, both made a course change so there was no collision and no "situation". We passed, waved at each other and both had a pleasant day on the water.

    The fact that the course change was open to debate is a relatively minor academic point.

    The course change was made about 3 minutes before we passed each other.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    23,119

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by ProDave View Post
    The course change was made about 3 minutes before we passed each other.
    If you were motoring at 5kn and he at 7, this means that you were 3/5 miles apart at the outset. Assuming that you were not restricted in any way, this doesn't seem to be an unreasonable manoeuvre on his part.
    Far away is near at hand in images of elsewhere

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Home - Sothampton, Boat - Gosport
    Posts
    10,566

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by lw395 View Post
    I would have thought that anyone who sailed in Portsmouth Harbour would be fairly familiar with tripper boats going South down the East side of the harbour.
    Risk of collision will only happen if you don't consider that they very often do that.
    They tend to operate at the edge of the exclusion zone, so trying to pass them port-to-port can lead you into trouble.

    Much better to understand what they are doing and cross their bows a good way off.
    Since I go up and down the west side, those tripper boats are of little interest until they decide to cross over to use the small boat channel. That channel can be fun when you've got a load of raggies and stinkies of all sizes and speeds trying to get in and out and overtake port and starboard, the Harbour Patrol are tearing their hair out, then the Normandie decides it wants to play as well...
    Steve
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alness / Black Isle Northern Scottish Highlands.
    Posts
    9,330

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnalison View Post
    If you were motoring at 5kn and he at 7, this means that you were 3/5 miles apart at the outset. Assuming that you were not restricted in any way, this doesn't seem to be an unreasonable manoeuvre on his part.
    So the conclusion is we were far enough apart not to be governed by Colregs rules so either of us could have made any manoeuvre. Then having made that manoeuvre, we were no longer on a collision course so again outwith Colregs rules.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    23,119

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by ProDave View Post
    So the conclusion is we were far enough apart not to be governed by Colregs rules so either of us could have made any manoeuvre. Then having made that manoeuvre, we were no longer on a collision course so again outwith Colregs rules.
    I'm not authority on the regs, but as I understand it, there is no distance beyond which the regs don't apply. However, if you can safely make a manoeuvre that does not increase the risk of collision, then you are free to do so. There is nothing to stop me motoring across ahead of a ship that appears on my starboard side, so long as there is sufficient distance for me to do so safely.
    Far away is near at hand in images of elsewhere

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,275

    Default Re: Another Colregs question.

    Quote Originally Posted by john_morris_uk View Post
    Sometimes that’s what you have to do...! I know I’m stating the obvious but IRPCS take precedence over what you ‘normally or want to do.’
    100%

    It's a common practice, tweaking the heading to port. Just to open the CPA up a bit. For a near head on situation. Which does not make it a good practice, or justifiable when it goes pear shaped. The hazard one vessel tweaks to port. The other vessel see's a vessel near right ahead slightly to starboard with a close CPA. If this vessel alters according to the rules the situation gets worse.
    The purpose of the rules, is to help, those in charge of any vessel to predict the actions of another vessel.
    By choosing to depart form the rules to take a more convenient action, you become less predictable and the hazard increases.
    Additional hazard , By using this practice, your now trapped unable to alter to Starboard if becoming give way to give way to another vessel before past and clear of the vessel you are going green to green with.

    This practice is generally regarded as poor, rather than the practice of good seamen.

    Which does not mean, I have not opted for Green to Green when an occasion arose where I thought it was best. Its not my preferred option. I don't particularly like being forced into it. In a narrow channel with a confirmed passing arrangement. It may be routine, even so both vessels have lost any defence by departing from the rules and will be criticised for their action if it goes wrong.

    To avoid being forced into this uncomfortable situation. While in a narrow channel my preferred option, Is to make it obvious I am on the starboard side of the channel. By being as near as is safe and practical to the Starboard side. If I do this I find head on situations particularly those which are nearly head on but slightly to starboard. Are much less likely.
    If and when it does, take action early by showing a "red' or "red aspect" at least this way my actions should hopefully be predictable.

    There was a good article written by an American about the use of this practice by commercial vessels on the Great lakes and St Laurence Seaway a couple of years ago. I will have to try a search for.
    Last edited by Uricanejack; 24-09-19 at 20:37.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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