Sailing Crash

[Island Time 1,214]

Sorry KM, I'm with fish. The boats are head to head in the diagram.

[Fish 0]

That argument fails as nothing in the description has the 2 boats head.

Sure, if you want to split hairs, lets go...

The diagram, top right of the four, this shows the boats on reciprocal tracks and crossing close to head to head, but more likely passing port to port. In that situation, would you turn to port or starboard?

 

or, being the stand on vessel, not turn at all?

[Fish 0]

Boat A didn't stand on, and it didn't avoid a collision.

What else is there to discuss?

[rigger 47]

Quotes from part 22

 

Head-on situation

(1) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as

to involve risk of collision, each must alter its course to starboard so that each passes on the

port side of the other.

 

 

And

 

 

22.16 Action by give-way vessel

Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel must, so far as

possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

 

 

22.17 Action by stand-on vessel

(1) If one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other must keep its course and speed.

(2) As soon as it becomes apparent to the stand-on vessel that the vessel required to give way

is not taking appropriate action in compliance with this Part—

(a) it may take action to avoid collision by its manoeuvre alone; and

( b ) if it is a power-driven vessel in a crossing situation, if the circumstances of the case

allow, it must not alter course to port for a vessel on its own port side.

(3) When, from any cause, the stand-on vessel finds itself so close that collision cannot be

avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, it must take whatever action will best

avoid collision.

(4) This rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of its obligation to keep out of the way.

~~______________~~end quote~~____________~~

 

So,

 

Head on does not apply to vessels under sail

 

If A altered to dip below B to avoid risk of collision as it became apparent to A that B was not giving way and then B altered and so on then B is at fault......

 

The avoid altering to port bit is aimed at power driven vessels - see quoted rules above

[harrytom 641]

"rigger" why would you dip to leward to cross the path boat "B"?? even though both on opposite tacks "B" being to leward, wouldnt "A" being windward give way and need to hold course?

 

Remembering both boats are not racing yet!

[Fish 0]

22.17 Action by stand-on vessel

(1) If one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other must keep its course and speed.

(2) As soon as it becomes apparent to the stand-on vessel that the vessel required to give way

is not taking appropriate action in compliance with this Part—

(a) it may take action to avoid collision by its manoeuvre alone; and

( b ) if it is a power-driven vessel in a crossing situation, if the circumstances of the case

allow, it must not alter course to port for a vessel on its own port side.

(3) When, from any cause, the stand-on vessel finds itself so close that collision cannot be

avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, it must take whatever action will best

avoid collision.

(4) This rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of its obligation to keep out of the way.

~~______________~~end quote~~____________~~

 

 

 

 

 

If A altered to dip below B to avoid risk of collision as it became apparent to A that B was not giving way and then B altered and so on then B is at fault......

 

 

So, in practical terms, how can B keep clear of A if A keeps on changing course?

 

B made attempts to keep clear of A (the basic port starboard rule, I believe). Each time they were thwarted by A not complying with 22.17 (1).

 

There is a perception that sailing vessels on starboard have right of way, the perception being that they can do whatever they want, so long as they stay on starboard. They can't do whatever they want. The fact of the matter is that sailing vessels on starboard have obligations. That obligation is to "keep its course and speed".

 

A didn't do that.

As you guys have put it, A can use the 'risk of a collision' as a defence, but the rule says "may take action to avoid collision by its maneuver alone" the key bit in this here being 'alone'. B was trying to avoid A. If B was holding course and speed, then A would be justified in taking avoiding action. B's avoiding action was thwarted by A.

 

Clearly, because there was a collision, both boats were at fault. And yes, the nuisances of what actually happened can't accurately be reflected in an internet discussion. More so, one side of the story is going to have a different recollection from the other side of the story. But based on the information presented in this thread, A's actions substantially contributed to the collision. B doesn't smell of roses, because they didn't avoid a collision, but just because A was on starboard doesn't mean she didn't contribute.

 

And just a question KM, why do your posts regularly resort to playing the man instead of the topic? My understanding of the ColRegs is sufficient to avoid a collision, including in this situation...

[Island Time 1,214]

Its interpretation. I can see both sides, but my interpretation was that, in the top right pic, boat A on stb is stand on. Boat B on port altered course to stb as she should, boat A bears away to port and there is a collision. Boat A should have held her course until passing a astern of boat B. She did not.

If my understanding of the timing or distances is wrong, it may be different.

KM, pull your head in. If you feel someone is mistaken, you are encouraged to explain why, politely. Otherwise say nothing.

[Fish 0]

Nothing in the post suggest B initiated any moves. But I can understand why you need to make sh*t up.

 

KM, its in plain English below. Are you struggling with your reading comprehension?

Boat B moved onto a broad reach, and then continued to bear away.

 

Could you enlighten us all and clarify which bit I'm making up? (I'd appreciate that curtesy).

You are coming out with some personal allegations you simply can't back up.

 

Sounds like you have a different set of circumstances in your head. Are you reading whats in this thread, or getting your understanding of what happened from somewhere else? Your carry on on like you were on boat A.

Morning people on forum I’m after some unbiased advice on a sailing incident from the weekend. no one was hurt but a boat has a hole and needs repair. This was in dinghy’s and was before the prestart sequence had started for this fleet.

 

Both boats started on starboard and where Close Reach to Beam Reach. There was about 8-10 boat lengths separation and the wind was about 5-8knots. Boat A was a little higher than boat B.

 

Boat B tacked and once completed was pointing just below Boat A, but now on port.

 

Boat A started moving to a Broad Reach and Boat B also moved to a Broad Reach.

 

As the boats got closer Boat A beared away as did Boat B. Contact was made and Boat B has a hole at the bow on the port Side.

 

No communication happened on the boats, even though both skippers could see each other, until it was too late.

 

What’s everyone’s views?

[rigger 47]

Fish read carefully,

Boat B tacked and once completed was pointing just below Boat A, but now on port.

if from A point of view there is now a risk of collision, think leeway, and it becomes apparent to A that B is not giving way A has to take action...

 

 

Boat A started moving to a Broad Reach and Boat B also moved to a Broad Reach.

so A moving to a broad reach first could be considered that action, by B doing the same the risk of collision is re established, 

 

 

 

As the boats got closer Boat A beared away as did Boat B. Contact was made and Boat B has a hole at the bow on the port Side.

 

 if A beared away before B because it became apparent to A that B was not giving way, then B is at fault, but if B beared away first so as to give way then A failed to comply as stand on vessel. It really depends on who did what first.

 

Fish, if the original post read:

Boat B tacked and once completed was pointing just below Boat A, but now on port.

 

 

 

Boat B started moving to a Broad Reach and Boat A then also moved to a Broad Reach.

 

 

 

As the boats got closer Boat B beared away then Boat A did. Contact was made and Boat B has a hole at the bow on the port Side.

 

 Boat A would be at fault.

 

Fish the rule says   

 

(2) As soon as it becomes apparent to the stand-on vessel that the vessel required to give way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with this Part— 

(a) it may take action to avoid collision by its manoeuvre alone;

 

if B had made a big bear away after tacking it would have been much clearer, after all they were not racing yet.

sequence of events is critical

 

[Fish 0]

Rigger,  I understand what you are saying, specifically with who beared away first and who followed, or if both boats were bearing away at the same time.

I agree that if A beared away first and B followed (i.e. with some delay after A), then B would be at fault. Trying to determine via an internet forum, who did what exactly when would be about as productive as trying to determine what next week's winning lotto numbers will be by asking on here. As you say, the sequence of events is critical. I'm basing my view on what is stated in the original post.

 

There are some subtitles to what you are saying that I would question though, and that is at what point the onus shifts from A 'standing on' to taking evasive action. Your first point above:

"Boat B tacked and once completed was pointing just below Boat A, but now on port.

if from A point of view there is now a risk of collision, think leeway, and it becomes apparent to A that B is not giving way A has to take action..."

A has an obligation (initially) to stand on, and let B avoid her. Its not clear if that happened.

 

Question for you: If both boats are bearing away (at the same time) prior to the collision, Did A give B room to keep clear?

 

My view is that A had an obligation to stand on. A is permitted to take evasive action to avoid a collision. So if A changing course (in an attempt to avoid a collision) didn't avoid the collision, it kind of negates the justification of A's evasive action.

 

I might leave it at that, I'm feeling like I'm repeating myself.

[harrytom 641]

Fish, Island Time and I are thinking the same (A) is wrong so we must be right

[rigger 47]

Based on info provided it is hard to make a definitive decision.

In answer to your question, did A give enough time, I do not know. The rule say something like,  when it becomes apparent to the stand on vessel, unfortunately different people have different limits.

 

Did B, make a significant alteration to show clearly B was giving way.

 

Honestly at first glance it looks like A is hunting B down. Rereading the text A is mentioned first as doing an action. If the OP could clarify a the points raised opinions may change, either way, one boat is damaged and as you say we are all repeating the same things.

 

Last point, Fish you said;

". If the situation is two boats approaching head on, you need to turn to starboard. "

If you are referring to the rule regarding head on situation, that rule applies to power driven vessels, likewise the rule regarding crossing situations.

[chariot 242]

Interesting how so many experts have different interpretations. Guess that is why the P class dads have their own lawyers. 

[AJ Oliver 154]

It may come down to who made the first dip to leeward. 

 

(To me, it is unclear from the description which boat made that move first)  

 

If B made the first dip, then A clearly should have held course. 

 

But as they neared, A may have thought that B was not going to change course, so A dipped first to avoid contact. (Not a good move, but within A's rights) 

 

So the issues are (1) how close were they when the first one turned down, and (2) who dipped first 

[Romany 162]

that is very generous of you Chariot. There are less of them than you might think:)

 

Flame away

[Fish 0]

Based on info provided it is hard to make a definitive decision.

In answer to your question, did A give enough time, I do not know. The rule say something like,  when it becomes apparent to the stand on vessel, unfortunately different people have different limits. Agreed.

 

Did B, make a significant alteration to show clearly B was giving way.

 

Honestly at first glance it looks like A is hunting B down. Rereading the text A is mentioned first as doing an action. If the OP could clarify a the points raised opinions may change, either way, one boat is damaged and as you say we are all repeating the same things.

 

Last point, Fish you said;

". If the situation is two boats approaching head on, you need to turn to starboard. "

If you are referring to the rule regarding head on situation, that rule applies to power driven vessels, likewise the rule regarding crossing situations.

I acknowledge that the rule to turn to starboard is for power driven boats. And I acknowledge that the way I've written that, it would be reasonable for you to assume I was referring to the colregs rule needing you to turn to starboard. I'll expand on what I was meaning, which was in essence 'there is a bunch of good reasons for A to have turned to starboard':

1) After the tack, B was slightly below A, for A to avoid B by turning to port would require her to cross over infront of B (i.e. not the quickest way of getting clear)

2) If A had turned to starboard, everything would have been fine, a collision would have been avoided (granted, this is with the benefit of hindsight) i.e. fastest way to get clear

3) B turned to starboard (i.e. down) A turning to port (i.e. down as well) negates B's efforts to keep clear - and again, granted we don't know the timing of who turned when.

 

I guess the main point I want to make from this thread is, just because a boat is on starboard doesn't give them rights to do anything they want. While a boat on starboard has 'right of way', they also have an obligation to stand on.

 

Frequently there is a situation just like this. Two boats collide. The boat on starboard feels aggrieved that they were 'hit' while on starboard. The boat on port is pissed off because they took evasive action, but the boat on starboard didn't give them room keep clear.

 

Effectively the boat on starboard did some 'crazy Ivans' and fucked everything up. This may come down to different peoples perceptions as to what is safe and how close you can get before a collision is imminent. But if people have a low threshold for risk of collision, they need to also understand that if they are on starboard, that doing crazy Ivan's is highly likely to make the situation worse.

 

The short story though is you can't expect a boat on port to keep clear, if the boat on starboard does crazy Ivans.

[Fish 0]

The timing and that there was a stand on/give way situation at the time of the top right drawing.

In your opinion.

 

Do you have an affiliation with one or both of the boats involved KM?

[Romany 162]

  

[chariot 242]

that is very generous of you Chariot. There are less of them than you might think:)

 

Flame away

Which ones do you mean, lawyered up P Class dads or experts. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

[Fish 0]

Most comments on interweb forums are opinion, something you and IT have had the odd issue recognising lately.

 

As you don't apply the same rules on the water as you do to this scenario there is little point continuing.

Complete bollocks KM.

 

The reason you can't continue is because you've dug yourself a hole making personal attacks that you can't back up.

 

If anyone dares to disagree with you, you lack the ability to communicate using facts or persuasive arguement  i.e. spelling something out logically. - or even a simple polite discussion.

You just resort to insults and aggression. You  resort to bullying.

 

When that doesn't work, you go for such nonsensical statements that no-one can reply, because we simply don't understand which parallel universe you are in today.

What rules don't I apply on the water that I apply to this scenario? or are you just using that nonsense to deflect from the hole you've dug?

 

What sh*t did I make up?

 

If you can't put up, how about apologising? Its the measure of the man to be able to admit when he's wrong.

 

And you still haven't said if you have an affiliation with one or both of the boats. Is it true you were the driver of boat A?

 

 

 

But I can understand why you need to make sh*t up.

 

 

Your lack of understanding of the ColRegs is probably the first place to start. Even your apparent lack of knowledge around the RRS should be added in as well.