Wasn’t that the Andrea Doria issue? Changing course just a little bit?
Of course vessels are free to maneuver before risk of collision exists but without risk of collision there are no stand-on or give way vessels.
There is no stand-on vessel without a give-way vessel.
Rule 17 : Action by stand-on vessel
- (a)
- (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
There is no give-way vessel if there is no risk of collision.
Rule 16 : Action by give-way vessel
Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.
If a vessel is making bold course changes without regard for “right of way” and in the case of right of way meaning being the stand-on vessel than that’s a violation.
is that why Ozzie warships only sink American ones…, they hunt you down with course alterations in either case?
Hat coat…gone…
Alas, the American one (just the one) was entirely in the wrong.
And a reminder, it was American jets which fired missiles which hit an allied Aussie warship off Vietnam killing several sailors. So there’s some truth in the Americans hunting us down, but not the other way round.
then the Chinese bought it to copy it…lol
We are not in disagreement, I believe. However I agree with your statement that if there’s no risk of collision, there is no giveaway or stand on vessel. It certainly is more concise than what I had written.
The indeterminate factor is when is there a risk of collision? Is it at 22 miles, 15 miles, 10 miles etc. I asked the question in an academic sense, because we have all, sometimes, avoided close CPAs by a minor course adjustment at long distance.
It would have to do with encounting traffic in restricted waters or in heavy traffic.
Both relative terms of course but if it is possible to avoid risk of collision by early maneuvering I’d say the ship was not in fact in heavy traffic or encounting traffic in restricted waters, relatively speaking.
This source is the USCG;
. Who has the “right of way” on the water?
Who has the “right of way” on the water? The Rules do not grant privileges or rights, they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances. Power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on
Instead of saying “early bold course changes regardless of our right of way” if you had said the same except change "right of way’ to “stand on” it would be even more obvious that it was incorrect.
And you are still wrong and it’s even more obvious. And if that quote was from the USCG, then that mob is pedantic too. The term has been in common usage for my entire seagoing career. I’ve trained with many other navies and they use it too. I’ve sailed in fleets of hundreds of sailing ships in tall ships races and they use it too - lots of languages spoken at briefings so it’s vital such things are understood. I suspect I even discussed such issues in such language with the captain of USCGC EAGLE as we met often for briefings and boozings. I don’t hold the USCG in any particular awe. We have our own stickler rule enforcers to contend with and I seem to have survived thus far without incurring their wrath.
Shove your pedantics down your own throat. Everyone (even you) knows what it means and uses it as shorthand for the more formal language of collision avoidance you might encounter at a subsequent court martial.
Now, a lesson for you. Pay attention.
I am not obliged to stand on for the 20 miles since I detected the other vessel and determined there is/would be a risk of collision if I kept going that way.
I can go another way (at, say 15 miles) and remove any risk of collision and remove any passing closer than the several miles I determine I want to keep clear of you. Nobody else needs to do anything. No knickers need to be in a twist. No dictionaries, rules or law books need consulted as to the proper definitions of words and phrases.
I’m free to manoeuver as I please without impeding anybody’s safe passage. I am not incorrect about that.
1 Like
From Gibson’s Basic Seamanship and Navigation:
A thorough understanding of shipboard terminology must be acquired. A seaman has a quick ear for errors in either terminology or vernacular and forms his opinion of another according.
if I kept going that way.
To my ear “if I maintain course and speed” is a better fit here.
Perhaps. But perhaps in my warship I might have been doing a zig zag pattern, or engaged with a submarine undectable to others, or intend flying operations in 5 minutes time, or be conducting exercises at different speeds or practicing machinery breakdowns or … (fill in this space).
So “going that way” might suit my naval purpose far better and it would behove merchant mariners to think of this possibility too. In other words, I don’t feel constrained to one course and speed.
Oh, and I know my terminology and use it - insist on it aboard. I accept totally that “right of way” isn’t official in anyone’s language for mariners, just a useful phrase. It’s just that sometimes I’m talking to non-mariners and it’s easier and quicker, if less precise. If I have the time, I’ll always explain to new trainees both the proper term and a translation they might better understand. Seven days isn’t long enough to immerse them fully.
1 Like
yachts sailing constant apparent wind angles are a good example of…
Jughead - while we MAY all know know what you mean, if you used the correct terminology from the Collregs we WOULD all definitely know what you mean.
I think most of us here who are victims of a maritime education had the importance of language when speaking about such things beaten into us
Pedantic , maybe. But sometimes pedantic is called for.
2 Likes
I didn’t start the pedantics. I don’t want to continue the pedantics.
My point seems to have been lost that it was my naval experience that we kept away from merchant shipping regardless of ALERT, ALERT ALERT -NAUGHTY WORDS FOLLOW ‘right of way’.
But Captain Pedantic then said I should remain frozen on a course and speed regardless of what I want to do and there being plenty of ocean left to do it in.
I consider that bit to be impractical and unseamanlike.
P.S. What’s the official shorthand words that translate my general use of ‘right of way’?
1 Like
Some of my peers had the col regs beaten into them, I went to a more enlightened establishment.
2 Likes
If risk of collision exists, and you as the stand on vessel maneuver to “stay clear” of the give way vessel- what did you do to ensure there was no doubt in the give way vessel’s mind what your intentions were.
in my experience, what I believed to be naval vessels making large course alterations not specific to the rules did nothing to give me confidence in their intentions.
1 Like
Stayed away from them. That was the obvious bit. They probably would have to alter course and speed and set a deliberate collision course to get anywhere near me. Do you often do that? Just let them go.
If you are asking whether I spoke by radio, no. As I’ve said above previously it isn’t necessary and for many years we didn’t have them. Things still worked. They still do without radio much of the time.
As for your confidence in your? navy, there’s not much I can say. Warships do strange things and they don’t expect (in my experience) that after doing them they can’t just then stand on into a collision situation as if nothing happened and get you to keep clear.
From my earliest training we never heard the term COLREGs. To us it was rule of the road abbreviated to ROTR and appeared in our syllabus as such etc. I’m quite happy to use COLREGs now.
“Stayed away from them” the intention of every one ever before the collision.
If risk of collision exists, and you, as stand on vessel, do something early and substantial, that opens a significant CPA, I am sure I would do nothing, except watch you like a hawk since you have already deviated from the rules
If you do something, that does not open a significant CPA say 2 miles, now I want to talk to you if I can. If you went left to do that , I really want to talk to you
When someone does something unexpected outside the rules it causes doubt, no matter what the intention is.
But I haven’t “deviated from the rules”. See my example to KC back up this thread. Why are you worried about what a warship does 15 miles away when the resultant CPA is larger than before?
And just by the way, I’m sure the rules require you to (your language, not official colregs terminology - naughty boy) “watch … like a hawk” until finally past and clear - good colregs language again.
Then you will be constatly surprised by warships doing unexpected things and not telling you about it. It’s covered by the rules right up the front as an undefined “special circumstance” of which you nevertheless seem perfectly aware. Again, warships do unexpected things and your 2 mile CPA ain’t etched in stone either.