I’m unfamiliar with Captain Farwell. In New Zealand ports come under the jurisdiction of the Harbourmaster and not a Captain of the Port.
The Harbourmaster is a Master Mariner and is part of local government under the mayor.
A typical by-law (local Ordinance) states that pleasure craft are to keep clear of vessels greater than 500 ton.
I wasn’t sure what you meant. I was thinking about the “traffic lights” in Japan. For example in Yokohama the lights on the end of some breakwaters that flash "I’, “O” or “F” for Inbound, outbound (large ships) or free (for small coasters). I’d think if a ship was to violate those signals it would be contrary to Rule 2.
I do recall one of the pilots in Germany mentioning a requirement for smaller vessels to stay clear.
Professional mariners, military and civilian, will find this book to be an invaluable reference in understanding the rules of the road and the role these rules play in managing the risk of collision.
The author provides a thorough commentary on the rules and an analysis of collision cases involving abuse of the rules. Maritime attorneys and judges will find the book continues to be an indispensable reference on collision law as Craig Allen provides a mariner’s insight into how the rules apply in context and their application by the courts and administrative tribunals.
This new edition completely revises chapters on the rules pertaining to good seamanship and special circumstances and on restricted visibility, and it vastly expands coverage of the narrow channel rule, traffic separation schemes, and the application of the rules to high-speed craft. It also extensively revises materials on the lookout and risk of collision responsibilities to update coverage on radar and ARPA and to address new technologies, such as integrated bridge systems, automatic identification systems, voyage data recorders and the increasingly active role of VTS.
The first update in ten years, the eighth edition upholds and even surpasses the standards set over the past sixty years of the guide’s publication.
Mine is the 6th Edition.
It sounds similar to A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules by A Cockcroft and J Lameijer first published in 1965 and now in its 7th edition. It is widely used in Commonwealth study and as a reference in Admiralty court.
Yes … but … laws don’t necessarily help at the time of incident. I have to collide and defend myself in court. I haven’t collided. And, as I’ve stated previously, my attitude is to grit my teeth and stand on when I’m confronted in relatively open waters outside the inner harbour (ie I can manoeuver, inconveniently) by a small craft on a collision course. 99.99% of them are just coming to stickybeak and wave, but there’s still that odd one that isn’t.
I had one incident entering harbour, going against the flow of small craft so I had room to turn to the berth. No matter how obvious I made it that I wanted to get as close as possible to the wharf on my port side, Mr Pedant in a 10m motor boat - I’m a 55m ship - insisted on making even more obvious he wanted to pass down my port side (as he later insisted was the right thing). He eventually passed down that side with about 15 metres clearance either side (not comfy for me) and we naturally exchanged words. He complained to the port authority who had hitherto been happy watching with tacit approval from their tower this method of entry of this ship for the last 35 years, and the port authority (an underling shiny bum, not the Harbour Master) rang me demanding my explanation which was given with some emphasis. I told him the facts which he didn’t understand. No mention of by-laws. But I never heard any more.
So by-laws might cover it, and I dare say a ship under pilotage would have the wherewithall to charge the miscreant, it just raises an interesting COLREGs question which most people here have told me I’m wrong about or just spat insults and condescension. If so, there are many previous captain’s also impugned.
Close quarters situations between large and small craft within the port are comprehensively covered by the law of tonnage. I can relate; threading a (tiny) ship into the narrow inlets of Brittany, you find yourself in an unholy soup of launches and day sailors that collectively form a sort of viscous fluid that flows around you. The solution is to go dead slow and just let them carry on, because they are far too numerous to address individually.
Of course, a sailing ship is different in that it requires some way on to turn, as opposed to a small motor ship that has the shortest turn radius at a standstill. I barely get what we’re talking about here, since the biggest long keeled sailboat I’ve handled in close quarters was short of 70 feet in length. I get how that’d make you uncomfortable. If you’re in dire need, you can always post someone on the bow so scream “I’ve got no thrusters!” I’ve seen that tactic deployed to great effect 
Entering yacht harbors with any kind of ship tends to elicit a response from the harbormaster. More often than not, they will send the harbor tender to guide you in, act as standby tug and yell at the launches. It always made me feel uncomfortably conspicuous, but it’s useful nonetheless. I’ve never caught heat for any stupidity that arises, but neither have I been doing this for nearly as long as @Jughead
Also, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on long range collision avoidance, as applied to navy vessels or otherwise.
I understand that but my point to the deep sea mariners here’s that the actual rules have to be ‘broken’ because of the special circumstances of these cases and thus these departures from the normal rules (keeping to the left rather than to the right of a channel/harbour is such a departure), actually comply with the rules. I’ve yet to hear from someone who concurs despite them all having to do likewise when berthing large ships.
I do. Also for lookout as I’m conning from the poop deck aft and vision forward past three masts, a bowsprit and their sails and rigging is impossible without constantly moving from side to side.
Well, you picked a poor example to illustrate the central point of your argument. Yes, it’s an instance where departures from the rules are made as a matter of course, although you could have gone with ship vs support tug if you really wanted to make it noncontroversial. However, it does nothing to substantiate your position on Navy vessels routinely operating outside the COLREGS.
I used those examples because they are actual, real examples I experience underway regularly. I’ve spoken with dozens of other tall ship captains and all of them agreed they generally stand on for small craft closing on steady bearings where it’s probable they are just coming over for a look. They tend to sound multiple blasts more than I do.
I could have, but that wouldn’t be a real example for me. And I don’t avoid controversy. I state cases as I see them. The controversy is in the eye of the beholder, not me. But thank you for acknowledging the bit about ‘departures from the rules’.
Where have I ever stated that? In my navy days we were utter sticklers for observing the rules. What seems to be controversial is that I said warships I had served in tended to keep well clear of merchant ships (by altering away before there’s any need to invoke the rules) and almost deferential to them. I’ve seen a fleet of warships halt a complicated live firing exercise for an hour whilst a merchant ship pottered through a designated active firing area. We could have continued firing safely but we stopped and a thousand sailors stood around waiting.
That’s the exact opposite of what youseem to be accusing me of.
But that’s not what you said.
I don’t see it. Two versions of the same thing. We stayed away. What’s so hard about that. The rules might have become relevant much later after a period of time, but we stayed away prior to that.
That’s the plain English. You’re trying to invoke colregs to oblige warships to stand on for a considerable period when they may well want the freedom to do other manoeuvring. So they turned early. There’s NO issue other than in your mind.
What’s your problem with that?
Ugggg. How many more days is this thread going to last?
How many times can I say the same thing and still be deliberately misunderstood?
Perhaps you could provide a precise definition of the term “right of way” in the context of the int COLREGS.
Nope. Can’t be bothered to be as pedantic as you. Got better things to do.
One problem with simply saying “just follow the rules” is the ambiguity with regards to following the steering and sailing rules vs cases where Rule 2 is used.
There is another source of ambiguity; when the situation between vessels is non symmetrical.
For example when there is a large difference between size and maneuverability between the vessels. This is when the so-called “tonnage rule” get invoked.
But there can also be asymmetry in information. For example a small, fast, highly maneuverable vessel approaching a larger, less maneuverable vessel. The case of a jet ski approaching a large tanker.
The operator of the jet ski may know he plans to turn at the last second but the tanker can not be sure.
I entirely concur. So what’s the answer to my real life examples?
I was thinking about this bit:
I realize now that this thread got split off that one. Please excuse my confusion.
What? I was talking about your views, as espoused by yourself, without as much as detailing my interpretation of what they might be. How in the world could that be viewed as accusatory?
OK. I concede. But my point essentially is that if warships do strange things they will always assume it is the warship’s onus to keep clear and not impede the merchant ship’s passage in any way.
Sorry. It was probably the ‘poor example’ bit that I was reacting to.
I’m also a small boat sailer and appreciate that side or things too when mixing it with shipping.
First of all. KC is informed and is wanting to have an informed discussion with you.
Secondly, since when is being a pedant a trait that a good captain should shy away from? I’m not talking about every little nitpicking thing, but the COLREGS are something that the small details and terminology could mean the difference between poverty or jail time in the case of an accident.
If I am going to play fast and loose with the COLREGS, I’d better be prepared for a major comeuppance when I am being interviewed or deposed in the aftermath. You can call that pedantic but I call it professionalism.
4 Likes