Safe Boating/Coll Reg 22/Nautical Protocol

[Guest]

Arrrr, so the plot thickens. The "tone" of these questions has just never seemed right from the very beginning.

So I wonder, if it was true that a ferry video'd the "alledged boat" if it was infact video evidence that the "alledged boat" was operating commercially without a commercial licence and not that the "alledged boat" was actually in the wrong re the collision rules.

---------------------------------------

Perhaps you're onto it Wheels & where the "Public Interest" lies could be as you suggest - but in the absence of one the complaint is made of the other ?

3 photos were taken, rather than videos, by the ferry & reference is made to "the yacht's female helmsperson - the only person visable on deck" - not realising the controls are in the Wheelhouse & Cqe has been in work mode for the past 2 years not requiring a commercial licence but more like plenty of labour. Where does the "alledged boat" expression come from?

[Guest]

Mel: You need to read specifically Rules 22.16, 22.17, 22.7(4)( and 22.8. The Rules deliberately avoid giving distances and with good reason.

 

 

 

I wont be drawn to comment on specific situations as I will not be responsible for what anyone else does on the water. Without being on the boat and witnessing the situation, I cannot take either side as the explanations always favour those telling the story.

 

What concerns me most is the large number of sailboats I see at night displaying incorrect navigation lights, or no lights at all. This in particular is so simple to get right that the only conclusion I can draw is that people can't be bothered reading and understanding the rules. The only real answer to this is to introduce a boat operating licence, to which the general boating public would protest and complain bitterly.

 

It has been stated earlier in the forum that the ferrys are being nice by giving way when they dont have to under the harbour bylaws, which is false. There is only one ferry being operated by Fullers (I forget the name but would recognise it) that is over 500 tons. Otherwise there is a bylaw about the Motuihe Channel and under the harbour bridge - everywhere else, they are are simply a power driven vessel under the colregs. Here are the bylaws.

[Guest]

Mel: You need to read specifically Rules 22.16, 22.17, 22.7(4)( and 22.8. The Rules deliberately avoid giving distances and with good reason.

 

 

 

I wont be drawn to comment on specific situations as I will not be responsible for what anyone else does on the water. Without being on the boat and witnessing the situation, I cannot take either side as the explanations always favour those telling the story.

 

What concerns me most is the large number of sailboats I see at night displaying incorrect navigation lights, or no lights at all. This in particular is so simple to get right that the only conclusion I can draw is that people can't be bothered reading and understanding the rules. The only real answer to this is to introduce a boat operating licence, to which the general boating public would protest and complain bitterly.

 

It has been stated earlier in the forum that the ferrys are being nice by giving way when they dont have to under the harbour bylaws, which is false. There is only one ferry being operated by Fullers (I forget the name but would recognise it) that is over 500 tons. Otherwise there is a bylaw about the Motuihe Channel and under the harbour bridge - everywhere else, they are are simply a power driven vessel under the colregs. Here are the bylaws.

---

-------------------------------------

Rules read & understood thanks Blackensign,

so there's a lot of discretion & nothing more to clarify distances off etc. When skippers of approx equall experience are involved, it could come down to the weight of a chip one is carrying ?

[Guest]

Rules read & understood thanks Blackensign,

so there's a lot of discretion & nothing more to clarify distances off etc. When skippers of approx equall experience are involved, it could come down to the weight of a chip one is carrying ?

 

 

Yes there is a lot of discretion. What you need to consider is that what you think is a safe distance, and what the other skipper considers a safe distance can be two different things. When it becomes apparent to the other skipper that you are not keeping a distance they consider safe, then they will take their own action.

They should avoid altering to port for a vessel on their port side - this is a rule because you might still be intending to alter your course and the most likely action you would take is to alter to starboard to go behind them. If they altered to port and you went to starboard, it would make the situation worse.

[Elenya 33]

With Classique I would say a safe distance involves multiple miles. Any closer than that to Classique and you risk trouble.

 

I note the "International Nautical Protocol " site is a facebook page set up by you Mel. No involvement from MNZ or the Professional Skipper magazine.

[Guest]

Rules read & understood thanks Blackensign,

so there's a lot of discretion & nothing more to clarify distances off etc. When skippers of approx equall experience are involved, it could come down to the weight of a chip one is carrying ?

 

 

Yes there is a lot of discretion. What you need to consider is that what you think is a safe distance, and what the other skipper considers a safe distance can be two different things. When it becomes apparent to the other skipper that you are not keeping a distance they consider safe, then they will take their own action.

They should avoid altering to port for a vessel on their port side - this is a rule because you might still be intending to alter your course and the most likely action you would take is to alter to starboard to go behind them. If they altered to port and you went to starboard, it would make the situation worse.

-----------------------------------------------------

You've got 2 points there Blackensign,

 

1- If one skipper has doubt he "shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle." In the event a camera is used could valid doubt be said to exist at .6nm in a harbour situation & would that be appropriate action - to take evidence instead of indicating a concern. The compliance of that whistle/horn re appendix 3 (audibility/frequency) is another matter - it should be heard at 1 nm above ambient noise. If it was first sounded travelling at 15.5 kts as close as the 80 mtr mark but not loud enough to be heard at that distance - wouldn't that be too late anyway to express concern requiring remedial action by the other craft ?

2 - In normal situations there's no problem with the Give way vessel turning to its Stbd but in this case where a ferry on a regular run would be expected to have already turned to its Port - towards its destination, a recreational vessel wouldn't want to inconvenience it by turning Stbd into the ferry's intended path when by simply continuing there's no risk of collision anyway. When amount of clearance is considered, every degree the Stand-on vessel turns towards the supposedly Give-way vessel, that clearance has been reduced, hence - The stand-on vessel shall maintain her course and speed & Small alterations of course should be avoided.

This is where Nautical Protocol would take care of "The Rule accepts that, for some reason, it could be dangerous to turn to starboard" ?

[Guest]

With Classique I would say a safe distance involves multiple miles. Any closer than that to Classique and you risk trouble.

 

I note the "International Nautical Protocol " site is a facebook page set up by you Mel. No involvement from MNZ or the Professional Skipper magazine.

-------------------------------------

Tell that to the ferry skipper Elenya,

he obviously had no qualms about reducing the safe distance. Facebook is international just so that we get a broad perspective over a parochial "Public Interest" driven by the PSM editor/associates & MNZ

[wheels 543]

Was the other boat under power or under sail??

Was it daylight or Dark???

Was it Red or Blue??

Did it have a racing stripe??

What position was the Moon and did we have a Solar storm at the time??

I don't think you understood my comment here. So I will be a little more black and white. Can you give us a description of the specific situation please. Because otherwise we are all just guessing, when the answer could be altered by anyone of dozens of different scenarios. We need to know some very exacting details please.

I think any dicussion about commercial/non-commercial is a completely seperate issue and discussion and lets not get that mixed in amongst all this particular discussion.

[Guest]

Was the other boat under power or under sail??

Was it daylight or Dark???

Was it Red or Blue??

Did it have a racing stripe??

What position was the Moon and did we have a Solar storm at the time??

I don't think you understood my comment here. So I will be a little more black and white. Can you give us a description of the specific situation please. Because otherwise we are all just guessing, when the answer could be altered by anyone of dozens of different scenarios. We need to know some very exacting details please.

I think any dicussion about commercial/non-commercial is a completely seperate issue and discussion and lets not get that mixed in amongst all this particular discussion.

-------------------------------------------------

Thank you for taking an interest in this Wheels,

here is a copy of a letter which describes the situation for discussion, it has the complication of an expectation re a ferry's course on a regular run from Waiheke Sth to Auckland in the channel between Browns Island light & Motuhie -

 

Collision Prevention Regulation re Converging Traffic states that ....

"When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel." - but in a harbour situation at what distance off shall it apply esp if a recreational power craft & a ferry on a regular route is involved ?

The Rules use the word ‘shall’ in its imperative sense. And it uses the proviso ‘if the circumstances of the case admit’. The Rule accepts that, for some reason, it could be dangerous to turn to starboard ?

Here is the situation The Prof. Skipper Magazine editor & Maritme NZ are suggesting could be Public Interest -

 

This more or less a crossing situation – plotting could be assisted by drawing a square/circle with Nth, Sth, East & West

1 - Your vessel crossing W to E & is possibly Give-way vessel to Stand-on ferry coming at you from SE at 30deg on your Stbd bow.

2 - Your speed is 6.5kts, the ferry 15.5kts & the ferry at .6nm away brings out a camera to record you on his port bow in the process of crossing which you could have with .25 nm clearance if he had kept his course & speed.

3 - Unfortunately because in his opinion you should have turned Stbd at .6 nm, he now wants to make an issue of your ignorance so he gradually turns from a NW course of 286T to 297T reducing the clearance you could've had, to a close quarters situation he can complain about.

4 - Unfortunately he doesn't sound his first series of sound signals to indicate his concern until he is 80mtrs away, that is on an audibly inadequate hand held aerosol horn which doesn't bring a response from you, he doesn't use his vhf & you carry on across as you expected to all the time, especially as the ferry should've been turning to a Westerly course astern of you if it was to be on it's regular run.

5 - Theoretically you could've upset his intention to turn to his port/West course if you had turned Stbd as a possible Give-way vessel but you could tell by the changing bearings at the initial .6 nm position you were ok to hold your course & speed across its bow.

6 - I believe the ferry erred in bringing out a camera instead of sounding an adequate horn (Appendix 3) to indicate his estimation of risk of collision, then by turning 11deg towards you instead of maintaining his course & speed if he thought he was a Stand-on vessel.

7 - Could a 106 net ton ferry reduce its speed appreciably from 15.5 kts within 80 mtrs even by putting his engines astern if he felt he had to avoid collision ?

Wouldn't a more seamanlike action be to have turned to his Port as his regular run would've dictated ?

8 - At what distance off could action be expected to be taken by the possibly Give-way/ Stand-on vessels - could that distance be more than half a mile away in an outer harbour situation or is that unreasonable ?

Trusting that's not too complicated to follow - I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the subject.

[Guest]

Your theoretical scenario seems very specific! Looks to me like you should have altered course as required by the rules. As the ferry has you on his port side it would be a tad silly for ferry alter to ports towards a danger, and towards a vessel that is supposed to be altering to stbd and passing your stern. Seems like the ferry did the right thing. Why didn't just alter to stbd and pass astern of him?

 

How long have you owned Classique? I have some phots (somewhere) of her aground on her side when someone anchored her off the ramp at Westhaven and forgot the tide goes out. Also got remeber a freind who is security at bayswater telling me about the time the owner left the yacht Classique with the motor engaged ahead, and autopilot on with the keel resting on the bank of the marina channel. Tide came up while the owner was rowing his (not paying to charter the yacht just contributing to the cost) guests ashore, yacht motored off into Ngataringa Bay with the owner rowing furiously after it. Seems like that boat has a history of dodgy owners.

 

[wheels 543]

I was told the law does not allow to "guest sharing costs" either. Although I am sure many accept.If the "guests" are friends or family, then I don't see a problem with sharing costs. But if the Guests are actually strangers and are being called friends just to charter them, then that is a whole different situation.

Anyway, back to the main topic, the point is, the Ferry is doing 15.5kts. That is covering the ground very quickly. The .25Nm is going to be covered in seconds. A vessel traveling at 6kts is going to be in the "Danger area" for a considerable amount if time. Also to the fast moving ferry, it is impossible to tell where the slow vessel is going to be in a given time unless they Ferry is tracking the slow vessel. It's looking at a Car from an aircraft (coming into land so as you are low) The cars look like they are standing still.

The idea of crossing the bow of somethign traveling 15+kts when you are doing 6 is just plain nuts and an endager to everyone.

[Guest]

I was given some good advice with regard to decision making like this. "If it turns to crap, how is what I'm about to do going to look in the report"

From the Ferry captains point of view if he did what you seem to think he should have.

"I was on my regular run, and turned to port where I normally do. At the same time another vessel in close proximity, who was the give way vessel turned to starboard as they are supposed to do. We collided"

Those are pretty bare facts with no hint of the previous dealings you seem to have with the ferry in question.

Who did the wrong thing there? Clearly the ferry is at fault.

Therefore, to stop any risk of having a collision that he would be at fault in, he turned to STB 10 degrees to give you more room to pass astern as you should, then sounded a signal. Sounds by the book to me.

 

Your decision making during the incident is based on an assumption as to the Ferry intentions, and also thinks a close pass over their bow is OK.

[Guest]

Your theoretical scenario seems very specific! Looks to me like you should have altered course as required by the rules. As the ferry has you on his port side it would be a tad silly for ferry alter to ports towards a danger, and towards a vessel that is supposed to be altering to stbd and passing your stern. Seems like the ferry did the right thing. Why didn't just alter to stbd and pass astern of him?

 

How long have you owned Classique? I have some phots (somewhere) of her aground on her side when someone anchored her off the ramp at Westhaven and forgot the tide goes out. Also got remeber a freind who is security at bayswater telling me about the time the owner left the yacht Classique with the motor engaged ahead, and autopilot on with the keel resting on the bank of the marina channel. Tide came up while the owner was rowing his (not paying to charter the yacht just contributing to the cost) guests ashore, yacht motored off into Ngataringa Bay with the owner rowing furiously after it. Seems like that boat has a history of dodgy owners.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

A couple of points here Brendon ....

1 - The photos taken by the ferry over .6nm, inadvertantly show on the background its gradual changing of course from 286T to 297T - 11 deg towards the crossing vessel. Sea calm, high tide-no current, light breese on its Stbd side - no likelyhood of any yaw. When pointed out to Maritime NZ, firstly they said it was yaw, then they didn't think the ferry did it deliberately. I would say his endeavour to take photographic evidence had the effect of perhaps causing the skipper to follow his target - regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it reduced the clearance from what would've been .25nm to between 50-80 mtrs, creating a close quarters situation to complain about to MNZ. Also to cause embarrasment to the crossing vessel which he held to be another" ignorant harbour user for which he carries a camera to record the actions of" according to his statement.

It seems as if the ferry skipper with a chip on his shoulder is driving his craft like a bulldozer by way of Coll Reg education - upheld by MNZ & Prof. Skipper Mag editor who are pushing this "Public Interest" due to the number of near misses which are going either unreported or unprosecuted ?

 

2 – I’ve owned Cqe 24 years & was invited to Aust Bi-Centenary Tall Ships back in the 80’s. Unfortunately there were no available haul-out facilities for Cat 1 inspection so careening on that quite, soft Westhaven beach worked well – gr8 2 c yr photo if found.

Re your Security chap’s observation - I was almost in the habit of using the mud at Bayswater, (better than anchoring) but never with the drive engaged, although the motor might be running – she’s got the power of a tug. So it’s not likely she motored anywhere & if I was returning without a dinghy motor, I’m certainly not going to catch her up paddling (no rowlocks) an inflatable solo – rather interesting hearing these improbable stories. The controversy driven by Prof Skipper Mag editor & Bayswater manager re my Co-operative Cost Share Crew is more than likely behind all this but Maritime NZ have always checked my crews to see that they understand their status as crew & accept their contributions are reasonable according to our Maritime Law – all above board, not dodgy.

I was told the law does not allow to "guest sharing costs" either. Although I am sure many accept.If the "guests" are friends or family, then I don't see a problem with sharing costs. But if the Guests are actually strangers and are being called friends just to charter them, then that is a whole different situation.

Anyway, back to the main topic, the point is, the Ferry is doing 15.5kts. That is covering the ground very quickly. The .25Nm is going to be covered in seconds. A vessel traveling at 6kts is going to be in the "Danger area" for a considerable amount if time. Also to the fast moving ferry, it is impossible to tell where the slow vessel is going to be in a given time unless they Ferry is tracking the slow vessel. It's looking at a Car from an aircraft (coming into land so as you are low) The cars look like they are standing still.

The idea of crossing the bow of somethign traveling 15+kts when you are doing 6 is just plain nuts and an endager to everyone.

[Guest]

I was told the law does not allow to "guest sharing costs" either. Although I am sure many accept.If the "guests" are friends or family, then I don't see a problem with sharing costs. But if the Guests are actually strangers and are being called friends just to charter them, then that is a whole different situation.

Anyway, back to the main topic, the point is, the Ferry is doing 15.5kts. That is covering the ground very quickly. The .25Nm is going to be covered in seconds. A vessel traveling at 6kts is going to be in the "Danger area" for a considerable amount if time. Also to the fast moving ferry, it is impossible to tell where the slow vessel is going to be in a given time unless they Ferry is tracking the slow vessel. It's looking at a Car from an aircraft (coming into land so as you are low) The cars look like they are standing still.

The idea of crossing the bow of somethign traveling 15+kts when you are doing 6 is just plain nuts and an endager to everyone.

-------------------------------------------------

This might be helpfull info Wheels-

1 - The controversy driven by Prof Skipper Mag editor & Bayswater manager re my Co-operative Cost Share Crew is more than likely behind all this but Maritime NZ have always checked my crews to see that they understand their status as crew & accept their contributions are reasonable according to our Maritime Law – all above board,

 

2 - The photos taken by the ferry inadvertantly show on the background its gradual changing of course from 286T to 297T - 11 deg towards the crossing vessel. Sea calm, high tide-no current, light breese on its Stbd side - no likelyhood of any yaw. When pointed out to Maritime NZ, firstly they said it was yaw, then they didn't think the ferry did it deliberately. I would say his endeavour to take photographic evidence had the effect of perhaps causing the skipper to follow his target - regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it reduced the clearance from what would've been .25nm to between 50-80 mtrs, creating a close quarters situation to complain about to MNZ. Also to cause embarrasment to the crossing vessel which he held to be another" ignorant harbour user for which he carries a camera to record the actions of" according to his statement.

It seems as if the ferry skipper with a chip on his shoulder is driving his craft like a bulldozer by way of Coll Reg education - upheld by MNZ & Prof. Skipper Mag editor who are pushing this "Public Interest" due to the number of near misses which are going either unreported or unprosecuted ?

[Guest]

I was given some good advice with regard to decision making like this. "If it turns to crap, how is what I'm about to do going to look in the report"

From the Ferry captains point of view if he did what you seem to think he should have.

"I was on my regular run, and turned to port where I normally do. At the same time another vessel in close proximity, who was the give way vessel turned to starboard as they are supposed to do. We collided"

Those are pretty bare facts with no hint of the previous dealings you seem to have with the ferry in question.

Who did the wrong thing there? Clearly the ferry is at fault.

Therefore, to stop any risk of having a collision that he would be at fault in, he turned to STB 10 degrees to give you more room to pass astern as you should, then sounded a signal. Sounds by the book to me.

 

Your decision making during the incident is based on an assumption as to the Ferry intentions, and also thinks a close pass over their bow is OK.

----------------------------------------------------

Rather hard to understand Slacko, will this clarify the subject .....

 

The photos taken by the ferry inadvertantly show on the background its gradual changing of course from 286T to 297T - 11 deg towards the crossing vessel. Sea calm, high tide-no current, light breese on its Stbd side - no likelyhood of any yaw. When pointed out to Maritime NZ, firstly they said it was yaw, then they didn't think the ferry did it deliberately. I would say his endeavour to take photographic evidence had the effect of perhaps causing the skipper to follow his target - regardless of whether it was deliberate or not, it reduced the clearance from what would've been .25nm to between 50-80 mtrs, creating a close quarters situation to complain about to MNZ. Also to cause embarrasment to the crossing vessel which he held to be another" ignorant harbour user for which he carries a camera to record the actions of" according to his statement.

It seems as if the ferry skipper with a chip on his shoulder is driving his craft like a bulldozer by way of Coll Reg education - upheld by MNZ & Prof. Skipper Mag editor who are pushing this "Public Interest" due to the number of near misses which are going either unreported or unprosecuted ?

[Guest]

Sorry it was hard for you to understand there Mel.

I'll remember to keep out of your way if in Auckland on the water.

[Guest]

Looks like the whole world is ganging up on you agin....and again and again.

[Guest]

Sorry it was hard for you to understand there Mel.

I'll remember to keep out of your way if in Auckland on the water.

------------------------------------

Your previous scenario was back to front Slacko,

the ferry would've had increasing clearance astern of the crossing vessel if the ferry was on its regular run turning to its Port. The Crossing vessel would've just got in the ferry's expected path by turning to its Stbd & at .6nm distance in this area of the harbour its too far away for there to be risk of collision if changing bearings indicate safe passage. If the ferry thought there was risk of collision at that point it could've sounded his concern but he brought out a camera - his horn turned out to be an inadequate aerosol which wouldn't have been heard anyway. It was the ferry's turning towards the crossing vessel instead of maintaining its course which decreased unnecessarily the clearance from a very safe .25nm

[Guest]

Looks like the whole world is ganging up on you agin....and again and again.

----------------------------------------------------

Perhaps some misconceptions are being encountered Brendon -

intriguing to hear & what else can you tell me ?

[wheels 543]

the ferry would've had increasing clearance astern of the crossing vessel if the ferry was on its regular run turning to its Port

And there is the odd occasion where passing someone on the road on their Left would seem safer too. But it's illegal just as the Ferries situation is illegal.

How the hell do you determin from a photo, taken of you, that the Ferry has changed course from exactly 286T to 297T or 11deg. At 0.6Nm, that is didly squat of a difference in closing distance and the main reason why large clear intention distances are considered prudent.

I too am fed up with other boats that cross over my path, pass me on the wrong side when coming toward me and trying to beat me to the channel maker just so they can come in in front of me. I have a pic of one dipstick that was unbelievable. I am in the channel heading into the Harbour and I have to turn 30deg and then pass a Red marker. I am not more than 20m away from the green marker and this dipstick overtakes me on my starboard side and then has to cut in front of my bow to get around the correct side of the green marker, while I am closing on that marker at 7kts. That is completely idiotic.

 

Anyway, back to your story. We can try and assume so much here with not having all the facts. It can never equate to a right or wrong answer in your case. Just assumptions. What I don't understand is why you are asking this here on Crew? Has this gone to court? or have you had a warning and you don't agree? or have you been prosicuted and don't agree? or what?? It is best to leave this in the hands on the experts, I asuume being MSA and if you don't agree, ask for a readress.