collisions on the harbour while racing

[Farrari 4]

Unlikely. Here is what the Manly Sailing club advertise it as ... assuming it was the same one.

 

"Learn to Race (LTR) is a Development/Coaching programme put on by Manly Sailing Club and run by Mike Pasco of NZSailing.net."

[ScottiE 174]

yawn - can we get back to mikey loosing his rag - its far more entertaining!

[Guest]

Scottie - it's 4pm fri , time for a drink.

[ScottiE 174]

its 5pm now and still no sign of that drink!

[Farrari 4]

Ok, to liven this thread back up again ....

 

RB, what realistically were your expectations of the Squadron? What would have you expected as rational behaviour?

 

Admission of guilt?

Part payment for damages?

Down on their knees kissing your feet?

 

Perhaps not the last one but I am assuming that your insurance company paid out for the damages minus the excess?

[Guest]

RB, what realistically were your expectations of the Squadron? What would have you expected as rational behaviour?

 

Admission of guilt?

Part payment for damages?

Down on their knees kissing your feet?

 

Perhaps not the last one but I am assuming that your insurance company paid out for the damages minus the excess?

Ok, to liven this thread back up again ....

 

RB, what realistically were your expectations of the Squadron? What would have you expected as rational behaviour?

 

Admission of guilt?

Part payment for damages?

Down on their knees kissing your feet?

 

Perhaps not the last one but I am assuming that your insurance company paid out for the damages minus the excess?

 

...I am back

 

we fixed the damage ourselves as its the most economical solution. Most of the cost was simply our time.

 

hmmmm.... my expectations.....from NZ's premier yacht club....

 

was expecting that they would have acknowledged that the rib was in a terrible possition and that they have taken steps to make sure there will never be a rib there again. (that close to the pin) I have no problem with a rib watching down the line, but not right at the pin on a start line that is slighty off the wind.

Some form of admission that it was partly their fault would have been comforting, and it would have made their reply look a little less like it actually blamed us for the inciddent.

 

A phone call to discuss the final outcome would have been superb. Or even a request to meet with them to discuss.

 

I know that they are nice people at heart, and it is probably the wording that has been used that has got to me.

 

If they had explained that they had damage as well, and that both vessels were party at fault, then we probably could have bought a beer and shaken hands.

[Murky 1]

A possible perspective: I have worked with companies and individuals who have the firm belief that the only way to respond to a letter is with their own letter. I have sat around tables where it has been clear to everyone that a single (possibly not-completely-official) phone call or meeting could resolve things in a tenth of the time and cost, but no, we have received a letter, we have an obligation to reply in kind.

 

Of course as soon as things are to be committed to paper, everyone becomes conscious of the legal ramifications and the potential for it to rebound and all of a sudden, you end up with something that sounds defensive and unreasonable.

[Guest Brucey]

Yacht is heading down the harbour away from the harbour bridge.

 

there was a MOTOR BOAT positioned just past the pin slightly to windward, (not anchored but drifting with motors on).

 

The MOTORBOAT was positioned facing the harbour bridge.

 

.

(2) a sailing vessel underway must keep out of the way of –

(a) a vessel not under command:

( a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre:

© a vessel engaged in fishing[/i]

 

?

 

RB i agree that there should have been some F2F dialog on this one. Phones do work from both ends though, and if you said you rang and were refused a meet I would be most critical of RNZYS, if it was just a letter I think Mirky was probably right, situalion formally escalated, stock replys.

 

Is the situation not covered in the edited Col Regs. above?

 

Even if RIB was determined to be "under comand" and there must be a question if the crew were looking down the line counting time down and prepairing to take down numbers and names, was helm maned? It was certainly "a vessell restricted in its ability to manoeuvre" by virtue of the fact that it was stationary.

 

Very hard to get out of the way of anything when you are stationary, I find.

 

So dont really see why they might have accepted any responsibility, although there is good reason to discuss what is the ideal position to have a spotter boat stationary for this purpose? I am sure those who are doing it could have some input to that discussion in light of the difficulties they face.

 

End of the day IMO, stationary boat your bad! Would be an interesting "hypertetical" question to put to a harbourmaster though.

[rigger 47]

 

Even if RIB was determined to be "under comand" and there must be a question if the crew were looking down the line counting time down and prepairing to take down numbers and names, was helm maned? It was certainly "a vessell restricted in its ability to manoeuvre" by virtue of the fact that it was stationary.

 

Wrong,

If the vessel was restricted in its ability to manouvre it must display the correct day shapes or lights. Just because it is stationary does not give it any special rights.

 

Perhaps if the vessel was stationary with its stern towards the approaching yachts then the rule regarding overtaking would occur.

 

In the end of the day there was a collision, both vessels were underway, both are at fault, on more so than the other.

 

I cannot find the case report but it sticks in my mind as there was an anchored ship that copped a portion of blame for not taking action to avoid a collision with a container ship that was steaming through a crowded anchorage. The report stated that as the anchored ships officer had called the container ship he was aware of a risk of collision so he should have taken action.....

[Guest Brucey]

 

Even if RIB was determined to be "under comand" and there must be a question if the crew were looking down the line counting time down and prepairing to take down numbers and names, was helm maned? It was certainly "a vessell restricted in its ability to manoeuvre" by virtue of the fact that it was stationary.

 

Wrong,

If the vessel was restricted in its ability to manouvre it must display the correct day shapes or lights. Just because it is stationary does not give it any special rights.

 

Perhaps if the vessel was stationary with its stern towards the approaching yachts then the rule regarding overtaking would occur.

 

In the end of the day there was a collision, both vessels were underway, both are at fault, on more so than the other.

 

I cannot find the case report but it sticks in my mind as there was an anchored ship that copped a portion of blame for not taking action to avoid a collision with a container ship that was steaming through a crowded anchorage. The report stated that as the anchored ships officer had called the container ship he was aware of a risk of collision so he should have taken action.....

 

Wrong Rigger:

 

See 22.27 (7) "Vessels of less than 12 meters in length, except those involved in diving operations, are not required to exibit the lights and shapes of 22.27."

 

I assume the RIB is under 12m?

 

And they wernt in fact both underway were they. One was sailing along with only some amount of control, the other was stationary with no control going about its business and got run down.

 

Would a stationary drift fishing fizboat have had any culpability if a yacht sailed into it? I think not.

 

If there was a discusion to be had about the proximity of commitee boats to the pin, it could have been had without the graphic demonstration I suggest.

[rigger 47]

 

Wrong Rigger:

 

See 22.27 (7) "Vessels of less than 12 meters in length, except those involved in diving operations, are not required to exibit the lights and shapes of 22.27."

 

And they wernt in fact both underway were they. One was sailing along with only some amount of control, the other was stationary with no control going about its business and got run down.

 

Would a stationary drift fishing fizboat have had any culpability if a yacht sailed into it? I think not.

 

If there was a discusion to be had about the proximity of commitee boats to the pin, it could have been had without the graphic demonstration I suggest.

 

Accepted on the light and shapes – it says ‘are not required to’ but that does not mean that they cannot exhibit the lights or shapes if less than 12m

 

But they were both underway. The fizz boat may not have been making way but it was underway -

See rule 22.2 Definitions - “Underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground:

 

It can be argued who is right and who is wrong, in the end there was a collision so there was more than one error made.

[Guest Brucey]

 

Wrong Rigger:

 

See 22.27 (7) "Vessels of less than 12 meters in length, except those involved in diving operations, are not required to exibit the lights and shapes of 22.27."

 

And they wernt in fact both underway were they. One was sailing along with only some amount of control, the other was stationary with no control going about its business and got run down.

 

Would a stationary drift fishing fizboat have had any culpability if a yacht sailed into it? I think not.

 

If there was a discusion to be had about the proximity of commitee boats to the pin, it could have been had without the graphic demonstration I suggest.

 

Accepted on the light and shapes – it says ‘are not required to’ but that does not mean that they cannot exhibit the lights or shapes if less than 12m

 

But they were both underway. The fizz boat may not have been making way but it was underway -

See rule 22.2 Definitions - “Underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground:

 

It can be argued who is right and who is wrong, in the end there was a collision so there was more than one error made.

 

Yea ok Rigger u win one was 99.9% in the wrong. No points for guessing which one!!

[grant 40]

 

Wrong Rigger:

 

See 22.27 (7) "Vessels of less than 12 meters in length, except those involved in diving operations, are not required to exibit the lights and shapes of 22.27."

 

And they wernt in fact both underway were they. One was sailing along with only some amount of control, the other was stationary with no control going about its business and got run down.

 

Would a stationary drift fishing fizboat have had any culpability if a yacht sailed into it? I think not.

 

If there was a discusion to be had about the proximity of commitee boats to the pin, it could have been had without the graphic demonstration I suggest.

 

Accepted on the light and shapes – it says ‘are not required to’ but that does not mean that they cannot exhibit the lights or shapes if less than 12m

 

But they were both underway. The fizz boat may not have been making way but it was underway -

See rule 22.2 Definitions - “Underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground:

 

It can be argued who is right and who is wrong, in the end there was a collision so there was more than one error made.

 

agree with Rigger, just because the boat was stationary is not even close to meeting "restricted in ability to maneuver" and it most definitely was not "not under command"

 

Whether or not someone is at the helm has no bearing on its status, and is of no relevance to the other boat, the boat is 'under way' so how it is controlled and how they fulfill their obligations is entirely up to that boat.

 

 

in a loosely related incident in Wellington many years ago..... the port Nic RIB was shifting the pin end of the line, racing delayed while they were doing this and the RIB was rammed, while towing the buoy , by one of the yachts waiting for the start.

 

In this case also the RIB was technically at fault as they were the powered craft, the fact the the yacht believed they had rights and the RIB should keep clear while it was trying to set up the race course , to my mind, is almost grounds to ban thee yacht from racing for a while.....

 

The result was the RIB then got a post with a flat displaying a ball - diamond -ball for use in those situation.

 

If you have no idea what ball-diamond-ball means have a look here http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Rules/Rul ... e-rule.pdf

 

and read 22.27 (2) (

[Guest Brucey]

Jeez Grant I'm not sure if your comming or going, you agree with Rigger yet you recon they should get a 3 year ban? Thats a bit harsh isnt it?

 

And silly me I know, but just explain how you maneouver a boat thats stationary? I know dumb question, but Ive just never seen it done, thats all.

 

Sheeeet, I get it, your pulling my chain. HHHHHHHaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhaaaaaa, how silly of me, you and Rigger both.

 

Yeeeaaaaaa, like putting a couple of balls and a diamond on a stationary committee observer boat is really going to work for these guys. Like a guy who runs over the pin and a big stationary RIB is going to say, f*ck me that stationary boat is displaying the "restricted ability to maneouver" signal, I wont run him down, I will go around him.

 

 

HHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaa you guys crack me up. Brilliant!!!!!

[grant 40]

not sure where the 3 years came from brucey, you must be able to see the secret message on the screen

 

if the boat is operational and has a crew it can be maneuvered, just because they chose not to move does not mean they are no longer obliged to comply with the rules.

 

Would the day shapes make a difference? to most other boaties you are probably correct, they wouldn't know. To the lawyers and more importantly the insurance company, you bet it would make a difference.

 

but its great to know we made your life a little brighter I'll sleep better tonight for knowing that

[Bad Kitty 252]

And silly me I know, but just explain how you maneouver a boat thats stationary? I know dumb question, but Ive just never seen it done, thats all.

HHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaa you guys crack me up. Brilliant!!!!!

 

Not a dumb question coming from you Brucey, after reading your posts here and getting a handle on your understanding of the maritime regs it's exactly the sort of question I'd expect.

 

Puts you right up there with a whole lot of the recreational boaties on the harbour.

[Guest Brucey]

So what reg would that be BK?

 

Note 22.27 (7).

 

So let me make sure I've got this right, it's ok to sail into a stationary boat, but only if it's a motor boat, and it's not anchored?

 

So all u drift fishers look out for BK.

 

And I'm the one who's up there with all ya Barrys?

 

Riiiight!!!!

[Clipper 343]

So let me make sure I've got this right, it's ok to sail into a stationary boat, but only if it's a motor boat, and it's not anchored?

 

According to Colregs the motorboat that is not anchored (i.e. 'underway') is required to keep clear.

[John B 106]

Pretty interesting.. I hadn't really thought too much of the drifting boat before this year. Since the harbour has gone off like never before fishing wise , its common in recent weeks to come across a wall of tinnys fishing, parked right across the motorway.

Like all good boaties , I try really hard to stay clear, look at the tide so I pass on a side which won't foul their lines etc. There's been a couple of times I've had to completely alter the plan though , because of boats drift fishing when I thought they were anchored and closing up the gap.

[Guest Brucey]

So let me make sure I've got this right, it's ok to sail into a stationary boat, but only if it's a motor boat, and it's not anchored?

 

According to Colregs the motorboat that is not anchored (i.e. 'underway') is required to keep clear.

 

So that's a yes from u Clipper! Thats Fekin scary.

 

And the Colregs say that sail gives way to boats "with a restricted ability to maneuver.

 

Some of you really scare me! Good luck out there it will be a challenge.