Sign in to follow this  
nolatom

Don't impede the regatta (rowers)

Recommended Posts

Master of the river cruise boat gets his license suspended for endangering some racing shells during a rowing event:

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/1cbeaa9

Presumably the same would apply to sailing regattas.  And getting a Coast Guard regatta permit likely makes a big difference in how you get treated when someone cuts through the course.

As a license-holder and former Coastie, I'm also aware of the problems the commercial captains (particularly those with a set time schedule) have in busy multi-use harbors, rivers, and bays.  More so with sailboats, especially during upwind legs when we racing sailors are all over the place, like a friggin' popcorn machine when viewed from the wheelhouse of a large power vessel.   But the rules are the rules...   and a radio call to that big slow-maneuvering vessel advising that you are going to have to tack over in front of them, or that you plan to tack back away before getting directly ahead of them, is a huge courtesy that most sailors don't seem to extend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how a permit gives anyone special right of way unless the CG decided to block off an area for you exclusively. They do that here for the swimming race across the Bay among other things.

As for radio calls for every tack - well I sure as hell would tell a big tanker or a tug with a tow what was going on. Results are variable, I have had some ships speed up or slow down to be clear and others will more or less say GTFO and lay on 5 horns. For *tour boats*, NFW. At least in Annapolis the number of boats sailing and the number of tour boats of various types would result in nonstop radio chatter and they are just kinda big powerboats that can move out of the way about as easily as the 4 story motor-yacht monstrosities. Besides for that at least one of the fucktards that runs the Harbor Queen would be more likely to get IN the way than get OUT of the way if you give them a hint on what they should not do :angry::rolleyes:

EDIT - I just read the CG report. *Row boats* are stand-on, racing or not. If you hit them or cut them off, well you're busted! This guy hit TWO of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen something similar when a tug captain chose to push a barge right through the finish line as the fleet was coming in to finish. We had a permit. The tug captain lost his license. 

Oh, and pics because it happened. 

28442A05-FDE2-41AE-827E-461980DB1BB4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Monkey said:

I’ve seen something similar when a tug captain chose to push a barge right through the finish line as the fleet was coming in to finish. We had a permit. The tug captain lost his license. 

Oh, and pics because it happened. 

28442A05-FDE2-41AE-827E-461980DB1BB4.jpg

You put a finish line right in the middle of a commercial traffic lane that is constricted?
Really? and then you expect commerce to yield to your little nothing race?

Any reason you could not finish outside the commerce  zone/lane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is a "commercial traffic lane" and double WTF is a "commerce lane" and how do YOU know this is where the finish line is :unsure:

I have set finish lines that were maybe 500 feet long in a river 3 miles wide and I swear everything that floated just HAD to go through it :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

You put a finish line right in the middle of a commercial traffic lane that is constricted?
Really? and then you expect commerce to yield to your little nothing race?

Any reason you could not finish outside the commerce  zone/lane?

That is a laughably incorrect statement. First off, we were miles away from anything resembling a shipping lane. He had 60+ miles of unrestricted space to the side of that race course. That one tug made up the entire amount of commercial traffic seen during the week long event. 

The “little nothing” race was a Lightning North Americans with 100+ boats. Because of that, we filed for a permit with the coast guard and they approved the location because it is quite literally the BEST place to run races and stay out of everyone’s way. 

This was a one-off, odd captain that felt like making some strange point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those row boats were a couple 8 man shells and were on the right of the dinner cruise ship.  No special rights for the row boats, just normal give-way to the boat on your right.  And it wasn't a case with limited maneuvaribility since the cruise ship was leaving the channel and headed for their dock.  Same captain fucked up the fun at the Red Bull Flugtag by pushing his way through a crowd of boats.  Nice to see the CG doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks more to me like the Captain lost his license because he operated in an unsafe manner and broke the rules of the road.  In general, everyone has the right to navigate their vessel anywhere as long as they comply with the rules of the road, and no one has the right to restrict access to others without a permit to do so.

Most people do not seem to realize you need to apply to the CG for a permit for all racing activities, even weekly club races. You can submit one application for all events held during the year. If the CG determines that your race does not pose a hazard to navigation, then you get a letter back saying that you do not need a permit as long as you follow the plan presented in the application. I have never received a permit that allowed disruption of commercial operations although I am aware of some events that are allowed to redirect boats around the race area.

I find that if the situation is explained to people, and they are asked nicely to avoid the race area, most of them will happily stay out of the way. When someone starts yelling at them, people generally do not react well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Monkey said:
21 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

You put a finish line right in the middle of a commercial traffic lane that is constricted?
Really? and then you expect commerce to yield to your little nothing race?

Any reason you could not finish outside the commerce  zone/lane?

That is a laughably incorrect statement. First off, we were miles away from anything resembling a shipping lane. He had 60+ miles of unrestricted space to the side of that race course. That one tug made up the entire amount of commercial traffic seen during the week long event. 

The “little nothing” race was a Lightning North Americans with 100+ boats. Because of that, we filed for a permit with the coast guard and they approved the location because it is quite literally the BEST place to run races and stay out of everyone’s way. 

This was a one-off, odd captain that felt like making some strange point. 

The photo that was posted and is now gone, showed what looks like a jetty at an entrance and you make a comment with out particulars of your event. Your race may have been totally different than the situation that started the thread. Yes 100 boats is pretty obvious and should be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

 

The photo that was posted and is now gone, showed what looks like a jetty at an entrance and you make a comment with out particulars of your event. Your race may have been totally different than the situation that started the thread. Yes 100 boats is pretty obvious and should be avoided.

Not sure why Photobucket killed the photo.  I've shrunk it down to the required size and attached it as a file.  

My comment had enough details seeing as I was just using it as an example.  You could have just asked questions if you wanted all the information instead of making a badly misinformed rant. 

asdf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Not sure why Photobucket killed the photo.  I've shrunk it down to the required size and attached it as a file.  

My comment had enough details seeing as I was just using it as an example.  You could have just asked questions if you wanted all the information instead of making a badly misinformed rant. 

 

This place just wouldn't be the same without misinformed rants based on insufficient information.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason I posted it is to suggest that being able to communicate is likely to avoid more close-quarters and frayed tempers situations than it causes.  Whistle signals (other than the danger signal) are likely to be pointless and confusing.  Once you get into Lightning size or larger, a handheld VHF might become your friend, and a courtesy to that large unmaneuverable vessel (big ship, or big barge on a wire) if you both can find out what each other needs to do once you are getting into that "zone of uncertainty" about whether the Rules of the Road are by themselves going to resolve a multi-target situation.

I admit it wouldn't be practical to carry on the rowing shells, or on dinghys.  I've used it occasionally to call a barge tow in the GIWW and it helped both of us become confident as to what the other was intending or doing to stand on, or keep clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See,  here in Hawaii you stay clear of the outrigger canoes because they are like 45-foot long heavy fiberglass telephone poles with pointy ends filled with folks that wouldn't mind getting into one beef,  bra.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Well when Geronimo t-boned one at a Fri nite start it went down (sank) without a fight.. G just kept right on sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small detail on the OP is that the incident happened after the permit expired since the regatta was running late.  But it wasn't permit related, just normal right of way.  Nice that the CG did the right thing.

  They ran about 100 boats at 2 minute intervals, pretty fun to watch the organization at the start.  Very well managed, just a little late.  Slight learning would be to get a longer permit than you might think for contingency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone direct me to the part of colregs which gives paddle powered craft any specific rights at all?  Powered and sail vessels are covered in relatively exhausting detail but I've never found anything regarding paddle/oar powered craft.  Sure, you can't just run 'em over because of the avoidance of collision provision, but I've always wondered where they fit in in the scheme of whose rights are superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nettles said:

Can anyone direct me to the part of colregs which gives paddle powered craft any specific rights at all?  Powered and sail vessels are covered in relatively exhausting detail but I've never found anything regarding paddle/oar powered craft.  Sure, you can't just run 'em over because of the avoidance of collision provision, but I've always wondered where they fit in in the scheme of whose rights are superior.

+1 same for me.

I've always assumed that there were between motor boats and sailboats in the pecking order but this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panoramix said:

+1 same for me.

I've always assumed that there were between motor boats and sailboats in the pecking order but this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

rowing vessels are propelled by machinery so they are power driven.

 

a racing shell is very restricted in maneuverability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colregs are silent on rowing/paddle craft. Except the rules for nav lights for rowing craft are different than power vessels.  So there is your argument that they are not power vessels. 

They are NOT RIAM vessels according to the Colregs. Even though in the real world they can't turn very well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, listening to NPR I learned that rowers yield to ducks...

"Pearce momentarily stopped rowing to let the ducks pass; he still won with the fastest time of all 8 competitors in that round.[2] In the semifinals, "

From Wikipedia

Back to boats vs rowers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 12:28 PM, JohnMB said:

This place just wouldn't be the same without misinformed rants based on insufficient information.

Ready! FIre! Aim!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Varan said:

Yesterday, listening to NPR I learned that rowers yield to ducks...

"Pearce momentarily stopped rowing to let the ducks pass; he still won with the fastest time of all 8 competitors in that round.[2] In the semifinals, "

From Wikipedia

Back to boats vs rowers...

When I was rowing, my crew got reported for crashing into an idiotic suicidal swan who decided to rush at the last minute in front of us and got hit by an oar despite a last minute desperate swerve by the cox. The club received a rather unpleasant letter afterwards. Don't know if it's an urban legend or not but apparently in the UK all the swans belong to the queen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

rowing vessels are propelled by machinery so they are power driven.

 

a racing shell is very restricted in maneuverability.

Oh yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Panoramix said:
1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

rowing vessels are propelled by machinery so they are power driven.

 

a racing shell is very restricted in maneuverability.

Oh yes...

 

No, they are not propelled by machinery. Manually propelled vessels are mentioned several places in the Rules (just not in the pecking order of R-O-W rules) and so a judge would be very hard pressed to justify including them in "propelled by machinery."

And they are not excluded from Restricted In Maneuverability, so they could be considered thus.

A rowing shell is one of the most unhandy things on the water, and they're kinda slow (many sailboats are slower, it's true). I think any skipper invovled a collision with a rowing shell, -especially- during a race, would have a lot of 'splainin to do.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oh yes, was in response to the restricted manoeuvrability. I've witnessed a pilot gig being T-boned by another one @ nearly 7 knots, nobody was hurt but that was impressive. I've rowed and coxed occasionally river and sea rowing boats, river boats tend to race in a straight line so there are less opportunities to crash. When something gets in your way, your best bet is to stop the boat as there is little authority from the rudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

No, they are not propelled by machinery. Manually propelled vessels are mentioned several places in the Rules (just not in the pecking order of R-O-W rules) and so a judge would be very hard pressed to justify including them in "propelled by machinery."

And they are not excluded from Restricted In Maneuverability, so they could be considered thus.

A rowing shell is one of the most unhandy things on the water, and they're kinda slow (many sailboats are slower, it's true). I think any skipper invovled a collision with a rowing shell, -especially- during a race, would have a lot of 'splainin to do.

FB- Doug

I guess.

I was basing my comment on the fact that a lever is a simple machine, but there are other reasons for oars not fitting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

When I was rowing, my crew got reported for crashing into an idiotic suicidal swan who decided to rush at the last minute in front of us and got hit by an oar despite a last minute desperate swerve by the cox. The club received a rather unpleasant letter afterwards. Don't know if it's an urban legend or not but apparently in the UK all the swans belong to the queen!

She Only exercises her rights on the Thames or possibly a certain stretch of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

She Only exercises her rights on the Thames or possibly a certain stretch of it.

Good, the suicidal swan was Bristolian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnMB said:

I guess.

I was basing my comment on the fact that a lever is a simple machine, but there are other reasons for oars not fitting here.

Right, but it's just a single simple machine not "machinery."

The screw is a  classic simple machine also  ;)

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Panoramix said:

 Don't know if it's an urban legend or not but apparently in the UK all the swans belong to the queen!

That would be far too simple. The majority of unmarked Mute Swans belong to the crown. Mute Swans are not the only species of swan in the UK. Two of the London Livery  companies also have the right to mark swans on the Thames. Also the swans at Abbottsbury (Dorset) belong to the Ilchester Estate. The swannery has been there since the 1040s and 600 swans are fed daily. It is well worth watching if you are in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the book definition of Restricted in Ability to Maneuver. See the important bit in bold. Basically a R.I.A.M. vessel cannot turn or turn very much because of what she is doing. Dragging a net or being a tanker that takes a 1/2 mile to turn does NOT make you a RIAM vessel and you have no special rights.

  1. The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term [Int] "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall [Int] include but not be limited to:
    1. A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigational mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
    2. A vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
    3. A vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
    4. A vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
    5. A vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
    6. A vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JohnMB said:

I guess.

I was basing my comment on the fact that a lever is a simple machine, but there are other reasons for oars not fitting here.

And you are quite correct and steam flyer is wrong. Has been tested in the Australian courts. A ferry hit a rowing 8 full of school kids. Ferry driver lost his ticket and nearly his freedom. An Oar is a fulcrum which is the simplest of all machines. A rowing boat is a vessel  propelled by machinery. As was mentioned earlier it is only specifically mentioned in the lights annex. Zonker you need to read rule 2 and the key statement is the definitions for a RAM is 'shall  include but not be limited to',  not 'the nature of its work'. A rowing shell's work is transporting rowers, the term 'commercial' exists no where in the IRPCS. If it did then a group of professional rowers would enjoy rights that a recreational crew wouldn't! . However, look at rule 9 part b.(b). A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

Consider this. The average length of a rowing 8 is 19.9 meters but many are over 20. A sailing shall not impede such a vessel in a narrow channel.

The finding was that the ferry was a power boat and the shell a RAM. The ferry driver also did not ' comply rule 2(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."  Safe speed and actions by a give way vessel were also contributing considerations.The judge did make recommendations about further lights on rowing shells.

 

The key to understanding the Colregs is to not look at one rule in isolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks LB, you are the first one to answer this question that I have asked several times to people who should know properly, I hope that a European court would give the same answer. 

I still think that they could define more precisely machinery, I know that the English text prevail but when translated to French, it is harder to understand this way as the word machine is normally used for stuff much more complicated than a lever arm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get your authority to issue a NTM for the finish line, that fixes it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LB 15 said:
9 hours ago, LB 15 said:

 

A rowing shell's work is transporting rowers,

That's a pretty unlikely stretch. In that case a sailing yacht's "work" is sailing around with some people. 

The RIAM rules apply to a vessel, because it is doing something special that restricts it's ability to Maneuver, NOT because it's unwieldy. It further says "... is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel...".  Why can't a rowing shell keep out of the way? Nothing about the rowing shell's "work" means it can't change course or stop.

Do you know what sort of court heard that case? I'd be very surprised if it was an Admiralty court because they know their shit.

9 hours ago, LB 15 said:

However, look at rule 9 part b.(b). A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

Yes, I agree that this rule exists. However it wasn't part of the original court case decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zonker said:

This is the book definition of Restricted in Ability to Maneuver. See the important bit in bold. Basically a R.I.A.M. vessel cannot turn or turn very much because of what she is doing. Dragging a net or being a tanker that takes a 1/2 mile to turn does NOT make you a RIAM vessel and you have no special rights.

  1. The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term [Int] "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall [Int] include but not be limited to:
    1. A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigational mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
    2. A vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
    3. A vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
    4. A vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
    5. A vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
    6. A vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
 

 

 

Key point right there. No reason why a rowing shell couldn't be considered Restricted In Ability to Maneuver.

 

5 hours ago, LB 15 said:

And you are quite correct and steam flyer is wrong. Has been tested in the Australian courts. A ferry hit a rowing 8 full of school kids. Ferry driver lost his ticket and nearly his freedom. An Oar is a fulcrum which is the simplest of all machines. A rowing boat is a vessel  propelled by machinery. As was mentioned earlier it is only specifically mentioned in the lights annex. Zonker you need to read rule 2 and the key statement is the definitions for a RAM is 'shall  include but not be limited to',  not 'the nature of its work'. A rowing shell's work is transporting rowers, the term 'commercial' exists no where in the IRPCS. If it did then a group of professional rowers would enjoy rights that a recreational crew wouldn't! . However, look at rule 9 part b.(b). A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

Consider this. The average length of a rowing 8 is 19.9 meters but many are over 20. A sailing shall not impede such a vessel in a narrow channel.

The finding was that the ferry was a power boat and the shell a RAM. The ferry driver also did not ' comply rule 2(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."  Safe speed and actions by a give way vessel were also contributing considerations.The judge did make recommendations about further lights on rowing shells.

 

The key to understanding the Colregs is to not look at one rule in isolation.

Thanks for the explanation and case history

FB- Doug

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the Colregs is the lack of definition for certain terms.   Just how narrow is a "narrow channel"??  Well, don't look in the General Definitions section (Rule 3) 'cause "narrow channel" ain't there.  So mariners (and courts) have had to cobble the meaning together case-by-case.  What's "narrow" to two Suezmax tankers in a river, or two or three long unit tows, won't be narrow to a couple of smallish tour boats.  So is it defined by geographical width, or by usage?  Answer--who knows for sure??    Not helpful.

Ditto "vessel under oars".  Rule 25 has that term when talking about what lights to carry ("may" use same ights as sailboat), but I don't see the term elsewhere, and it isn't mentioned in Rule 18, which tells who "outranks" whom.   I have never considered humans with oars and oarlocks "machines" for Colregs purposes.  And still don't.  And if the Colregs writers meant rowing boats to be considered as "propelled by machinery", why don't they tell them to carry the lights of a power-driven vessel (including a steaming light), rather than sailboat-equivalent lighting?  As a sailor, I go around rowing craft, but not entirely sure the rules dictate it. 

"Restricted in ability to maneuver" is defined in Rule 3 and nonexclusive examples are given, including the words, "severely restricts...ability to deviate course".   I don't see how a rowing boat, even a racing shell, fits that bill--pull on one oar, backwater on the other, and you turn in your own length.

With all the harbor traffic, local rules superseding the inland collision regs make some sense, and give predictability to situations where the colregs' absence of definition can make for confusion, or for sea-lawyers with their own idea supported by, uh, opinion.*

 

 

*excluding, of course my opinions above, which are right because I say so.... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nolatom said:

One of the problems with the Colregs is the lack of definition for certain terms.   Just how narrow is a "narrow channel"??  Well, don't look in the General Definitions section (Rule 3) 'cause "narrow channel" ain't there.  So mariners (and courts) have had to cobble the meaning together case-by-case.  What's "narrow" to two Suezmax tankers in a river, or two or three long unit tows, won't be narrow to a couple of smallish tour boats.  So is it defined by geographical width, or by usage?  Answer--who knows for sure??    Not helpful.

Ditto "vessel under oars".  Rule 25 has that term when talking about what lights to carry ("may" use same ights as sailboat), but I don't see the term elsewhere, and it isn't mentioned in Rule 18, which tells who "outranks" whom.   I have never considered humans with oars and oarlocks "machines" for Colregs purposes.  And still don't.  As a sailor, I go around rowing craft, but not entirely sure the rules dictate it. 

"Restricted in ability to maneuver" is defined in Rule 3 and nonexclusive examples are given, including the words, "severely restricts...ability to deviate course".   I don't see how a rowing boat, even a racing shell, fits that bill--pull on one oar, backwater on the other, and you turn in your own length.

With all the harbor traffic, local rules superseding the inland collision regs make some sense, and give predictability to situations where the colregs' absence of definition can make for confusion, or for sea-lawyers with their own idea supported by, uh, opinion.*

 

 

*excluding, of course my opinions above, which are right because I say so.... 

 

 

Locally port authorities and regatta organizers work together to sheperd the fleet away from commercial traffic  and alert commercial traffic of small craft activety .

When racing sailboats  are becalmed in a channel the port authority, regatta organizer  tows them clear . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, nolatom said:

"Restricted in ability to maneuver" is defined in Rule 3 and nonexclusive examples are given, including the words, "severely restricts...ability to deviate course".   I don't see how a rowing boat, even a racing shell, fits that bill--pull on one oar, backwater on the other, and you turn in your own length.

 

 

A racing 8 definitely can't turn in its own length while underway even if the 4 rowers of one side hold water together. It will stop within several lengths while turning by say 45-60 degrees (that's a guesstimate) but won't make the kind of turn that a sail boat or a motor boat can do. The cox basically make it point in the right direction while not underway by making the 2 sides row in opposite directions and then make small correction to follow the river/channel you are in. On some bends not that extreme the cox even has to ask one side to row harder to stand a chance to take a good line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that.  But if as you describe, you can turn 60 degrees in two lengths, that's not bad if you were doing 14-15 knots to start with.  Most ships take two minutes give or take, to turn 90 degrees while at full ahead.  And they are not typically considered "restricted in ability to maneuver" under the rules.   Just slow (but predictable) to turn.  

We in Tech Dinghies and Interclubs, used to have to dodge the Eights on the Charles river.  they went from small to big, real quick.  And no doubt it makes sense for small craft with quick turning circles to stay well clear, and give way, since you turn much slower than them.  But I don't think at the end of the day if you'd qualify as "restricted" under Rules 3 and 18, if push came to shove, or stroke came to crunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregon State law also gives ROW to the vessel headed downstream (which the shell was).  Does COLREGS?

I'd say that the shell is similar in maneuvaribility to the ship in this case.  You can see them stop / turn in the video.  You could easily hurt someone in the shell with a panic stop / catch a crab.

Another interesting tidbit is that shells are excluded from the requirement to carry lifejackets.  The boat is the rescue method apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Right, but it's just a single simple machine not "machinery."

The screw is a  classic simple machine also  ;)

FB- Doug

my winches are machinery used to trim the main and propel the vessel, i guess im a motorboat. There's no way an oar is ever going to be considered "machinery" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Mississippi River, downbound has the right-of way over upbound, and vessels crossing the river yield to both upbound and downbound.  So no more starboard-hand rule if you're crossing.  The latter Inland Rule revision came out of an awful ferry disaster just upriver when a ferry crossed in front of an upbound ship and didn't make it.  77 died.  Google "Luling ferry disaster"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LB 15 said:

And you are quite correct and steam flyer is wrong. Has been tested in the Australian courts. A ferry hit a rowing 8 full of school kids. Ferry driver lost his ticket and nearly his freedom. An Oar is a fulcrum which is the simplest of all machines. A rowing boat is a vessel  propelled by machinery.

I think i see the problem here....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Right, but it's just a single simple machine not "machinery."

The screw is a  classic simple machine also  ;)

FB- Doug

my winches are machinery used to trim the main and propel the vessel, i guess im a motorboat. There's no way an oar is ever going to be considered "machinery" .

 

Sure. A foil is a simple machine, also. But the Rules of the Road specifically distinguish between vessels under sail and vessels under power. They don't (apparently) distinguish between "machinery propelled" with an engine or motor, and human-powered machinery.

If, as LB15 says, there is a court case in which the judge ruled a rowing shell was a vessel "propelled by machinery" then that is almost certain to be the legal standard no matter how little common sense it makes. They certainly are not propelled by sail and there isn't a third category when considering Right-Of-Way.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Sure. A foil is a simple machine, also. But the Rules of the Road specifically distinguish between vessels under sail and vessels under power. They don't (apparently) distinguish between "machinery propelled" with an engine or motor, and human-powered machinery.

If, as LB15 says, there is a court case in which the judge ruled a rowing shell was a vessel "propelled by machinery" then that is almost certain to be the legal standard no matter how little common sense it makes. They certainly are not propelled by sail and there isn't a third category when considering Right-Of-Way.

FB- Doug

yes, i guess it has to be either one or the other. These seems to come up enough that they should clarify the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zonker said:

That's a pretty unlikely stretch. In that case a sailing yacht's "work" is sailing around with some people. 

The RIAM rules apply to a vessel, because it is doing something special that restricts it's ability to Maneuver, NOT because it's unwieldy. It further says "... is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel...".  Why can't a rowing shell keep out of the way? Nothing about the rowing shell's "work" means it can't change course or stop.

Do you know what sort of court heard that case? I'd be very surprised if it was an Admiralty court because they know their shit.

Yes, I agree that this rule exists. However it wasn't part of the original court case decision. 

No a sailing vessel is a sailing vessel. A vessel fishing under sail can jump up the pecking order but only if it is restricted by its fishing gear. A game fishing boat is not a fishing boat for this reason. It was a magistrates court. Their job is to interpret the law whether that law is the IRPCS or the family law act. To do this they take advice from expert witnesses in that field. And we are paid handsomely to provide that advise. :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

I think i see the problem here....

Get over it mate. How was i to know she was your Girlfriend...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

my winches are machinery used to trim the main and propel the vessel, i guess im a motorboat. There's no way an oar is ever going to be considered "machinery" .

No your boat is a sailing vessel under the rules dick wit. You really should stick to discussions that you know the first thing about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 2:27 PM, Great Red Shark said:

See,  here in Hawaii you stay clear of the outrigger canoes because they are like 45-foot long heavy fiberglass telephone poles with pointy ends filled with folks that wouldn't mind getting into one beef,  bra.

 

Don't crash your plane on their island and burn their house down, either.  All the smart people probably already know this story but I didn't:  

https://timeline.com/this-japanese-wwii-fighter-pilot-thought-he-crash-landed-on-a-deserted-hawaiian-island-wrong-635d898b08d0

Ben spoke to Yoshio Harada in Hawaiian, asking for help in taking the pilot’s gun away from him. During the exchange, Ben lunged for the pilot, but Nishikaichi was too quick. He fired his pistol at Ben, striking him in the chest, hip, and groin. But the agitated and burly man charged on. “Then I got mad,’’ he later told a newspaper. “I picked up the flier and threw him against the stone wall and knocked him cold.’’ His wife joined in, bashing the pilot’s skull in with a rock. Ben followed after by setting his hunting knife into the pilot’s neck. In the frenzy, Harada grabbed the shotgun and shot himself in the gut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nolatom said:

I get that.  But if as you describe, you can turn 60 degrees in two lengths, that's not bad if you were doing 14-15 knots to start with.  Most ships take two minutes give or take, to turn 90 degrees while at full ahead.  And they are not typically considered "restricted in ability to maneuver" under the rules.   Just slow (but predictable) to turn.  

We in Tech Dinghies and Interclubs, used to have to dodge the Eights on the Charles river.  they went from small to big, real quick.  And no doubt it makes sense for small craft with quick turning circles to stay well clear, and give way, since you turn much slower than them.  But I don't think at the end of the day if you'd qualify as "restricted" under Rules 3 and 18, if push came to shove, or stroke came to crunch.

Time for some schooling. The core premise of the IRPCS is recognizing that there are many different types of vessels plying the seas, all with (for any number of reasons) varying abilities to manoeuvre and thus take action to avoid a collision. These are described in rule 18.- Responsibilities between vessels. Thus the pecking order is

NUC

RAM (Including CBD's in narrow channels)

Fishing and Trawling

Sail

Power driven

Seaplanes and Wigs.

Every vessel falls into one of these categories. 

And Rule two covers any grey areas. The Colregs are the most common sense piece of law ever written, chiefly because they weren't written by lawyers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All human powered are still "powered" though, correct?  Wave-powered as well?  And if I'm human power assisting a sailboat (like R2AK) it's the same as any auxiliary powered sailboat = powered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kenny Dumas said:

All human powered are still "powered" though, correct?  Wave-powered as well?  And if I'm human power assisting a sailboat (like R2AK) it's the same as any auxiliary powered sailboat = powered.

And under the Colregs a surfer can drop in on a left...And yes when paddling or rowing they are powerboats - just like on a raid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

yes, i guess it has to be either one or the other. These seems to come up enough that they should clarify the rule.

It only needs clarification for people like you who have never read the Colregs. But hey don't let that stop you offering your 'Opinions'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:
7 hours ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

my winches are machinery used to trim the main and propel the vessel, i guess im a motorboat. There's no way an oar is ever going to be considered "machinery" .

No your boat is a sailing vessel under the rules dick wit. You really should stick to discussions that you know the first thing about. 

Lighten up, Francine.

He was trying to be funny. You don't have to get all threatened-like

FB- Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Lighten up, Francine.

He was trying to be funny. You don't have to get all threatened-like

FB- Doug

'Trying' being the key word. He put shit on me, i put shit on him. Kinda how it works around here... What are you his mother or something?

FB- Francine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

They certainly are not propelled by sail and there isn't a third category when considering Right-Of-Way.

Actually, in Australia . .  . rowing Australia (here is their RA code of conduct) has worked with various harbor authorities (here for example is Brisbane river authority code) and have done exactly that - created a new category  for row boats which is not in the colregs - and which are explicitly stated to be 'not power driven'.

The definition given is  "Recreational passive craft аге non-power driven vessels (for example, rowing boats, kayaks)", and elsewhere "Rowing boats includes апу single, double oг quad scull, pair, four oг eight sweep oаг boat. Sometimes referred to as 'passive craft' in local rules and regulations.

Then various specific navigational rules are stated with respect to this new category - many of which look to have been copied from the Port of London authority regulations. And these local harbor rules trump the colregs.

These specific rules do include: "а rowing boat to 'keep out of the way' of а sailing boat if there is а risk of collision" . . . . but it is more complicated than a simple order of priority, and there are several specific conditions around docks, and at river crossing points, and about various 'lanes' in rivers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 2:27 PM, Great Red Shark said:

See,  here in Hawaii you stay clear of the outrigger canoes because they are like 45-foot long heavy fiberglass telephone poles with pointy ends filled with folks that wouldn't mind getting into one beef,  bra.

 

Haha...yea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone been on the Charles in springtime?  Blowboats, scullers, motos....I don't ever remember having to be reminded that common sense was the only rule that mattered.

The friggin's 8's were  a pain - big, fast and pretty much 6'4' , 220# guys who didn't give a heave-ho about you and your little girlfriend pulling strings in a Lark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago whilst sailing Sydney in a Dragon nationals(sailing dragon not the rowing dragon) one of the boats who had the fleet covered and extending in one of the last heats thought that the surf ski he was heading towards would give way to him.

Dragon ended up t-boning the ski, ski went under the hull popped out the back and the paddler came out the other side and grabbed onto the runner and held on.The crew on the dragon seeing the the rest of the fleet catching up asked if he was ok and if so would you mind letting the runner go so we can continue on with our race.to which the paddler replied no way turn around take me to my ski and then my paddle which was a fair distance away.Anyway after a bit of an argument they complied as the fleet had started to go past them and the guy who was a fairly large individual was not going to let go.

After doing all that and rejoining the fleet they managed to salvage the race and finished somewhere in the middle of the fleet but on returning to the Squadron they had a welcoming party waiting being the paddler who had decided and i shit you not to protest them for not trying to avoid a collision.

So it went to the room and the dragon guys went down the path of "isn't the ski a powered vessel?' which the protest commitee replied "No its not a powered vessel and you did little to avoid the collision therefore you are rubbed out"

There was probably more nuts and bolts to the protest than that but that was the result and in the end of the regatta where they finished second the DSQ cost them the title

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, estarzinger said:

Actually, in Australia . .  . rowing Australia (here is their RA code of conduct) has worked with various harbor authorities (here for example is Brisbane river authority code) and have done exactly that - created a new category  for row boats which is not in the colregs - and which are explicitly stated to be 'not power driven'.

The definition given is  "Recreational passive craft аге non-power driven vessels (for example, rowing boats, kayaks)", and elsewhere "Rowing boats includes апу single, double oг quad scull, pair, four oг eight sweep oаг boat. Sometimes referred to as 'passive craft' in local rules and regulations.

Then various specific navigational rules are stated with respect to this new category - many of which look to have been copied from the Port of London authority regulations. And these local harbor rules trump the colregs.

These specific rules do include: "а rowing boat to 'keep out of the way' of а sailing boat if there is а risk of collision" . . . . but it is more complicated than a simple order of priority, and there are several specific conditions around docks, and at river crossing points, and about various 'lanes' in rivers. 

It doesn't  trump the Col regs mate - special regulations are covered under rule 1 part b of the IRPCS. In fact in the application of the BRAC section it states 

Quote

Safe on-water conduct is the responsibility of all vessels. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (the collision regulations) apply to all vessels operating on Queensland waterways

 MSQ have deemed passive craft to be non power driven only for the purposes of the code, due to a special requirements of the river  not because they are not already covered in the colregs. They are in fact recognizing that they are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre (as I said earlier) particularly because they are often operated by inexperienced and/or unknowing persons so have created lanes to keep them out of the way of other vessels. MSQ have recognized that rowers are 'restricted by the operators ability' as well as by their manoeuvreability and visibility. If push comes to shove (over taking, crossing or head on) they must obey the IRPCS  for power driven vessels or the narrow channel rule. 

it is a good bit of legislation in my opinion because it keeps the fuckers out of the middle of the river and makes them stop making noise before dawn. It is a direct result of the court case i was referring too. Also rowing is the new cycling amoungst the trendy suit wearing types so they have some pull with government and feel special. (What is it about some men liking to wear spandex?) Never the less It is government, industry and recreation working well together. 

But it doesn't change the col regs any more than Sydney's orange diamond mean that all yachts must give way to ferries. And 'Australia' hasn't created a new class of vessel - only those few maritime authorities that have recognized that the rowing boats are a danger to themselves and have legislated locally. It doesn't mean jack shit outside of the small area covered by the code. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in my rowing days the South brisbane sailing club fleet would clash with the GPS schools regattas on Milton reach every Saturday afternoon in summer. There were a few prangs but we all got along pretty well with each other. Many rowers these days are of the same mindset as the Lance Armstrong wannabes that hog the road in pelotons of 30 or more on their 25k carbon bikes. Or in other words entitled wankers living out a fantasy. Plenty of them in yachting as well. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LB 15 said:

It doesn't  trump the Col regs mate - special regulations are covered under rule 1 part b of the IRPCS. 

mmm, what?   The colregs say (in fact the section you reference)  "Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. "

In plain language that says that local authority rules trumps the colregs.

You have cited no report or findings for this collision you keep mentioning . . . .  however if you are referring to the 2005 woman's 8 incident - my memory is that was all about negligence on the part of the ferry - not making required sound signals, failing to maneuver after it became obvious the 8 could not avoid, going too fast for the conditions.  I do not remember findings about the colreg classification of the 8, but it was quite a while ago; and I would be interested to see you post actual documentation (court summary or official incident investigation report perhaps) on your claims about that case.

as an aside, rule 18 clearly does not cover (or intend to cover) all possible interactions on the water.  Just for instance swimers are (also) not covered in rule 18.  rule 2 is the 'cover it all rule'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my posts again - that's what I said. The ferry driver was found to be in wrong. Again read my posts that quotes  the rule you have just had to google, cut and paste. Tell me again how this trumps the Col regs? What special rights are rowing boats afforded by this code? I have simply ( and correctly)  stated that a rowing vessel is a power vessel under the IRPCS and you (mistakenly) claim that because a local river code  has decided that they are to be given there own classification, that they are not. You know what the 'I' stands for, right? And this is why I never brought the code up. We were discussing the colregs not some minor local rule. Do you understand that these kind of vessel specific rules exist in many places? In fact all the river code of conduct  does is restrict the areas a rowing boat can use. Clearly you have some connection to the rowing world and have some axe to grind. I don't make the rules my friend but at least I understand them. Find where the term ' passive craft' appears anywhere in the IRPCS and get back to me. 

As I said before, in the brisbane river designated areas (that I operate as a commercial master in weekly) the code is a good idea. It stops clueless coxes and coachs from impeding larger vessels, it makes them put some kind of lights on their boats like every other craft and to the great relief of river front home owners it stops them them yelling into their homes before dawn. The incident with the girls 8 involved rules 5,6,7,8, 15 and 16. 

The code was written after the incident with the ferry. The rules were applied for two power driven vessels. Rowing boats had no special rights before. They still don't. They just have a new name in some parts of the river, and places they can't go. Maybe you could point out exactly where a 'passive craft' sits in the responsibility rule? I don't need to cite anything to prove I am right. I have already explained it. 

Sorry if my crack about spandex shorts offended you. I can understand how a thing like that could get up your arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

 I have simply ( and correctly)  stated that a rowing vessel is a power vessel under the IRPCS

You have provided zero evidence for that opinion.  My judgement, including based on my memory of this specific case you have referred to, is that row boats are simply not covered by the rule 18 categories, like swimmers; but rather covered by rule 2 and other colreg rules.  However that incident was a long time ago and if you care to post an official document I would be happy to see the details again.

The ferry driver was found to be in wrong.

Correct, but that certainly does not imply that the row boat was judged to be a power boat under colregs.  The ferry driver was certainly wrong on rule 2, 5,6,7,8, and 34 and those don't depend on the  rule 18 'status' or lack of status of the 8.

Tell me again how this trumps the Col regs?

Lol - the colregs explicitly say that local regulations trump the colregs (yes, ofc in those local areas only). And these local regulations explicitly say that row boats are NOT power driven vessels, that they are their own category with their own set of collision priorities. And yes some of those priorities are more restrictive in row than power and some less and some the same. I totally agree that these rules are useful clarification. 

Clearly you have some connection to the rowing world and have some axe to grind. Sorry if my crack about spandex shorts offended you. I can understand how a thing like that could get up your arse.

lol, always get personal when you have lost an argument don't you.

As an aside, I have never been in a shell in my life, and no have no ax to grind at all here; although my father rowed more miles in a single shell in his life than any other human in history (at least according to the Harvard rowing club research)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might note that the USCG have in fact explicitly addressed the rowing question, and they agree with me, and disagree with your opinion - they state "Ultimately, the issue of whether a vessel under oars is the give way or stand-on vessel would fall to what would be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case (Rule 2),"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

I might note that the USCG have in fact explicitly addressed the rowing question, and they agree with me, and disagree with your opinion - they state "Ultimately, the issue of whether a vessel under oars is the give way or stand-on vessel would fall to what would be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case (Rule 2),"

If a "vessel under oars" is, as some have contended, a power-driven vessel, they why doesn't Rule 25 prescribe for them the lights of a power-driven vessel (meaning white light visible from forward, not just red and green)?  Instead it prescribes (allows) sailboat lights.  I'm approaching a rowing vessel properly lit at night and I see just red or green, no white.  Or just a flare-up light.

I just don't buy humans and oars as "machinery".  Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LB 15 said:

It only needs clarification for people like you who have never read the Colregs. But hey don't let that stop you offering your 'Opinions'. 

So thankful that we have an Aussie colregs lawyer taking time out of his billable hours to harass us all day long on the internet. Merry Christmas LB

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estarzinger said:

I might note that the USCG have in fact explicitly addressed the rowing question, and they agree with me, and disagree with your opinion - they state "Ultimately, the issue of whether a vessel under oars is the give way or stand-on vessel would fall to what would be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case (Rule 2),"

Got a link for more context on this?  We're fortunate enough to have 100s of kayaks, SUPs, sailing/racing dinghys, swimmers, shells, dragonboats, wakeboarders, cruise ships, large private yachts, etc on the Willamette near downtown PDX on any given day / weather / including after dark.  So far it's been amazingly safe for all, but it gets entertaining for sure.  The kayak lobby managed to get a speed limit put on a wonderful narrow channel that used to be some of the best waterski water around.  Hated to see it happen, but best for most.  They've also outlawed water bags and other wave-increasing devices the wake boarders use.  A good idea, universally ignored.  And the SUPs fall down accordingly.  It's way cool to see that many people enjoying the water, but does warrant continued thought about how to best maintain safety.

A couple stellar sea lions surfaced 20 feet off my stern on the row this morning.  No freakin lights on those things either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like being inches from the water when somebody big pops up.  Big sea turtles have startled the hell out of me sailing dinghies out here,  not to mention whale season or the taxman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underwater mammals do that quick exhale / inhale thing that sounds like a human when they surface.  Do turtles?  Can you hear them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Dumas said:

Got a link for more context on this? 

sure . . . . https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_13  (FAQ 13 on the USCG navcenter page)

It is pretty much a simple straightforward answer to the (apparently common) question of where paddle/rowing craft fit.

 

BTW they guys in the USCG navcenter are a terrific resource.  If you e-mail them a question they will usually (perhaps not at Christmas) get back to you with a detailed authoritative answer in a day or two.  I had a terrific discussion with them this past year about when it was allowed/desired to make a port turn in a collision situation .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Boston on the Charles Basin, it's common custom that crew shells are stand on in relation to sailboats, in that they have such a large turning radius (an eight is 55', a four is 42', their rudder is the size of a playing card) but sailboats are stand on in relation to kayak, canoe, rowboats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estarzinger said:

sure . . . . https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_13  (FAQ 13 on the USCG navcenter page)

It is pretty much a simple straightforward answer to the (apparently common) question of where paddle/rowing craft fit.

 

BTW they guys in the USCG navcenter are a terrific resource.  If you e-mail them a question they will usually (perhaps not at Christmas) get back to you with a detailed authoritative answer in a day or two.  I had a terrific discussion with them this past year about when it was allowed/desired to make a port turn in a collision situation .

Thanks for the clearest answer yet with a cite to back it up.  I am most concerned with the kayaks who occupy the deep water when I'm trying to get a deep draft boat out of the cove after launching.  Sounds like I'll have to make it look like I didn't deliberately run them down.  I'm kidding, for the humor challenged .

 

As for the Charles, I spent a little more than a decade rowing everything from a single to eights, and in my experience the rules were common sense and courtesy.  This is not to say that they weren't violated on occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SUPs aplenty in Newport Harbor.  Screaming /yelling to no avail @ tourist noobs.

City Council got into it with “SUP lanes” where they were, supposedly, to travel.

”Supposedly” is actually a loose description of what it looks like now on weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Evans,

13. Where do Kayaks and Canoes fit into the Navigation Rules? Kayaks and Canoes are a vessel under oars and are addressed specifically in Rule 25 (lights).
 
Although a vessel under oars may be lit as a sailing vessel, one should not infer that they are considered to be a sailing vessel for other Rules (i.e. Rule 9, 10, 12, 18 or 35). Ultimately, the issue of whether a vessel under oars is the give way or stand-on vessel would fall to what would be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case (Rule 2), and, the notion that they are less able than most other vessels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, estarzinger said:

sure . . . . https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_13  (FAQ 13 on the USCG navcenter page)

It is pretty much a simple straightforward answer to the (apparently common) question of where paddle/rowing craft fit.

 

BTW they guys in the USCG navcenter are a terrific resource.  If you e-mail them a question they will usually (perhaps not at Christmas) get back to you with a detailed authoritative answer in a day or two.  I had a terrific discussion with them this past year about when it was allowed/desired to make a port turn in a collision situation .

Despite what you 'mericans may think the USCG does not 'trump' (I hope the irony of your use of that word doesn't escape you) or alter the IRPCS, outside of their fiefdom. Only in your sandpit. Since you are such an athority I ask you again to explain where a vessel under oars fits within the responsibilities rule of the IRPCS. (And just to clarify  I am not asking about a special rule buy a individual maritime organisation) Oh that right it doesn't. As a lawyer you would understand that it must fit within one of the existing definitions. As you would know that at first the Admirilty and then the IMO meet every few (4 from memory) years to review the IRPCS. As new types of craft and technology  emerge they are allowed for in the rules (hovercraft, wigs, seaplanes , radar ect) I guess a vessel under oars is such a recent invention that they haven't got around to catogorising them just yet. Let's see - are they NUC due to some extraordinary circumstances? No.

Are they RAM due to the nature of there business? In a narrow channel most likely.

Are they a fishing vessel? No - that's not what catching a crab means.

sailing perhaps? No.

seaplane? No.

WIG? No.

Well then until The USCG and the Brisbane River Port rule the world then they will just have to remain  a vessel propelled by machinery. 

One thing I have learnt about lawyers is that in every matter they get involved in- one of them is found to be wrong. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nettles said:

and in my experience the rules were common sense and courtesy.  This is not to say that they weren't violated on occasion.

Or rule 2 as it is known in the IRPCS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, estarzinger said:

sure . . . . https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_13  (FAQ 13 on the USCG navcenter page)

It is pretty much a simple straightforward answer to the (apparently common) question of where paddle/rowing craft fit. .

All that does is repete the Col regs. In this instance it appears to be as about as athoritive as winkipedia. Rule 2 applies to all vessels (as I stated earlier) not just to a vessel approaching a rowboat. Riddle me this. You are on a power driven vessel in open water. You see a rowing boat approching from ahead. Do you

A. Obey the the IRPCS rules for when like vessels ( in this case two power driven vessels) are at risk of a collision and turn to starboard and pass Port to Port.

B. Google the USCG website for advise.

C. Advise the helm to turn to Port like you did in the warship thread?

D. Get your sock puppets to remind the cox of the rowboat that you are a lawyer and therefor always right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

So thankful that we have an Aussie colregs lawyer taking time out of his billable hours to harass us all day long on the internet. Merry Christmas LB

Expert witness actually. We are who the lawyers ask for opinions. I am in fact taking time out from billable hours. For an Inquest into 2 deaths. I do enjoy Fucking with lawyers on the stand on behalf of my clients. Even had my Silk tell me to back off the opposing council once. 'Ok he has had enough, and you have made your point'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, estarzinger said:

I might note that the USCG have in fact explicitly addressed the rowing question, and they agree with me, and disagree with your opinion - they state "Ultimately, the issue of whether a vessel under oars is the give way or stand-on vessel would fall to what would be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case (Rule 2),"

Which is what I said about 30 posts ago. You have a lawyers arrogance but seem to lack the ability to make your case. Reading comprehension ain't real good either. Deflection might work in your court system, but It won't work with me. And I love arguing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, estarzinger said:

.  rule 2 is the 'cover it all rule'. 

 

Yes it is. Like I said earlier. Nice attempt at deflection about swimmers as well. Of course since they are not a 'craft' is is BS but nice try anyway Rumpol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until a rowing shell displays the proper day shapes or lights of a RIAM vessel, another mariner would assume it's just another boat. If you work the Brisbane River then no doubt you are familiar with dredges that work there that do exhibit these shapes or lights.

Quote

Are they RAM due to the nature of there business? In a narrow channel most likely.

I guess we will have to disagree on this. A "narrow channel" only applies to vessels constrained by their draft. A rowing shell would not qualify.

Are you sure you're an expert witness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Until a rowing shell displays the proper day shapes or lights of a RIAM vessel, another mariner would assume it's just another boat. If you work the Brisbane River then no doubt you are familiar with dredges that work there that do exhibit these shapes or lights.

Yes if they are claiming RAM then they must display the lights and shapes but if they don't  and you are unsure then rule 2 applies as I first posted and my learned friend Evan then repeated.

I guess we will have to disagree on this. A "narrow channel" only applies to vessels constrained by their draft. A rowing shell would not qualify.

Disagree all you want. Doesn't make you right. Perhaps you might like to read rule 9 again? 'shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.' I put it to you that Vessels may only be able to navigate in a narrow channel for many reasons, including breadth, LOA, maneuverability, turning circle stopping distance and yes, draft. You might also note that draft is not actually specifically mentioned in rule 9. A vessel constrained by draft in a narrow channel is well, a vessel constrained by its draft. That does not only apply in "Narrow channels'.You might like to take a minute to re read rule 3 while you are doing your homework.

Are you sure you're an expert witness?

Indeed I am and I charge $4K a day for doing it. But since I am schooling you I can cut you a deal and just charge you my class room rate. $750.00 per day. I take all the Major credit cards.

Any further questions will have to wait until morning. I am off to a Christmas party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zonker said:

Are you sure you're an expert witness?

lol - LB has a decent 'Reader's Digest level" understanding of the rules.  I guess that's better than many boaters, and lol perhaps good enough for  a few unimportant Australian court cases.  But he gets totally lost when at the edges or details of the rules - in here he is 0 for 3 on the last three such topics.  Then he tends to make shit up and when he is called on that he gets personal and flails around.  It was sort of entertaining seeing him melt down the first time, but it gets boring and a bit sad after that.  I mostly have him on ignore, unless I see people quoting him giving bad information.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites