Whilst we are on the topic of avoiding collisions and everyone thinking I break all the rules, consider this example.
I sail a square rigged sailing ship and have sailed others before this one. I sail out of Fremantle, Western Australia, a busy enough port for both commercial shipping and a major naval base. It’s also infested with seemingly millions of pleasure craft sailing, power driven, paddling and every variety in between. They love to come over and have a look, wave, throw off their bikini tops etc at the handsome, salty captain.
The problem is that several can be on collision courses at once and I might be the burdened vessel even though my sails may be up. In the relatively open waters of Gage Roads and the tight inner harbour I’ve learnt to simply grit my teeth and stand on. They just want a closer look. I also have to enter harbour (usually under power but can be under sail for the first part) up the left side in order to swing to starboard (I need the whole harbour width) to berth on the other side, bows out. Both ways against the rules. It seems to work …
Until that one pedant in a putt-putt boat decides he has to stand on or try to squeeze between me and the wharves on my port side (before I do the U turn) to pass the regulation port to port despite there being plenty of harbour on the other side.
Is Mr Pedant complying with the rules or breaking them by not considering the special circumstances of the case?
Just for context the ship is not easy to manoeuvre with twin screws, single rudder and can (just) turn at rest with two engines put either way ie a turn to starboard can be made with starboard engine ahead or astern and the port the opposite way. The turn is affected by the rudder and is impossible in other than light winds. Turning with headway on is much easier and, unnaturally, the outer engine is the one put astern (to reduce the turning circle) so the inner has the flow across the rudder. I sometimes use sails to turn and regularly have to brace yards to assist or reduce windage.
Not sure I completely understand each situation you speak of, but it appears rule 9 would cover some/most.
However the inherent maneuverability or lack of in your case of your vessel does nothing to relieve you of your responsibility to operate within the rules.
I was specific in all my cases to preface them with if risk of collision exists. My original point was about the importance of terms in the rules. I did that because if risk of collision does not exist there is no stand on or give way vessel.
A CPA less than 2 miles still doesn’t necessarily pose a risk of collision - to me anyway. How close is a risk of collision? A safe distance is … ?
I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but my suggestion is that a risk of collision might eventuate after time between a warship and merchant ship and my experience was that my warships under lots of captains tended to just keep clear to make sure. They wanted freedom of manoeuvering and not to be later constrained to stand on.
And as Aussies, we never had the rum ration although rum was used as currency by those nasty (British) army types ashore under Governor William Bligh formerly of BOUNTY, in our colonial days ending in the Rum Rebellion. The British were right to distrust standing armies as this shows, and instead rely on the unquestioned loyalty and strength of the navy.
We more gentlemanly naval types issued beer to the sailors aboard when our navy was formed … and we always had plenty of that! Beer officer was a junior role but not unimportant.
Was referring to the supposed quote from Winston Churchill, when changing the British navy from coal to oil. An admiral told him coal was a tradition of the Royal Navy, Churchill reportedly said, there are only three traditions of the Royal Navy, rum, sodomy, and the lash.
Aaaaah, but the special circumstances of the case ARE covered within the rules, just not defined.
If I have to keep to the right side I can never make an approach to my berth on my port side, bows pointing out of the harbour. I have to approach with the wharf getting ever closer on my port side (against the flow of pleasure craft in a ceaseless procession on weekends) till we touch/hit it.
You just have to make that maneuver when it does not impede others, or arrange agreeable passing arrangements with them while you are doing it
You don’t get to just go where you want in conflict with the rules because your vessel is not maneuverable.
All that said if the issue is just small pleasure craft and you are restricted to the channel, that is covered in the rules and they should not impede your movements.
I make the manoeuver to meet my arrival times (arranged with the port authority), not a thousand small craft skippered occasionally by pedants. I agree to pass by standing on, bosun shouting and waving from the bow, blast the whistle etc because I’m unable to do otherwise. Most boats simply understand what I’m doing, comply and keep clear. Do you adjust your tanker’s berthing course and speed for such things? No, and nor do I.
I am not in conflict with the rules as I’ve said. It’s my only option. And my vessel not being manoeuvrable is a consideration which can be well ascertained by all and sundry. Is your tanker manoeuvrable? Surely you can duck one way or the other?
But I’m NOT restricted to the channel (the whole harbour is navigable) but my berth doesn’t shift just because of the ‘rules’. I can only approach on the left side of the harbour to give room to turn to the other side (which then comes on my left) and straighten up to berth port side to into the prevailing winds and pleasure craft coming home.
And I sometimes do this three times a day.
Still can’t see the ‘special circumstances’?
I’m getting nastygrams from the system telling me to allow other ‘voices and perspectives’ so please go for it everyone. What would you do?
Under the old rules the terms were privileged and burdened. The term stand-on more clearly communicates the fact that that stand-on vessel has responsibilities as well.
By google search it seems the term “right of way” is used in yacht racing. I would think hearing the term “right of way” from a professional mariner would indicate a superficial understanding of the COLREGS.
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.
There is sufficient sea room to avoid getting into a risk of collision situation. Open sea
Not sufficient room to safely avoid RoC situations, steering and sailing rules are followed. In restricted waters and/or heavy traffic.
Special circumstances. For example a large ship being pulled off a berth by tugs.
This becomes obvious for example when approaching a pilot station with small coasters about. In the open sea small, slow coasters can be avoided altogether. Nearer the coast close quarters situations are avoided in compliance with the rules. Finally, in a tight spot, making a lee for the pilot boat or berthing with tugs small coasters would be expected to stay clear.
The issue is the location of the boundaries between these three cases. The mariner uses his best judgement and in the event of a collision a judge will decide.
Farwell’s has several example cases of collisions in or near ports which were ruled to be violations of COLREGS Rule 2. None of the cases in Farwell’s cites port bylaws.
If there was collision involving violation of special port rules I’d think likely that would also be a Rule 2 violation.
