I would add that there are two thoughts here: 1) identfiying risk of collision. It is different for professionals and boaters. I’m comfortable with a close CPA if I know the other vessel sees me and is a fellow professional. I’m more nervous with sailing vessels (or boats for that matter) who may have a license but aren’t necessarily making a living on the water. These vessels frighten me the most as they think they know the rules, push limits, and think that their CPA is adequate for the other vessel. Perhaps it’s worth teaching to gain perspective for what the other vessel sees; hence, effective Bridge Resource Management.
2) Breathing Room: all too often sailboats approach us at the pier or at anchor. It makes me nervous as their eyes are necessarily forward, but fixated on my vessel. I use the term sailboats because more often than not, it’s a sailboat that approaches us entirely too close (say less than 100 yards). The other manuver is when they manuver out of the channel but quickly take my stern entirely too close. I’m sure their comfort is from maneuvering in close proximity with other sailboats, but that comfort doesn’t necessarily carry from one vessel to another. After all, your master’s credentials aren’t visible on a sailboat as they are on a commercial ship.
So Dockhead. I am on page 7 of (at this time) 37 pages. Do tell how this story ends! 
Many vessel encounters involve judgements regarding circumstances, limitations of the vessels and so forth and not a legalistic analysts of which rule applies. The S/V folks seem to have the perception that the application of the rules is some kind of jockeying for advantage in contrast to the professional approach which is to minimize risk
.That thread seems to me like a search for good seamanship and judgement within the pages of the COLREGS.
K.C.
Hallo WAFI,
thanks for bringing up this item. I work on coasters in Europe. That means I have to deal with those situations plenty times every watch during the summer season. So just a few comments from my side:
-
Always remember that you are a bicycle on a highway when you use or cross a main traffic route. The healthiest way to navigate for you is to stay out of these routes. Even better: stay in waters too shallow for me and we will never have any problems.
-
If you have to use or cross those routes, make a plan where to do this. Avoid to cross there where all the big ships will alter their course (bends, junctions…).
-
Clearly show me your intention. Do not zig-zag in the lane, but cross it in the shortest possible time.
-
If you are 5 miles away you will see me, but I do not necessarily see you. If I see you I will not do anything to avoid a collision until you are much closer. Experience has taught me that yachts (or fishing boats) very often change their minds. It happened too often to me that I altered course to pass astern of a yacht only to find her tacking and being on collision course again from the other side. Now I wait and obersve the yacht until my TCPA with her is 6 min and if she is still on collision course I get out of her way.
-
For me a CPA of 2 cables is perfectly ok to overtake a yacht or be on oppositie courses. In crossing situations 4-5 cables are fine. If I manouver I will pass 2 cables astern of you.
-
You are not the only target on my radar. I have to stay clear of all vessels within vicinity. I might have a fleet of fishing boats on my stbd side which I need to pass before I can alter course to avoid you!
-
If I feel that I cannot avoid you - e.g. because I need to navigate within a narrow channel, or I did see you too late, or I have doubts about your intentions I will sound my typhoon. I will not use VHF, because if I call the “sailing yacht in the fairway to …” I will receive replies from umpteen other yachts in the area, but not from you. While we sort it out, I move at 15 kts - what means 2.5 cables per minute!
-
As per COLREG always note rule 2: the special circumstances.
Rgds, Baerbel.
[QUOTE=Capt. Nemo;83179]Grease pencil and a straight edge=quick CPA. All you need is two marks on the sreen at a convenient interval (six minutes works) and a line through them extended through your course…assuming everybody keeps doing what they’re doing. Voila! CPA, plus, if you really want to get salty, his course and speed.
[/QUOTE]
Yacht radar screens are often too small for grease pencil plotting so I’d suggest to WAFI to carry aboard some radar transfer plotting sheets (dma 5089). In fact you don’t even need a radar to use 5089’s you can simply take the range and bearing measurements from AIS at 6 minute intervals and plot from there. This method will also give you other information that some yacht radars don’t provide like bow crossing range.
[QUOTE=water;83169]
2. If you don’t have a VHF RAM in the cockpit, get a handheld. Not much of an investment to be able to communicate.
[/QUOTE]
Working on a drillship I’m a big advocate of using handheld VHF’s to contact nearby small boats to make certain I don’t get replies from, as bythewind puts it, “umpteen other yachts”. You can alternatively put your fixed VHF in low power mode and transmit at 1 watt but it’s too easy to forget to switch it back to high power after the call.
I’d love to make this standard practice on all vessels from yacht to ships because I don’t need to hear any communications from a vessel 30 miles away.
Yes but most sailors use AIS-B units which have limited options compared to our AIS-A units:
Class B (AIS) is nearly identical to the Class A, except the Class B:
Has a reporting rate less than a Class A (e.g. every 30 sec. when under 14 knots, as opposed to every 10 sec. for Class A)
Does not transmit the vessel’s IMO number or call sign
Does not transmit ETA or destination
Does not transmit navigational status
Is only required to receive, not transmit, text safety messages
Is only required to receive, not transmit, application identifiers (binary messages)
Does not transmit rate of turn information
Does not transmit maximum present static draught
I think part of the issue it that in many (most) countries there not such a thing as a sailing boat navigation licence. It is: pull-up the main and go! and [I]everybody [/I]knows: “[U]sailboats have the right of way”[/U].
Many sailors started as kids on five to six feet long boats and progressed upward and outward as personal experience grew but not necessarily formal education. Most sailors have [U]read[/U] about navigation rules but far too few were properly taught what it really means.
Another part of the issue is that, unless you have been on the bridge of a big ship, you have no clue of what it really means. I am not talking necessarily about a 300m / 25 kn fancy cruiseship. Even a 40m coaster will do. Because 12 or 18 kn is very different than 6 kn, because when you say “turn” or “stop”, there are some very looooong seconds before anything happens. Because on a very big ship, you may have a bling spot that extend up to 500m upfront the bow, not the bridge, the bow…
I started sailing when I was nine but I finally understood what big ships were about when I saw on my training ship first night out so many moving dots on the radar screen, and, when I arrived for the first time in New York harbor on a beautiful summer weekend with everything that floated on the water.
In any crossing situation, the stand-on vessel has a five-step process she must abide by. The give-way vessel has two (or three, depending upon who you ask) obligations. Let’s get the give-way vessel’s duties out of the way:
The power driven vessel must keep out of the way of the sailing vessel. Early and [B]substantial [/B]action is called for, which logically implies that simply slowing down is not the first choice. A noticeable alteration of course to starboard is always best, as it allows the stand-on vessel to relax a bit.
Now, to the stand-on vessel’s responsibilities: Being stand-on sucks, as we all know. Here’s the order that must be followed as stand-on in a crossing situation (in this case, the sailing vessel)
- Crossing situation where no risk of collision exists: Either vessel MAY do whatever they wish while operating in accordance with Rules 1 (Application). 2 (Responsibility, 5 (safe speed), Rule 6 (Lookout), etc.
- Crossing situation where risk of collision exists: The stand-on vessel MUST hold her course and speed.
- If there is any doubt by EITHER vessel as to the other’s intentions, Rule 34(d) IMMEDIATELY applies. Generally this means the stand-on vessel MUST sound five or more short and rapid blasts. But so MUST the give-way vessel, if in doubt.
- If there continues to be doubt on the part of the stand-on vessel, she MAY maneuver to avoid collision.
- If the vessels are now “In extremis”, the stand-on vessel MUST take action to avoid collision.
Rule 2 makes is abundantly clear that every vessel has the responsibility to avoid collision. Being stand-on conveys no privilege and substantial anxiety when the give-way vessel is slow to act. When you are the give-way vessel in a crossing situation, put yourself on the bridge of the stand-on vessel and ask yourself what you’d like that give-way vessel to be doing. And then do it. NOW.
Regarding the use of VHF for passing arrangements, I see no reason to use the radio while properly following the COLREGS, with the exception being when I’m the give-way vessel in an overtaking situation. Then I’ll call simply as a courtesy because I’ll almost guarantee the stand-on vessel doesn’t even know I’m overtaking. Only tugboaters on the wire look behind them.
The US mindset of “intent” encourages radio use even in International COLREGS waters but the rest of the world frowns on it as they are always in “execution” mode. They don’t have to agree on any arrangements. Try to make VHF passing arrangements in the UK for example and you’ll ruffle some feathers. The expectation is that you’ll simply follow the International rules that clearly define your responsibilities. American mariners get messed up by the Inland Rules which require arrangements to be made when within 0.5 nm.
My 0.02 worth.
References:
[I]
Rule 2 - Responsibility
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.[/I]
[I] Rule 34(d)
“When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle. [Such | This] signal may be supplemented by at least five short and rapid flashes.”[/I]
Please note the use of “shall” in the Rule.
[I]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.
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.
(ii) 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.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
© A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.
[/I]
[I]Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.[/I]
WAFI just remember one thing, red left return! You stay just outside the buoys, I’ll stay inside the buoys and we’ll both be fine.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;83623]Many vessel encounters involve judgements regarding circumstances, limitations of the vessels and so forth and not a legalistic analysts of which rule applies. The S/V folks seem to have the perception that the application of the rules is some kind of jockeying for advantage in contrast to the professional approach which is to minimize risk
.That thread seems to me like a search for good seamanship and judgement within the pages of the COLREGS.
K.C.
the thread is here Freighters vs sailboats[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think that’s an important observation.
When we teach young sailors we try to tell them that there is no such thing as “right of way” at sea, and that being designated the stand-on vessel does not mean that you have anything like the right of way on the road. We tell them that the reason for designating one vessel as stand-on and the other as give-way is primarily so that one vessel can take the initiative in initiating a maneuver and can assume a constant speed and course from the other vessel so that he can figure out the best manuever – can’t be done if both vessels maneuver at the same time. Unlike on the road, both vessels at all times are responsible for avoiding a collision.
That’s what we teach them, anyway – to what extent it sinks in varies.
[QUOTE=dougpine;83743]In any crossing situation, the stand-on vessel has a five-step process she must abide by. The give-way vessel has two (or three, depending upon who you ask) obligations. Let’s get the give-way vessel’s duties out of the way:
The power driven vessel must keep out of the way of the sailing vessel. Early and [B]substantial [/B]action is called for, which logically implies that simply slowing down is not the first choice. A noticeable alteration of course to starboard is always best, as it allows the stand-on vessel to relax a bit.
Now, to the stand-on vessel’s responsibilities: Being stand-on sucks, as we all know. Here’s the order that must be followed as stand-on in a crossing situation (in this case, the sailing vessel)
- Crossing situation where no risk of collision exists: Either vessel MAY do whatever they wish while operating in accordance with Rules 1 (Application). 2 (Responsibility, 5 (safe speed), Rule 6 (Lookout), etc.
- Crossing situation where risk of collision exists: The stand-on vessel MUST hold her course and speed.
- If there is any doubt by EITHER vessel as to the other’s intentions, Rule 34(d) IMMEDIATELY applies. Generally this means the stand-on vessel MUST sound five or more short and rapid blasts. But so MUST the give-way vessel, if in doubt.
- If there continues to be doubt on the part of the stand-on vessel, she MAY maneuver to avoid collision.
- If the vessels are now “In extremis”, the stand-on vessel MUST take action to avoid collision.
Rule 2 makes is abundantly clear that every vessel has the responsibility to avoid collision. Being stand-on conveys no privilege and substantial anxiety when the give-way vessel is slow to act. When you are the give-way vessel in a crossing situation, put yourself on the bridge of the stand-on vessel and ask yourself what you’d like that give-way vessel to be doing. And then do it. NOW.
Regarding the use of VHF for passing arrangements, I see no reason to use the radio while properly following the COLREGS, with the exception being when I’m the give-way vessel in an overtaking situation. Then I’ll call simply as a courtesy because I’ll almost guarantee the stand-on vessel doesn’t even know I’m overtaking. Only tugboaters on the wire look behind them.
The US mindset of “intent” encourages radio use even in International COLREGS waters but the rest of the world frowns on it as they are always in “execution” mode. They don’t have to agree on any arrangements. Try to make VHF passing arrangements in the UK for example and you’ll ruffle some feathers. The expectation is that you’ll simply follow the International rules that clearly define your responsibilities. American mariners get messed up by the Inland Rules which require arrangements to be made when within 0.5 nm.
My 0.02 worth.
References:
[I]
Rule 2 - Responsibility
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.[/I]
[I] Rule 34(d)
“When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle. [Such | This] signal may be supplemented by at least five short and rapid flashes.”[/I]
Please note the use of “shall” in the Rule.
[I]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.
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.
(ii) 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.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
© A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.
[/I]
[I]Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.[/I][/QUOTE]
A superb summary, I think.
It’s pretty much exactly what I do, except that I will not stand on as long as the Colregs probably require if I have any doubt about your intentions. In open waters, two miles is my decision point – if we still have 0 CPA and we’re only two miles apart, I’m outta there – usually a tack onto a course reciprocal to yours so you pass by quickly.
Now I know that this might be a dangerous manuever if we are close enough and you manuever at the same time to pass behind me. It’s why I really just will not leave it until later than two miles, because the reciprocal course is much easier for me and gets us disengaged much faster. I let you get past, then simply tack back across your wake back onto my course.
If this seems unseamanlike to any of you, I would be grateful for comments.
[QUOTE=joepilot;83783]WAFI just remember one thing, red left return! You stay just outside the buoys, I’ll stay inside the buoys and we’ll both be fine.[/QUOTE]
Except the buoys are the other way around in Europe!
But yes, that’s what we teach them. Whenever there are buoys, Rule 9 rules – stay out and well clear unless you are certain you are not interfering with shipping.
It might be useful for you to know, however, that there are a few cases where we can’t do it – my vessel, for example, draws 2.5 meters and at low tide there are places where I can’t navigate outside the marked channel, just like you. A fairly rare case, but it does happen. I’ve been on large blowboats (e.g., a Swan 90) that draw 4 meters.
Hi
I´m Just a Sailor and Cruiser and also Racer,and i am out on the Big Blue since i am a kid.
I know there are a lot of rules but,when i see something bigger than me, coming fast, no matter how or when i see it, i get the hell outa there!
I´d rather take the trouble to maneuver and change course than continue straight to the bottom! And that can happen and the big ship,if no one is on bridge,won´t even notice!
Now here is a very nice device made by some cool french fellows that can help you,Sailor,to detect radar signals way before your radar detects the bigger one,if you have a radar!
If you do not,get it right away so you can go play checkers or make that coffee in peace while not on deck
http://www.foxtrot-marine.com/product_info.php?products_id=1157
Specially,if.like me you are a lonely sailor! 
[QUOTE=WAFI;83891]A superb summary, I think.
It’s pretty much exactly what I do, except that I will not stand on as long as the Colregs probably require if I have any doubt about your intentions. In open waters, two miles is my decision point – if we still have 0 CPA and we’re only two miles apart, I’m outta there – usually a tack onto a course reciprocal to yours so you pass by quickly.
Now I know that this might be a dangerous manuever if we are close enough and you manuever at the same time to pass behind me. It’s why I really just will not leave it until later than two miles, because the reciprocal course is much easier for me and gets us disengaged much faster. I let you get past, then simply tack back across your wake back onto my course.
If this seems unseamanlike to any of you, I would be grateful for comments.[/QUOTE]
The COLREGS don’t specify an amount of time during which you must stand on. If there’s doubt, sound the signal per 34(d), and then that opens the door for you to take action. If you do this, and there happens to then be a collision, you have followed the rules and this will limit your exposure to liability. If you skip the danger signal and go directly to the MAY take action step and wind up in a collision, you’ll be awarded a higher percentage of liability as you failed to follow the proper order of things.
For much more in-depth analysis from the perspective of the Admiralty courts, read Farwell’s.
Thanks for the compliment as well!
Cheers,
Doug
Actually in Europe it is red-left-return (IALA-A). 
Cross posted from cruiser forum
(1) I think everyone acknowledges that the " just run away " action is flawed. HOWEVER the reason that’s it’s common are two fold
( 1.a) the consequences of a subsequent close quarters situation are almost universally bad for the sailboat
(1.b) many sailors have the experience that despite being the stand on vessel, they find there is no action by the give way vessel. A vessel that is closing at significant speed. This inaction may be unintentional , they didn’t see us, or deliberate. The resulting close quarters situation may leave the sailboat with no safe exit strategy.
(1.c) while Cockcroft et al. are clear that early action by the stand on vessel is incorrect, most sailing boats merely want " not to be there " a very commendable thought.
(2) I fail to accept as a general case that close quarters situations develop because people on sailing boats fail to assess correctly that possibility of collision exists.
(3) close quarters situations develop because sailing boats are in general the stand on vessel, are correctly applying the COLREGS and the approaching merchant vessel does not apply the COLREGS ( for whatever reason) . If merchant vessels applied the COLREGS as required we wouldn’t be talking about this issue here. Excuses such as turning circles, stopping speeds , or that you have already agreed certain passing strategies the other large ships ARE IRRELEVANT, the sailing vessel,under the COLREGS is the stand on vessel and you are required to change course and give way. If you cannot do so correctly you should slow right down so as to facilitate such a manoeuvre.
(4) Merchant vessels have adopted watch policies and bridge management routines that make it difficult for them to detect small sailing vessels. It could be argued therefore that merchant vessels progressing through any area frequented by sailing vessels
should slow right up. See COLREGS rule 6, This of course is never going to happen.
(5) it could be argued that the current COLREGS is unsuitable today for the determination of crossing strategies between modern fast commercial vessels and slow sailing vessels. The COLREGS in my opinion should reflect the reality that sail gives way to large vessels. I know the Italian delegation to the IMO conference suggested such.
(6) the determination of exact or near exact CPA , in effect the determination of relative course is very difficult in trying conditions. ( night, bad weather ,etc) EBL techniques do not provide any additional accuracy. The resulting course actually lies within a cone of error. A typical sailboat cannot exit that cone of error in time This is why one posters actions of turning 180 provides no comfort, you may simply find that all you have done is actually sailed further into the cone. ( see the Wakuna incident )
(7) Fundamentally many merchant vessels do not see or do not act when a sailing vessel is a potential collision target. ( for example see the pride of Bilbao incident ) no amount of " good practice " by merchant vessels overlooks that fact.
(8) The excuse of “not seeing you” or detecting you on radar is NO excuse by merchant vessels. The COLREGS offer no solace there. In fact the current practice of driving large vessels by radar. Is specifically warned about in the COLREGS ( decisions based on scanty radar data). A sailing vessel not appearing on radar is just that , scanty radar data. See COLREGS 6(ii) , 6 ( iv)
(9) it’s very humerous to see merchant captains lecturing us to respect the COLREGS ( they could hardly argue anything else could they) however they would do well to sail in small boats to see the lack of application by merchant vessels of such rules when in the vicinity of small sailing vessels.
(10) the consequence of this situation is the “associated with the lack of a systematic, disciplined approach to identification of collision risks.” that applies in the situations under question
I am excluding TSSs and narrow channels or any RAM conditions.
Dave
Shared via Cruisers.
Sent from my Ipad2
Shared post from ‘Cruisers Forum’ from thread ‘Freighters vs. sailboats’:
(1) I think everyone acknowledges that the " just run away " or the jig about ( for sailboats ) action is flawed. HOWEVER the reason that’s it’s common are two fold
( 1.a) the consequences of a subsequent close quarters situation are almost universally bad for the sailboat
(1.b) many sailors have the experience that despite being the stand on vessel, they find there is no action by the give way vessel. A vessel that is closing at significant speed. This inaction may be unintentional , they didn’t see us, or deliberate. The resulting close quarters situation may leave the sailboat with no safe exit strategy.
(1.c) while Cockcroft et al. are clear that early action by the stand on vessel is incorrect, most sailing boats merely want " not to be there " a very commendable thought.
(2) I fail to accept as a general case that close quarters situations develop because people on sailing boats fail to assess correctly that possibility of collision exists.
(3) close quarters situations develop because sailing boats are in general the stand on vessel, are correctly applying the COLREGS and the approaching merchant vessel does not apply the COLREGS ( for whatever reason) . If merchant vessels applied the COLREGS as required we wouldn’t be talking about this issue here. Excuses such as turning circles, stopping speeds , or that you have already agreed certain passing strategies the other large ships ARE IRRELEVANT, the sailing vessel,under the COLREGS is the stand on vessel and you are required to change course and give way. If you cannot do so correctly you should slow right down so as to facilitate such a manoeuvre.
(4) Merchant vessels have adopted watch policies and bridge management routines that make it difficult for them to detect small sailing vessels. It could be argued therefore that merchant vessels progressing through any area frequented by sailing vessels
should slow right up. See COLREGS rule 6, This of course is never going to happen.
(5) it could be argued that the current COLREGS is unsuitable today for the determination of crossing strategies between modern fast commercial vessels and slow sailing vessels. The COLREGS in my opinion should reflect the reality that sail gives way to large vessels. I know the Italian delegation to the IMO conference suggested such.
(6) the determination of exact or near exact CPA , in effect the determination of relative course is very difficult in trying conditions. ( night, bad weather ,etc) EBL techniques do not provide any additional accuracy. The resulting course actually lies within a cone of error. A typical sailboat cannot exit that cone of error in time This is why one posters actions of turning 180 provides no comfort, you may simply find that all you have done is actually sailed further into the cone. ( see the Wakuna incident )
(7) Fundamentally many merchant vessels do not see or do not act when a sailing vessel is a potential collision target. ( for example see the pride of Bilbao incident ) no amount of " good practice " by merchant vessels overlooks that fact.
(8) The excuse of “not seeing you” or detecting you on radar is NO excuse by merchant vessels. The COLREGS offer no solace there. In fact the current practice of driving large vessels by radar. Is specifically warned about in the COLREGS ( decisions based on scanty radar data). A sailing vessel not appearing on radar is just that , scanty radar data. See COLREGS 6(ii) , 6 ( iv)
(9) it’s very humerous to see merchant captains lecturing us to respect the COLREGS ( they could hardly argue anything else could they) however they would do well to sail in small boats to see the lack of application by merchant vessels of such rules when in the vicinity of small sailing vessels.
(10) the consequence of this situation is the “associated with the lack of a systematic, disciplined approach to identification of collision risks.” that applies in the situations under question
I am excluding TSSs and narrow channels or any RAM conditions.
Remember rule 2 (due regard), which is to know the maneuverability of your vessel and respect the maneuverability of the other vessel. If you are ever involved in a collision, USCG investigations may site the pecking order, but they will question how the situation came to be. I drive a towboat and tow fuel barges, and see sailing and commercial fishing vessels often. One thing that gets me spun up is seeing a sailing vessel on a tack, as the stand on vessel, that then changes tack or heading. Now the Colregs 72 rules are meant for power driven vessels only, but when I see any stand on vessel change course I see it as having given up its stand on status. I have called a few on the VHF and notified them their actions were “interfering with my ability to keep clear of them” and that seems to work, at the expense of the other captain’s ego however. It doesn’t hurt to hail a vessel to let them know what you are planning, it keeps them from having to guess.
One thing for sure when navigatng in a narrow channel, if another vessel puts me into a situation that threatens the safety of my towboat or the barge being towed, I would rather trade paint with that vessel then not and see them sail away unnoticed when I have to convince the Coasties that there really was another vessel that forced me to run aground. When it comes to towboats, we sometimes are totally committed to course and speed.
[QUOTE=Doug@PMI;83920]…For much more in-depth analysis from the perspective of the Admiralty courts, read Farwell’s.[/QUOTE]
Or read Farwell’s here for free: http://books.google.com/books?id=nlIYDrgc1ncC&pg=PA673&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false