Hey, I know the rules. Don’t quote them back at me in full.
Why didn’t you include the overtaking rule too? Very relevant.
Don’t you agree that a becalmed sailing vessel is a special circumstance of a case and therefore to be considered under the ordinary practice of seamen and just go around?
All of those cases you suggest compel the sailing vessel to move when it’s stopped are from vessels which can manoeuvre as required if, for instance, they approach the sailing vessel as overtaking vessels and have a total obligation to keep clear. They can all just go around and every rule is satisfied. Why do they have to collide?
You asked for the rule, I gave you the rule where a stopped vessel must maneuver.
Because a vessel being overtaken is not required to maneuver, so I did not include that in the rules where a stopped vessel is required to maneuver. And if you are on a stopped vessel, you are not overtaking, unless the vessel is approaching you stern first while operating astern, which is a special circumstance not covered by the rules.
Rule 13 supersedes any contradiction of rules for vessels in sight of one another. Pretty cut and dry.
No, I mean most authoritative texts say this is an exceptional circumstance, not a special circumstance.
Not to quote the rules again, but:
(b) A sailing vessel underwayshall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
So if you want to be a sailing vessel, and not NUC, you’re going to need to move if any of these are approaching forward of 2 points abaft the beam.
You are on the bridge ( any moving ship able to maneuver) there is a vessel showing the lights of a sailing vessel. You plot it and it is DIW - it stays DIW for a bit - You go around it.
The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
I’m not saying fishing vessels, UNREP vessels, or a power driven vessel who also has a steering casualty should run over a sailing vessel out of spite, but like it’s pretty clear that the sailing vessel would be required move. and if it’s Unable to move, its NUC.
Exactly. and vessels that are underway, and also match a rule 3 definition shall keep out of the way
Take it up with the IMO, I don’t know what else to tell you, that’s what the rules say.
I’m sorry, that was two separate thoughts, not clearly delineated.
The authoritative text that says a becalmed sailing vessel with no other means of propulsion is NUC.
A sailing vessel that meets the definition of Underway, is required to keep out of the way of NUC, RAM and Fishing
I don’t think anybody has claimed that Remøybuen had a right to ram the Sjøbris, no matter what rules may have been broken by Sjøbris. That is why Remøybuen was found to have 80% blame and liability.
Remøybuen, blt. 1960. Seen here as new, preparing for Tuna fishery off Ghana:
Sjøbris was found 20% to blame in an enquiry per maritime law as applicable at the time (1967)
She was a wooden fishing vessel, blt. 1953:
(Not a pleasure boat with sail and an outboard engine)
PS> She MAY have had a Mizzan on the aft mast as a steadying sail:
I’m not saying you’re supposed to hit them, I’m saying they’re NUC. You’re also supposed to go around under 17(ii). This all started because a vessel was found to be 20% at fault for not showing NUC. That’s still mostly not at fault.
If you are unable to maneuver, you’re unable to maneuver, and therefore you’re NUC. You shouldn’t hit a NUC or a give way vessel, or a stand on vessel. The idea is not to hit anyone.
I’m just saying, you will be found partially at fault for not showing lights and shapes as NUC if you’re NUC, and you get hit by a stand on vessel.
I will run several AI deep searchs on the topic as well.
It’s a 500 page text on COLREGS, with a lot of case law and discussion on what’s in the rules. It’s in it’s 9th edition, originally being published in 1940. It’s way more in depth than any other text I’ve seen. It’s published by the Naval Institute press, which I realize now is American, but there is a lot more discussion on international law and cases.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing in favour of a vessel “standing on” towards a stopped vessel. It’s pretty clear that both Rule 2 and Rule 17, as well as common sense, would call for altering course around them. That part is obvious.
The more interesting question is what rights and responsibilities may still attach to such a stopped vessel. Think of them as akin to legal concepts of “last clear chance” or “duty to mitigate”, where just because you’re the one being wronged, the damages you could claim may be reduced if you simply “let it happen” when you had a clear chance to mitigate them.
True, but say I am becalmed dead center in the channel to Baltimore with a dead engine and no ships can get around me without running aground. They will probably think I would start my engine and move when they show up.
In a case like that I would not want to just sit there and hope they figure it out.
Real life answer - if you are becalmed in the middle of a deep water channel- you should be on 13/16 announcing it to the world as often and loudly as you can, so ships can do something about it and someone can get out there and tow you out. Hopefully hand you a big expensive bill for doing it
Being in irons is a temporary situation in any sailing vessel. It’s a time of flogging sails and high activity with all hands and nobody is ever going to be spared to hoist NUC shapes into that confusion. Again, any seaman approaching must, if he’s conforming with the ordinary practice of seamen, simply go around exactly as he would do if the sailing ship showed NUC (which is almost impossible to see amongst numerous sails by day anyway - night is easier).
It seems we are arguing a technicality of the rarest event possible. No occurrences, as I would expect. The probability of one of the longish list of privileged vessels that might happen along to disturb things is exceedingly remote.
The unpowered schooner (not showing NUC) had rights as a sailing vessel over the ship that hit her. But the court added,
" that the schooner’s inability to maneuver placed a heightened duty on the powered vessel to keep clear. This is consistent with the idea that a becalmed sail vessel is to be treated akin to a vessel “not under command” in terms of rights and obligations."
In other words, dear mariners, stay away, go around.
P.S. I liked the AI output. Thank you.
Yes, really. I was trained rigorously in this and have been spot tested regularly throughout my naval career (with serious consequences for failure) and never heard of this American publication. I firmly believe you can get by with just the rules, but acknowledge the input from investigations.
