# Narrow Channels Rule 9(b)



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

> ......a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.


So here's my situation this past summer. I'm motoring out of a harbor, inside the marked channel. On each side of the channel are mooring fields and there is a perpendicular breakwater at the outer edge of the harbor, with an opening at the end of the channel. You pretty much have to stay in the channel, you certainly can't drive over the breakwater.

I'm on the right side of the channel as I exit and there is a fair amount of traffic entering the opposite direction. Not end to end, but busy enough. For the most part, there is only enough room for one line of boats exiting and one line entering. You might get some dinghies or skiffs buzzing around the edges. As I'm several hundred yards from the opening in the breakwater, there is a powerboat coming the other way, with an 18ish ft sailboat (under sail) heading across the channel from my left.

I can't turn to port to go around the back of the sailing vessel, as the approaching power boat is in my way. Short of leaving the channel to navigate through the mooring field, I can't turn to starboard either. It is possible they didn't see me behind the opposing powerboat, until it passed.

I put my throttle to neutral to slow and prepare to evade, in hopes the sailing vessel will give way. They are not. I try to sneak to my right (starboard) as much as I can, without heading directly for the breakwater. They do not give way. Absent these two actions, we would have collided. I'm about to execute a crash stop, when we are maybe 20-30 feet apart and I'm down to maybe a knot or two, when they tack away.

There were two women in the boat, the older of which yells over "there are rules you know!" I said, I do know and you violated them sailing across a narrow channel. I think I also muttered something about restricted in ability to maneuver into the breakwater, but RIATM not technically applicable, it's more a layman's way, an angry layman's way, of putting it.

I could have executed a crash stop earlier or peeled off into the mooring field, which would have allowed their progress without concern for a collision. I did have time left to avoid, it just got very uncomfortable for all.

Was I in the right? When I pulled to neutral, I clearly had determined the risk of collision and perhaps my maneuver should have been more pronounced and that's when I should have pulled into the mooring field. What I'm really interested in, is whether 9(b) applied prior to my need to take action.

I'm not exactly sure how to define a narrow channel, but it seems to fit. She was a real obnoxious, self-entitled &^%, but it haunts me a bit. She may not have been born that way, she seemed to have plenty of years behind her to practice being obnoxious.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Yours is a very difficult situation because the other boat does not appreciate you can not manoeuvre. No time for VHF. It's only 5 blasts on the horn that could help in this situation. (I do not keep my horn on deck) 

If they had seen you beginning to slow they should have then realised your situation. 

Chanel can be difficult. If it's a ship it's obvious they may not be able to manouver.

You did what you could.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I am not sure. I grabbed my copy off the shelf and this is the exact wording in my copy:

Rule 9
Narrow Channels
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable. 
(b) A vessel of less than 20 meters 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.

So, at 54 feet, you are both under 20 meters. I am not sure, to me i isn't quite clear cut

However, I still think you did the right thing by stopping and letting them pass. I think you did everything right, including giving them heck because the next big boat they cut off might not be as quick on the throttles. They were inconsiderate but I am not sure they were doing anything illegal.

Randomly, I just happen to have a video of a very clear cut example of 9(b). In this example, we are both in the channel, I am power driven, but under 20 meters in length. The other vessel at 700+ feet with a roughly 27 foot draft and 75 foot beam and approaching a lock could definitely only navigate in the channel. In my example I attempted to comply by getting as far to the right as I could without running her up into the cow pasture (which I have been known to do lol).

I misquoted the regulation in my video, because I was going off memory, so try to ignore that.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I had a similar experience entering the Ala Wai Yavht Harbor channel in Honolulu some years back, on a 65' sailboat. There is a coral reef to starboard and a rock breakwater to port with about 65' between them. An idiot was trying to sail up the channel and as I approached, he yelled that he was under sail and had the right of way. I slowed as much as I could, but with the trade winds blowing I had to maintain steerage, or lose my boat to the reef or breakwater. I sent my crew forward to tell him to get the frack out of my way, or I would run him down. He capitulated and turned to run back down the channel and we passed him in the turning basin.
The next day the harbormaster dropped by to say the sailor had complained. He told me not to worry and that it wouldn't happen again, as he had kicked the fool out of the marina on the basis that the marina rules clearly stated that it was prohibited to sail in or out of the harbor.
Sometimes, there just is no right thing to do and bringing your boat through without harm, while allowing the fools to survive at the same time, is the best one can hope for.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Was the sailboat coming in? Or just sailing in the harbor? Maybe they had no engine, or the engine was out and they had to tack in??If that a were the case, I'd give them a break, I suppose they thought that, being under sail they are stand on, end of story. Maybe the lesson is - look out for boats with the sails up. They may have also misjudged your speed. If they were just tacking around the harbor, and were locals they probably just thought they could do whatever they wanted. Some day a ferry might plow them under. 

The best thing I can say is - You can't fix stupid.Sounds like you did what you could, but a horn might have helped. I now keep a can horn by my side every time I am in a narrow inlet.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Sal Paradise said:


> but a horn might have helped. I now keep a can horn by my side every time I am in a narrow inlet.


Genuine question for everyone ... Every powerboat I have ever seen came from the factory with a horn button at the helm but I've never seen one on a sailboat. Is there a reason ?


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

One thing about(the) rules is you cant expect everyone to know them or apply them, properly at least. You mention an anchorage to starboard, this is important because you saw it as an additional way out. Doing the right thing, avoidance, and not playing all your cards is always desirable. The small sailboat should have recognized the channel rule (I think) but if no markers between you and the anchorage were you truly limited? The breakwater and anchorage are not clear enough to me to say more. I say well done.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

Mine has one, button on inside wall of transom, horn on mast. Also have hand held air horn mounted beside horn button.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

So here is what I take as the bottom line. If the mooring field was deep enough, and navigable, then you should have entered the mooring field to avoid collision.

IMHO, in the event of a collision, the lawyers would have likely taken that position. That doesn't make you "wrong"... but we know how this works. At the end of the day one must do whatever one can to avoid injury and property damage. Assuming that there is an idiot at the helm of all other vessels is a good place to start.


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

Seems to me that this all comes down to what a vessel that can safely navigate only in a narrow channel or fairway really means. 
I don't see a 54 sailboat under power as meeting the criteria. A vessel that couldn't navigate in the mooring field because of size or draft would meet the criteria. I can see how the other sailboat could have had the same impression. Perhaps the skipper on the other boat thought that you were the one being obnoxious. There is always at least two sides to every story.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

In my opinion it doesn't matter what the rules are as they re only there to use _after  something happens, similar to the fact that police are there to investigate what happens after a crime, not prevent the crime. A land lubber example of what you are describing happened to my wife this summer with her car. She was driving through a parking lot with narrow lanes and a guy backed into the side of her car when he was trying to leave his parking space. Her speed was about 20 mph and the investigating officer wrote the guy who backed out a ticket. The guy who did it protested the ticket to his insurance company and said that my wife should have taken "evasive action". Our insurance company bought into his excuse and tried to reduce the payment damage for our car to 75% of the claim because my wife did not evade. We took a Google Earth print out of the parking lot in to illustrate how narrow the passageways were and that if my wife had taken "evasive action" that she would have run into the parked cars on the right side of the lane. My take is to always do what you can to avoid getting into potential litigation situations but if you are involved go for the jugular...._


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

I guess those solid yellow lines on the highway are only relevant if you (a) don't hit an oncoming car when you cross it or (b) don't let a cop see you do it.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

I curse people that drive that fast in parking lots.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

This rule would not apply to the described circumstances, specifically "..can safely navigate ONLY... ". As the OP could safely navigate outside the channel, the general sail versus powered rule applies. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

The OP was not restricted in ability to maneuver. He did not specify a need to maintain steerage (could be the case, but he did not say that). Why not just stop, and why do me have to call it a "crash stop?" Simple ease the trans into reverse and stop. I've had to do this many times and do not consider it a big deal. It is what you would do in a car. Just stop. I admit, it is easier with twin engines. As for maneuvering at low speed, with very little way on, this is something you should master for docking.

I'm not sailing this is the best situation to be in. But I am always surprised at the number of sailors that think shift into neutral, luffing sails, or even using reverse is a big deal. Not every situation is best handled with a course change.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> So here's my situation this past summer. I'm motoring out of a harbor, inside the marked channel. On each side of the channel are mooring fields and there is a perpendicular breakwater at the outer edge of the harbor, with an opening at the end of the channel. You pretty much have to stay in the channel, you certainly can't drive over the breakwater.
> 
> I'm on the right side of the channel as I exit and there is a fair amount of traffic entering the opposite direction. Not end to end, but busy enough. For the most part, there is only enough room for one line of boats exiting and one line entering. You might get some dinghies or skiffs buzzing around the edges. As I'm several hundred yards from the opening in the breakwater, there is a powerboat coming the other way, with an 18ish ft sailboat (under sail) heading across the channel from my left.
> 
> ...


If you were genuinely limited by draught, you could have eliminated any ambiguity by displaying the appropriate day shape, a black cylinder (Rule 28). My understanding is, however, that this is a "may show" , not "shall show" situation, so you did not have to.

Whether you carry one of those is a different question. I myself don't since it is very unlikely that I will ever need it. The only day shape I carry is a black ball for anchoring which I very (!) rarely deploy.

Whether the ladies would have had the foggiest what that thing means is yet another question.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

irateraft:


boatpoker said:


> Genuine question for everyone ... Every powerboat I have ever seen came from the factory with a horn button at the helm but I've never seen one on a sailboat. Is there a reason ?


Sailboat don't normally have a mounted horn. Deck space, line fouling, etc have precluded them.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> irateraft:
> 
> Sailboat don't normally have a mounted horn. Deck space, line fouling, etc have precluded them.


My new radio has a built-in loudhailer that generates fog signals and such things. For the time being I installed a loudspeaker on deck (next to the mast) which is a bit of a pain for the reasons you mention. I intend to mount it on the spreaders the next time I take down the mast. Other than a tiny bit of additional windage and weigh aloft, this should have only advantages.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

The OP stated he was in a narrow channel. There was wind enough to sail obviously, and lots of traffic. So, he could have been blown off course, he could risk a collision. Sure, he had a back up plan to enter the mooring field so it wasn't life or death. But once he stopped in the channel, almost to the breakwater there is a lot of anxiety about steerage, drifting, traffic......as opposed to what we all would want, which is to get out safely. 

Mark nailed it I think - the 54 foot sailboat still registered with the women as a pleasure boat. They did not see him as restricted. If they had seen a ferry or tug they might have reacted and gotten out of the way. So, I still think the horn would be a go to, and as I wrote, I've realized that on very crowded summer days I need the horn by my side.This reminds me of a bumber sticker I once saw on an old pickup truck = "Horn Broken, See Finger."

The rules matter before a collision as we have should have a reasonable expectation of how other boats will behave.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Sal Paradise said:


> The rules matter before a collision as we have should have a reasonable expectation of how other boats will behave.


Exactly. Normally I wouldn't expect the operator of a small 18 foot sailboat to have much understanding, however, in this case that 18 foot sailboat was using an incomplete understanding of the rules to press her way through a busy channel and even expressing her opinion that she was some how priviledged and entitled to do so.

I don't think 9b came into play here and Minn definitely didn't meet the criteria for restricted or constrained. But, Minn was fulfilling his obligations under 9 a by staying as far to the right as practicable, she was not, she was utilizing the entire busy channel to tack back and forth.

Which leads to the next problem. A sailboat can't claim a privilidged status while tacking up a busy channel because as the stand on vessel she is obliged to maintain course and speed, when you tack, you are failing to meet that obligation. Just like a race committee that sets up a race in a busy harbour, nobody else needs to recognise that race course, as soon as they round their marks, they are failing to meet their obligations as stand on vessels. Out the window, they are voluntarily deciding to no longer be the stand on vessel.

So from a rules perspective, the situation gets complicated when mixed heavy traffic is interacting in a busy channel. Not every one is going to follow the rules or even know the rules. That's why you need to do what Minn did and just stop the boat and sometimes give a blast of the horn, which is permitted under the ColRegs as well- he could have used 5 short blasts to question her intentions, or 3 short blasts to indicate he was going astern on the engines.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

IMHO, the 18' sailboat, if run by competent and courteous sailors, should do everything it can to minimize it's impact on a crowded channel that terminates in a small opening through an approaching breakwater. If there's a deep mooring field on both sides of the narrow channel, they should for their own safety, and because they are just plain courteous people, sail as much in the mooring field as possible and stay out of the crowded channel until they get out into the open ocean. Personally, if the 18' sailboat had an engine, I'd power it out. If not, I'd try to only enter the busy narrow channel long enough to get through the breakwater and make it clear to vessels in the channel I was trying to stay out of the way.

That's just plain courtesy and good seamanship.

IMHO from a strict rules perspective, the situation is not 100% clear. If there had been a collision, the blame would have been apportioned between the 50' sailboat under power and the 18' sailboat under sail. If I was judge and jury, I'd put more of the blame on the 18' sailboat as I think the narrow channel rule has some bearing here, but since there was some escape possible for the 50' sailboat as well, into the mooring field I couldn't let the 50' boat completely off the hook.

And for the record, if I was operating the 50' sailboat, I'd have been p**** too. Similar situations have happened to me. Sailing through a narrow, busy channel on a busy weekend in my neighborhood, unless you can do it without impeding traffic is, well, just discourteous IMHO.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Interesting feedback, thanks for the thoughts. I suspected I would get differing opinions. Let's just clear up a couple of things.

First and foremost, even though we got uncomfortably close, I still had time to throw the rudder to starboard and weave my way through the mooring field, pretty close to the breakwater. I was going pretty slow by then. So, no ultimate violation of my responsibility to evade, as the vessel recognizing the potential for a collision. The mooring field to starboard probably did have sufficient depth on the part closest to the channel, but not closer to shore. I could have driven behind a row of boats, maybe two, but no more. It is a small boat mooring field that one would never expect a 54ft boat to be navigating through, although, you probably could for this emergency.

My question, which has received differing opinions, is who had the initial responsibility to give way (ie not impede)? Rule 9(b) reads to me that it was them. They thought Rule 18 applied ( shooting "there are rules you know")

While dangerous to try to makes sense of regulations, this is my take. This rule exists to supersede other rules that would otherwise allow sailboats to disrupt the orderly transit of a narrow marked channel. (ie Rule 18, Responsibilites between Vessels, begins with "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise apply). The channel is there solely to allow for the entrance and exit to the harbor. While not so narrow as to completely forbid scattering into the adjacent mooring fields, it makes no sense that a sailboat can just push everyone aside (99% of boats will be motoring here) into chaos. 

I recognize that had there been a collision, we would both bare some responsibility as every one has the requirement to evade. I still had that option, although, it would have been quite a pucker factor not knowing exactly what depths were near that breakwater. 

Finally, doesn't Rule 18 establish a responsibility between vessels, not a right? IOW, even if they thought Rule 18 applied, they didn't have a right to stand on, we're all too close for that. They had to evade under Rule 17 anyway. Rules followed. Ultimately, that seems the point of Rule 9. You don't throw a sailboat into an organized harbor channel and immediate cause everyone to evade due to proximity and close quarters.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

On a pretty regular basis I would see smaller sailboats, in the 35 to 50 foot range, blithely challenge the 900 foot Maersk ships entering Charleston harbor. I've seen them so close under the bow that there was no way that anybody on the bridge could still see the sailboat or even her mast, apparently unaware of the danger they were in. 
I mean, it's not like these ships *can* stop or even turn sufficiently to avoid killing those aboard the sailing vessel! If I was 40 feet in front of the bow of a 900 foot ship that was underway, I'd be sh*ting bricks, not nonchalantly continuing on my merry. But then again, who but the stupidest person would allow themselves to be in that position, in the first place?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm doing some legal scouring. I haven't found a case specific to a harbor and recreational boats, but I have found several cases involving narrow channels. All seem to recognize there is no exact definition of a narrow channel in the regulations. However, of the cases I've read so far, there is a presumption that the narrow channel rule applies over the responsibilities between vessels, when it may be unclear. Interesting. I will post links, but some are massive. I'm still looking for something closer to my exact situation.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> .....
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how to define a narrow channel, but it seems to fit. She was a real obnoxious, self-entitled &^%, but it haunts me a bit. She may not have been born that way, she seemed to have plenty of years behind her to practice being obnoxious.


But it does not fit. Period, so forgetaboutit.

Our enjoyment of boating is often infringed because other boaters either simply don't know the basics of ColRegs or may know but just aren't paying attention. So we should first stick with the basics, and hope other weekend boaters can handle even those. To lawyer-up by finding a slim corner of ColRegs to justify breaking a basic rule may be just entitling yourself, it certainly is not a good strategy for enjoying the day out.

The basic ColRegs rules for a recreational boater start:
1. Overtaking is give-way
2. Powered is give-way to sail and muscle
...

You might consider how your perspective of the situation changes if the other vessel was a cruiser similar to yours, and was powering across your bow from the starboard mooring field to port. Is that vessel not stand-on because you are in a "narrow channel"?


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

sailingfool said:


> The basic ColRegs rules for a recreational boater start:
> 1. Overtaking is give-way
> 2. Powered is give-way to sail and muscle


I used to have a slip right across from a junior sail school. I frequently heard kids being told #2.
This was in regard to kids entering or exiting the very very rocky, very narrow harbour entrance under sail.
"Don't worry about the power boats they have to get out of your way".


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> In my opinion it doesn't matter what the rules are as they re only there to use _after  something happens, similar to the fact that police are there to investigate what happens after a crime, not prevent the crime. A land lubber example of what you are describing happened to my wife this summer with her car. She was driving through a parking lot with narrow lanes and a guy backed into the side of her car when he was trying to leave his parking space. Her speed was about 20 mph and the investigating officer wrote the guy who backed out a ticket. The guy who did it protested the ticket to his insurance company and said that my wife should have taken "evasive action". Our insurance company bought into his excuse and tried to reduce the payment damage for our car to 75% of the claim because my wife did not evade. We took a Google Earth print out of the parking lot in to illustrate how narrow the passageways were and that if my wife had taken "evasive action" that she would have run into the parked cars on the right side of the lane. My take is to always do what you can to avoid getting into potential litigation situations but if you are involved go for the jugular...._


_

Sorry but I don't agree with any of this, especially as an example of advise on this thread.
The rules ARE there for guidance and should be known by boaters just like driving rules SHOULD be understood by drivers. Your example of not having avoidance room in the parking lot while driving 20 mph is just ludicrous, if there's no room to avoid SLOW down, the judgement in your case was correct._


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> But it does not fit. Period, so forgetaboutit.
> 
> Our enjoyment of boating is often infringed because other boaters either simply don't know the basics of ColRegs or may know but just aren't paying attention. So we should first stick with the basics, and hope other weekend boaters can handle even those. To lawyer-up by finding a slim corner of ColRegs to justify breaking a basic rule may be just entitling yourself, it certainly is not a good strategy for enjoying the day out.
> 
> ...


Nope, I think you're wrong about this one. There is no such thing as a basic rule taking precedence in the ColRegs. Rule 9 explicitly supersedes Rule 18 (to which I think you are considering basic), there is no ambiguity about that. Rule 9 also states that any vessel less than 20 meters in length is also not permitted to impede a narrow channel. Therefore, Rule 18 simply doesn't apply in this channel. Two power vessels meeting in a crossing situation, would mean the power vessel in your consideration (if less than 20 meteres) to starboard is also not permitted to impede the vessel in the narrow channel, even though they would be stand on, if not crossing in the channel.

The only potential for ambiguity here is whether this channel is considered "narrow". If it is, case closed. Sailboats lose their Rule 18 standing, by definition in narrow channels. So far, in all cases I've found, where the question was only to determine if the channel was narrow, the courts have said that the reasonable mariner should assume the vessel in the channel is there to transit orderly and you should not impede that channel.

Let's not forget, this situation worked out just fine, so all rules were ultimately obeyed. My question is only a matter of technicality, since the other boat invoked the "there are rules you know" argument, which I took to mean their privilege of being a sailboat over a power boat.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

sailingfool said:


> The basic ColRegs rules for a recreational boater start:
> 1. Overtaking is give-way
> 2. Powered is give-way to sail and muscle
> ...
> ...


I think this ties in nicely with the thread on mandatory licencing. We know that's what new sailors are often told, even though it is not entirely accurate.

Up here we have a very rudimentary mandatory federal licencing system, I often hear people joke that it is too easy, however, this topic is covered in the free study guide or manual for recreational boaters, even for extreme beginners. The guide gives a brief description of behaviours in narrow channels. It does not talk about rule 9, but it does talk about not impeding the passage of vessels in narrow channels.

As for the last part, rule 9 doesn't really speak to stand on vessels, it lists positive action to be taken by all vessels operating in a narrow channel. Namely, every body keeps to the right (just like you would driving down a road) and avoid impeding the passage of vessels that can only operate within the channel.

I am not sure if 9b came into play in this place or not, but I feel confident the small vessel was not in the right by hogging the entire channel.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

capta said:


> On a pretty regular basis I would see smaller sailboats, in the 35 to 50 foot range, blithely challenge the 900 foot Maersk ships entering Charleston harbor. I've seen them so close under the bow that there was no way that anybody on the bridge could still see the sailboat or even her mast, apparently unaware of the danger they were in.
> I mean, it's not like these ships *can* stop or even turn sufficiently to avoid killing those aboard the sailing vessel! If I was 40 feet in front of the bow of a 900 foot ship that was underway, I'd be sh*ting bricks, not nonchalantly continuing on my merry. But then again, who but the stupidest person would allow themselves to be in that position, in the first place?


In a big Bay race this summer we had such a case. A Racing Sailboat was exceeding the "comfort level" of the RoRo container ship and not monitoring the radio, by the time communication was established with said Boat his only question was of Disqualification, interestingly enough that was the suggestion of the container Captain. I don't know the ruling on this particular case but it (rules application) is mentioned in EVERY Skippers meeting I have ever attended.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

What do you think of the attitude that produced this poster for a regatta ?


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

boatpoker said:


> What do you think of the attitude that produced this poster for a regatta ?


Pretty silly, Photoshopped. Could anyone take it seriously? I guess so. Looks like Rum was involved.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

albrazzi said:


> In a big Bay race this summer we had such a case. A Racing Sailboat was exceeding the "comfort level" of the RoRo container ship and not monitoring the radio, by the time communication was established with said Boat his only question was of Disqualification, interestingly enough that was the suggestion of the container Captain. I don't know the ruling on this particular case but it (rules application) is mentioned in EVERY Skippers meeting I have ever attended.


The Charleston Pilots are, as I'm sure they are in the Chesapeake, a very powerful body and have several times put the race organizers on notice that if they couldn't control their participants, all in bay racing would be suspended indefinitely. The race organizers went much farther than disqualification, they banned several boats/captains for the season, or longer.
It is never the intention of a pilot to kill people, but that is often the inevitable result of that sort of stupidity, on the part of the smaller boats' actions.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

What about ( and I've been there) a sailboat tacking into a harbor because their engine is out or they are unpowered?

In a crowded harbor with a lot of traffic you are going to inconvenience someone, but you need to get in. I would like to think that other operators of small pleasure boats would give way, or at least give the sailboat a break. And then it becomes an undefined situation that people just all have to use their skill to stay safe.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

albrazzi said:


> Pretty silly, Photoshopped. Could anyone take it seriously? I guess so. Looks like Rum was involved.


I can't say if it's photo shopped or not but I have seen this type of move many times. I lived aboard for many years next to a sailing school in a yacht club that prides themselves in holding many large regattas'. I have found that that attitude is prevalent among the "racing" crowd.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I can't think of a rule that gives a sailboat with an inoperative motor any more standing than a sailboat that has chosen not to use theirs or doesn't have one. It's simply whether one is running or not. 

Rule 9 does not say you can't tack in the harbor, or cross the channel. It only says that you can't impede those in the narrow channel. Just tack out of the way, time your entrance, etc.

Better yet, get on the radio and coordinate the entrance. I bet most would simply slow to allow ingress. (edit... then again, I used to live near NYC, maybe not  )


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm doing some legal scouring. I haven't found a case specific to a harbor and recreational boats, but I have found several cases involving narrow channels. All seem to recognize there is no exact definition of a narrow channel in the regulations. However, of the cases I've read so far, there is a presumption that the narrow channel rule applies over the responsibilities between vessels, when it may be unclear. Interesting. I will post links, but some are massive. I'm still looking for something closer to my exact situation.


I think the words "constrained by draft and/or maneuverability" are the guiding words that cover every scenario involving a "narrow channel". It really isn't about the size of the channel, but about the ability of the vessels involved to avoid a collision. If you put an ULCC (1500+ feet long) in a narrow channel that is miles across, that vessel still may not have the ability to avoid a collision.
IMO, it all boils down to "if a vessel *can* avoid a collision, then a vessel *must* avoid a collision". All the rest of the rule is just fluff for the Admiralty attorneys to argue over.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

capta said:


> I think the words "constrained by draft and/or maneuverability" are the guiding words that cover every scenario involving a "narrow channel".


Does that exist in case law or some other clarification? I just pulled out Rule 9 and read it word for word again. That reference is not made.

For that matter, what constrains maneuverability and how can it be determined.



> It really isn't about the size of the channel, but about the ability of the vessels involved to avoid a collision. If you put an ULCC (1500+ feet long) in a narrow channel that is miles across, that vessel still may not have the ability to avoid a collision.
> IMO, it all boils down to "if a vessel *can* avoid a collision, then a vessel *must* avoid a collision". All the rest of the rule is just fluff for the Admiralty attorneys to argue over.


The only basic rule is that everyone is responsible to avoid a collision. Which we all did. Indeed, the substance of my query is merely technical, given the snotty boater's technical argument.

*******************

Separate point.....

I'm also beginning to feel like there is a V8 moment here. Would I sail across a harbor entrance and just assume all the powerboats would get out of the way. No, I wouldn't. I simply wouldn't put this issue into question at all. To expect a boat motoring in a channel, with the clear mission to exit the harbor, to have to divert into a mooring field, because I wanted to take that tack in front of them, actually defies human decency. It would take a self-entitled person to feel otherwise. I think the primary ColReg rule here is on my side, but common sense all the more.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sal Paradise said:


> What about ( and I've been there) a sailboat tacking into a harbor because their engine is out or they are unpowered?.


If you are underpowered, then one would assume you were motorsailing, as it makes no sense to sail in if you have even a little bit of assist from your engine.
As for losing your engine entirely, I believe that's why the prudent sailor has a membership in a towing service, if available. In a quiet harbor one might attempt to sail in, but in a busy harbor, especially on a holiday or weekend, I would not consider sailing in to be prudent seamanship. That's why we have anchors that should hold the boat, even if conditions are not ideal.
At any rate, should I be sailing in, by choice, and be confronted by a larger and less maneuverable vessel, I'd probably turn away from the problem situation, even if it meant going out beyond the congestion point and then trying again. I do not condone sailing into a harbor/marina just for practice or fun of it, if it creates a problem for others. That's just basic courtesy, isn't it? If you want to do that stuff, wait for a day when there is little possibility that your fun will cause others problems.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

boatpoker said:


> I can't say if it's photo shopped or not but I have seen this type of move many times. I lived aboard for many years next to a sailing school in a yacht club that prides themselves in holding many large regattas'. I have found that that attitude is prevalent among the "racing" crowd.


This is the end result:


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

There is a case analysis over on LinkedIn that attempts to analyze a situation in which two vessels collided. You can read that here; http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-narrow-channel-colregs72-rule-9-defined-capt-siddharth-mahajan/

The takeaways, at least for me, are these;

Channels and fairways are not always marked by pecked lines on a chart.
If due to geographical constrictions a vessel is unable to make a full round turn either to port or stbd, then a channel can said to be "narrow."
Channels which are delimited by buoys are defined as "narrow channels."
A ship which is outside a fairway should not enter it at such a time or place as will cause difficulty to other ships already in the fairway and proceeding up or down it.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I've always felt that when I'm crossing traffic, it is mainly *my* job to look out against being run down, but that could just be why jaywalking is considered normal and proper in some places. (Even when it is illegal.)

"shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway. " The sea lawyers probably would say that playing thread the needle in a mooring field is normal navigation, so having that option means there was a reasonable alternative to being in the channel. Still...depending on the mooring field, the wind, the activity, playing thread the needle isn't always a good idea, even when it is possible.

I suspect any two "authorities" might rule at least two different ways on this one, but it reminds me of one of the lesser known racing rules: If you leave no survivors, you spend less time with the protest committee.

Use the coupon code "STARBOARD" to get 20% off your next purchase of torpedoes at Missiles-R-Us, from now through Dec. 31st 24:00 hours.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> If due to geographical constrictions a vessel is unable to make a full round turn either to port or stbd, then a channel can said to be "narrow."
> 
> Channels which are delimited by buoys are defined as "narrow channels."


I did see that link and was trying to track down it's referenced source data. While the situation is in a commercial shipping channel and mostly focused on Rule 9(a) - stay to the outer limit on your starboard side - (which I was doing), the judges did make some very interesting points pertaining to the definition of narrow, like those you referenced.

For what it's worth, these two bullets fully applied in defining narrow in my circumstance. If I had room to make a full round turn, without crossing into oncoming traffic, I probably would have. It makes no sense that the rule would expect one to depart the channel and navigate through a mooring field, just to let a sailboat enjoy their tack.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Use the coupon code "STARBOARD" to get 20% off your next purchase of torpedoes at Missiles-R-Us, from now through Dec. 31st 24:00 hours.


Is there a limit? I need to stock up for my trip from RI to FL next year.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

We have a thread for that. :smile


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

eherlihy said:


> There is a case analysis over on LinkedIn that attempts to analyze a situation in which two vessels collided. You can read that here; http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-narrow-channel-colregs72-rule-9-defined-capt-siddharth-mahajan/
> 
> The takeaways, at least for me, are these;
> 
> ...


Good point on the round turn. Obviously not constant by Boat size, or always recognizable by the other Boat. Adding to the moving target of definition.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> I did see that link and was trying to track down it's referenced source data. While the situation is in a commercial shipping channel and mostly focused on Rule 9(a) - stay to the outer limit on your starboard side - (which I was doing), the judges did make some very interesting points pertaining to the definition of narrow, like those you referenced.
> 
> For what it's worth, these two bullets fully applied in defining narrow in my circumstance. If I had room to make a full round turn, without crossing into oncoming traffic, I probably would have. It makes no sense that the rule would expect one to depart the channel and navigate through a mooring field, just to let a sailboat enjoy their tack.


You continue to focus on the word "narrow" while ignoring the rest of the rule definition regarding ...can safely navigating ONLY in that channel... As you state you could safely navigate outside the channel, this rule did not apply to you, in the described sitation.

The fact that navigating outside the channel might be inconvenient does mean you make up a new rule for it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> You continue to focus on the word "narrow" while ignoring the rest of the rule definition regarding ...can safely navigating ONLY in that channel... As you state you could safely navigate outside the channel, this rule did not apply to you, in the described sitation.
> 
> The fact that navigating outside the channel might be inconvenient does mean you make up a new rule for it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Yes. I agree with this.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> You continue to focus on the word "narrow" while ignoring the rest of the rule definition regarding ...can safely navigating ONLY in that channel... As you state you could safely navigate outside the channel, this rule did not apply to you, in the described sitation.
> 
> The fact that navigating outside the channel might be inconvenient does mean you make up a new rule for it.


I ain't buying it. You choose to highlight the single word, only, so I'll highlight the word SAFELY.

Who would rationally think its safe to force harbor entrance and exiting traffic into adjacent small boat mooring fields as safe? It likely could have been done in an emergency, but it's not the safe thing to do.

As define by the court docs I've read so far, this isn't even relevant. You can't pick single words. It's the point of the rule in it's entirety that matters. Small boats and sailboats do not have Rule 18 vessel type privilege in these narrow marked channels, which could cause the orderly flow of traffic to scatter into less orderly, less safe mooring fields. To be certain you understand the mooring field, I don't believe there is a mooring that could even take my boat on it.

Think about it. The channel was marked, with red and green USCG nuns and cans, for one purpose only, to keep vessels from mooring in the way of ingress and egress. Why in the world would a pleasure craft under sail be permitted to disturb that and force traffic back into a maze? Rule 9 was written so they can't. If there is nothing to either side of the channel, but unobstructed deep water, then Rule 18 makes sense.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Ya, I am inclined to think this rule was not written with a 50 foot sailboat in mind, I think it was written with consideration to the ships, E and I posted. In the eyes of these regulations, both vessels involved were small pleasure craft under 20 meters in length. I feel like the size of the smaller sailboat is kind of a red herring. It sounds like you were both restricted to the channel.

Here is a photo sequence. This is my home waters, we are accustomed to narrow channels, and generally every body does what they are supposed to do. Figure out how much of the channel you need, haul over to starboard and meet the other boat, sail or motor, its like clock work. I am not sure what size these cruisers are, but they must be close to 50 feet. If I was on their side of the channel, they would have given me heck. However, if they told me to get out of their way because their boats were bigger than mine, they would have had a fight on their hands they would not have won, because we were all restricted to the same channel. Unless the channel you were in was smaller than this, I can not see why you were any more restricted to the channel than them. 

I think what we have here is your friend in the little boat ignoring 9a, under the belief that she was the stand on vessel because she had her rags up. I don't see 9b coming into play, and indeed it wouldn't have if everyone was obeying 9 a (like you were).


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Ya, I am inclined to think this rule was not written with a 50 foot sailboat in mind, I think it was written with consideration to the ships, E and I posted. In the eyes of these regulations, both vessels involved were small pleasure craft under 20 meters in length.


Since the regs are full of explicit length and tonnage stipulations, the fact that there are none that make this point would argue against it. It only stipulates size, when referring to the imped"or", not the vessel being impeded. If they only intended Rule 9 to apply to big ships being impeded, I'm sure it would say so. Many regs do.



> I feel like the size of the smaller sailboat is kind of a red herring. It sounds like you were both restricted to the channel.


Actually, no one is restricted to the channel by these Rules. Only if you are "proceeding along the course" are you required by Rule 9(a) to stay to starboard. Rule 9(b) was written for everyone else. It essentially says to stay out of the way of those proceeding along it's course. Therefore, I'm proceeding along the course and the sailboat was not. You're right, the size of the vessel is not relevant in this case. If the vessel that was not proceeding along the course was a power boat, it would matter how big it was.

While not a regulatory point, doesn't that just make sense. The conflict rules were written for open water, when everyone has room to maneuver but there needs to be some order to that all don't just turn in to each other. This is an orderly channel and a stupid self-entitled sailor. Layman's conclusion.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> ... You can't pick single words. It's the point of the rule in it's entirety that matters. ...


Right, that's my point. You can't pick single words like NARROW but ignore other words. Every word in a rule like this is there for a reason, including ONLY. You are simply out in left field without a glove believing that operating in a channel surrounded by navigable water makes your vessel standon. The girls in the sailboat got it right.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

SF, I am still undecided on the 9b thing. I tend to agree with your stance on 9b, although Minn makes some good points. But whats your take on 9a. These girls were definitely not staying on their side of the channel. Based on that, I cant see how they can get a free pass. Dollars to donuts, if they had luffed up just for a second to indicate an intention to take Minns stern, he would have reciprocated the courtesy by putting the hammer down and gotten out of their way. Or they could have waved and hollared we have no engine, in which case I bet he would have stopped. 

In heavy traffic every one needs to work together, a little give and take (as I hope my posts have indicated), but these girls demanded right of way, in spite of rather precarious high grounds ( I would argue very precarious since they were on the wrong side of the channel).

In My very first post, I got as far to the right as I could, and the 700 foot ore carrier recognised that effort, gave me a wide birth and a friendly wave from the bridge, because he knew that even though I was the stand on vessel, I recognised that I should not be impeding his passage in a narrow channel.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> .....The girls in the sailboat got it right....


You're entitled to your opinion, that's why I started this thread. However, I don't accept your credibility on this rule's interpretation, as you initially mistook the precedence of Rule 9 over 18 in the first place. It seems more like you're defending your pride or trying to prove something, than is seems you're trying to be constructive.

From reading on this, it is abundantly clear that the Reg never defined a narrow channel, thereby, you can't either. Court cases, some identified above, that have been forced to interpret this matter after a collision, have all erred on the side of it being a narrow channel, if at all in doubt. You are left with only your opinion. Again, to which you are entitled.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

So, I just took a look at the harbor chart itself. The channel is charted at 15 ft depth. Immediately adjacent to the channel, in the first row of moorings, it's charted at 7 ft depth. Further into the field it is charted at 4 ft depth. I said repeatedly this was a small boat mooring field. There are rocks charted by the breakwater, naturally. It is not clear what the depths are directly in front of it, which is where I said I was heading, if they didn't tack. 

I draw 6.5 ft by the book. Most would assume we all draw more than the book. Does it seem safe to turn into the mooring field?

It further occurs to me that my vessel's full length keel would draw 9 ft, we have a shoal. The sailboat could not have known neither, but it sure stands to reason that the vessel "proceeding along the course" would and you should not impede. 

What say you all now?


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

Wow, I had an entirely different mind picture of a narrow channel. When I saw the pictures that Arcb posted I thought that was a creek or small river. Then Minnie explained that the "channel" he was referencing had a depth of of 15'. I always think of this rule in terms of shipping, my bad. I am curious though about the point that once you tack in a channel that you are no longer the stand on vessel?Seems as though that is only true if your tack occurs when there are other vessels in the immediate vicinity in which case I suppose you luff to the edge of the channel to starboard until the other vessels have passed? What do you do if there is adverse or opposing current? Is there a rule that says you have to have an engine? I obviously need to brush up on the rules but for the time being I will have adhere to my position that size rules. If you are a 100 meter freighter you win! If you're an 18' sailboat you lose.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

contrarian said:


> Wow, I had an entirely different mind picture of a narrow channel. When I saw the pictures that Arcb posted I thought that was a creek or small river


That is actually the Rideau Canal, the primary water route to Canadas Capital.

Its a decently busy waterway. Popular cruising route, often part of the Great Loop.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> it sure stands to reason that the vessel "proceeding along the course" would and you should not impede.


This was also my thinking - the women should had assumed you were in need to use the channel due to your draught. You were operating within the parameters of the channel in an orderly fashion. As such, others navigating the waters should also make this assumption. If not I question whether they should be in charge of a boat.

Your initial quote at the start of this thread makes it clear.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Sounds like a "self entitled" sailor to me. That said, the "stand-on" vessel "shall keep her course and speed". It's possible that the sailing vessel could have interpreted your slowing as an indication that you intended to give way. It doesn't sound like that's what happened here though. Part (d) of rule 9 indicates that sounding the danger signal when you 1st observed the conflict would have been appropriate, but likely ineffective if they believed, as it appears they did, that they were "stand-on". You correctly took action to avoid collision, 20 to 30 ft. is pretty close quarters with knuckleheads though. Absent alot of wind or current, I may have just stopped the boat, reached for my coffee, and let the folly unfold.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

If you could leave the channel and enter the mooring field which presumably had sufficient draft... I think this is a good approach. The sailboat was doing something stupid regardless of the rules... almost like a pedestrian jay walking and expecting traffic to avoid them... which traffic normally will. But this is a stupid move.

You could slow and idle alongside the fairway at the edge of the mooring field hopefully with sufficient sea room... and then re enter the channel when the "coast is clear". If this was a busy exit you might be waiting for the end of the line to reach you or you could motor thru the mooring field parallel to the channel until it was safe to cross into it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> Sounds like a "self entitled" sailor to me. That said, the "stand-on" vessel "shall keep her course and speed". It's possible that the sailing vessel could have interpreted your slowing as an indication that you intended to give way.


That has occurred to me. However, Rule 17(b) states the stand-on vessel, which was me according to Rule 15 (recalling that Rule 18 has been superseded), "...shall take such action as will best avoid collision". I've been instructed to make large, obvious moves, but I don't actually see that requirement in the Reg. This is a "there are rules you know" discussion, after all. 

One could say that a full stop would have been best. I was in neutral and coasting as close to the edge of the channel as I could manage. But, defacto turns out to be incorrect, since a collision was avoided.

Still, this is a question of whether the sailboat was give way. I think they were.



> It doesn't sound like that's what happened here though. Part (d) of rule 9 indicates that sounding the danger signal when you 1st observed the conflict would have been appropriate, but likely ineffective if they believed, as it appears they did, that they were "stand-on".


5 blasts would have been appropriate. However, Rule 9(d) says the "...vessel may use the sound signal..." It's clearly not required.



> You correctly took action to avoid collision, 20 to 30 ft. is pretty close quarters with knuckleheads though. Absent alot of wind or current, I may have just stopped the boat, reached for my coffee, and let the folly unfold.


Thanks. It was concerning, although, I was going pretty slow by then and probably would have swung hard right and full reverse about one second later. I don't recall anyone immediately behind me, but this was an active day in the harbor. Stopping in the channel would have been an obstruction to flow for sure.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> I've been instructed to make large, obvious moves, but I don't actually see that requirement in the Reg.


Rule 8 (Action to avoid a collision)

(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

The narrow channel is or can be an artifact... simply marked by a line of buoys. Of course it may be deeper and permit deep draft vessels. This reminds me of Port Jef. It's a large harbor with draft enough for mooring and anchoring of sailboats... and a constrained entrance with a break water and a headland forming narrow channel... until you clear the break water going out... or clear the headland/beach going in.

There is a constant regular stream of large ferry boats going in and out... maybe each half hour. There are sailboats sailing around in the protected water of the harbor... not heading out for the Sound. All but deep draft boats can exit the channel virtually all of its length. But it does bisect the harbor and there is a fair number of boats crossing it. So it's basically possible and prudent to simply turn to stbd and exit the channel if someone decides to sail across without consideration for the channel traffic. Ferries can't do this so you simply do not cross in front of them... FULL STOP.

Rather than rely on a rule it may be far better to have an "exit" strategy to avoid collision and be prepared to implement it.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> ... However, I don't accept your credibility on this rule's interpretation, as you initially mistook the precedence of Rule 9 over 18 in the first place. It seems more like you're defending your pride or trying to prove something, than is seems you're trying to be constructive...


The ad hominen seems pretty unnecessary.

As a sailing and power boat instructor I have just been trying to help you appreciate how others boaters may react to your personal interpretation of Rule 9B.

While some other posters may chose to buy in, boaters who have been through formal education such as ASA or Freedom Boat classes likely will not. It's not in the agenda. Boaters passing state boating programs such as California's will not, it's not in the agenda https://www.boat-ed.com/california/studyGuide/10100502/. In fact, any boating training program in the US that conforms with the ANSI standards published by NABLA https://www.nasbla.org/nasblamain/education/national-ed-standards will not, as it's not in the agenda.

My advice remains - don't be creative with your Colregs interpretations.

If you are a recreational craft under power, if you give way to all sailboats and to powered vessels to starboard, you will always have a better day of boating, than if you create your own exceptions.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Ya, I have a few problems with that. The biggest being those aren't rules, they are simplified guidelines. The ASA doesn't have the authority to rewrite the collision regulations. The rules that are being discussed are the colregs, if this thread was about simplified guide lines, I might agree with the above, but the discussion is about codified rules- statutes.

The ColRegs are international law that have been adopted by the United States.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> Rule 8 (Action to avoid a collision)
> 
> (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
> (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.


Can you see the forehead slap from there? At least I had heard of it. 

However, this is also contained within Rule 8(e).... "If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off......"

Precisely what I did and why I went to neutral. Thanks for posting. I think I'm still within the "rules you know"


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> ....My advice remains - don't be creative with your Colregs interpretations.....


I have taken and passed several of the courses you reference, but they are not the "rules". The sailboat barked "there are rules you know". There was no collision, so all is good, by all accounts. We're discussing the actual rules they implied.

That said, did you see my update on depths outside the channel? I think 'safely only in the channel' applies, let alone the fact that I was proceeding along its course. Do you still argue I had a rules obligation to turn into the mooring field, with theoretically inches of room under my keel? I may have to avoid collision under a different Rule, but Rule 9 says they were not to impede.

Rule 9 Narrow Channels should be reviewed in your course, if it's not. The problem is that sailboats (all sailboats regardless of size) are not supposed to impede narrow channels. It makes sense and is really that simple.

I apologize for getting snarky about your credibility, but I was reacting to your first contribution here, where you lead with "forgetaboutit" and entirely misrepresented the rules..... you said



> "You might consider how your perspective of the situation changes if the other vessel was a cruiser similar to yours, and was powering across your bow from the starboard mooring field to port. Is that vessel not stand-on because you are in a "narrow channel"?


Given this "consideration" stipulates me being in a narrow channel. The cruiser powering across my bow, if I'm proceeding along the course of the channel, is not to impede, regardless of direction. If you're planning to have a rational discussion of the rules, I think you'll need to better explain why you think it does.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Actually, I had to read to find it myself, I'd love to say that was from memory, but it wasn't.

I haven't worked much with ColRegs since I quit full time boat driving back in 2011. That's why I enjoy these conversations, they keep me from forgetting everything.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

The powerboats are so bad in my neck of the Hudson, that I'm happy if anyone even knows there ARE rules. Usually its max power and minimum looking out.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

sailingfool said:


> In fact, any boating training program in the US that conforms with the ANSI standards published by NABLA https://www.nasbla.org/nasblamain/education/national-ed-standards will not, as it's not in the agenda.


I haven't really done the sailing school thing, so I don't know what they normally teach. Any way, it came up so I decided to take a look. I was kind of curious what kind of stuff US boaters are being taught because, every where I sail I have seen US boaters. Even in my home waters, NY and PA registration numbers out number Ontario registrations during cruising season. So at least some US sailors are operating internationally outside of US waters. I have seen US boaters in Europe and the Caribbean. In addition to this, I do a fair amount of boating in the US.

So for the power boater course it seems they teach the following colregs:

_4.3 Navigation Rules 4.3.1 This course shall describe basic safe boating operation and good seamanship for recreational boaters. 4.3.2 The course shall be designed to assist the recreational boater when encountering typical navigation rules of the road situations. 4.3.3 4.3 Navigation Rules 4.3.1 This course shall describe basic safe boating operation and good seamanship for recreational boaters. 4.3.2 The course shall be designed to assist the recreational boater when encountering typical navigation rules of the road situations. 4.3.3 Although boat operators are responsible to be knowledgeable of the NAVIGATION RULES AND REGULATIONS HANDBOOK by the United States Coast Guard in their entirety, this course will focus on only the following Inland Rules*: *In those states that Inland Rules do not apply, the equivalent International, Western Rivers or Great Lakes rule(s) may be substituted by the Course Provider. • Rule of responsibility - Rules 2(a) and 2(b) • Proper lookout - Rule 5 • Safe speed - Rule 6(a) • Collision avoidance rules o Rules 7(a), o 7(d),  7(d)(i),  7(d)(ii), o Rule 8, o Rules 13(a), o 13(b), o Rule 16, o Rule 17, o Rule 18 (a-d) • Inland Rules o 14(a), o 14(b), o 14(c), o Rule 15(a) • Restricted visibility - Rules 19(a) through (e) ty, this course will focus on only the following Inland Rules*: *In those states that Inland Rules do not apply, the equivalent International, Western Rivers or Great Lakes rule(s) may be substituted by the Course Provider.

• Rule of responsibility - Rules 2(a) and 2(b) 
• Proper lookout - Rule 5 
• Safe speed - Rule 6(a) 
• Collision avoidance rules o Rules 7(a), o 7(d),  7(d)(i),  7(d)(ii), o Rule 8, o Rules 13(a), o 13(b), o Rule 16, o Rule 17, o Rule 18 (a-d) 
• Inland Rules o 14(a), o 14(b), o 14(c), o Rule 15(a) 
• Restricted visibility - Rules 19(a) through (e) 
_ 
Basically, nearly all rules are on the syllabus, but for some reason they have omitted rule 9 from the power boat course, narrow channels. Not sure why, however during the pre amble it states:

*boat operators are responsible to be knowledgeable of the NAVIGATION RULES AND REGULATIONS HANDBOOK by the United States Coast Guard in their entirety*

The sailing course appears to paint with a wider brush. the basic sailboat syllabus (for boats up to 26 feet, so I guess this is the course I would have to take):

*6.0 Navigation Rules 6.1 Describe, using diagrams as appropriate, the applicable rules (steering & sailing, lights, and sound signals) for up to a 26 foot recreational vessel, as found in the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook (latest version). 6.2 Describe the duty to provide assistance at sea. 
*

Okay, so then I google U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook and when I open it up I find on page 18 and 19:

_-INTERNATIONAL- Steering and Sailing Rules 
Rule 9 Narrow Channels 
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 meters 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. (c) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway. (d) A vessel shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the sound signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel. (e) (i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking can take place only if the vessel to be overtaken has to take action to permit safe passing, the vessel intending to overtake shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(i). The vessel to be overtaken shall, if in agreement, sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c)(ii) and take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she may sound the signals prescribed in Rule 34(d). (ii) This Rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation under Rule 13. (f) A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a narrow channel or fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening obstruction shall navigate with particular alertness and caution and shall sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(e). (g) Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel. 
19 
-INLAND- Steering and Sailing Rules 
Rule 9 Narrow channels 
§ 83.09 (a) (i) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable. (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(i) of this Rule and Rule 14(a) (§ 83.14(a)), a power-driven vessel operating in narrow channels or fairways on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary ‡, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the rightof-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner and place of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i) (§ 83.34(a)(i)), as appropriate. The vessel proceeding upbound against the current shall hold as necessary to permit safe passing. (b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway. (c) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway. (d) A vessel must not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within that channel or fairway. The latter vessel must use the signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) (§ 83.34(d)) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel. (e) (i) In a narrow channel or fairway when overtaking, the power-driven vessel intending to overtake another power-driven vessel shall indicate her intention by sounding the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(c) (§ 83.34)(c)) and take steps to permit safe passing. The power-driven vessel being overtaken, if in agreement, shall sound the same signal and may, if specifically agreed to, take steps to permit safe passing. If in doubt she shall sound the danger signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) (§ 83.34)(d)). (ii) This Rule does not relieve the overtaking vessel of her obligation under Rule 13 (§ 83.13). (f) A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a narrow channel or fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening obstruction shall navigate with particular alertness and caution and shall sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(e) (§ 83.34(e)). (g) Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel. 
‡ See 33 CFR 89.25, provided for reference on page 145 of this handbook. _

I am not sure if the ASA folks are teaching about narrow channels or not, but according to this NABLA syllabus, they are supposed to be. Which is good, and not the least bit surprising to me, since nearly every US boater I have ever encountered seemed to be on the correct side of the channel.

I didn't look at the California one, this one was exhausting enough, and I don't have any boating planned in California.

For reference, here is page 44 of the Canadian Safe Boating Guide, which is the study material for the Canadian Federal licencing.

_KNOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD AND SAFETY ON THE WATER The "rules of the road" for Canada's waterways help everyone avoid collisions on the water by setting out what every boater should do to avoid hitting or being hit by another vessel. This is not just a way to be polite - it is the law set out in the Collision Regulations, which apply to every vessel and operator on all navigable waterways - from canoes to supertankers. Know the "rules of the road" and boat by them!
Avoid Close Quarters Situations
Keep Watch and Steer Clear of Shipping Lanes Keep constant watch for others on the water. If you are sharing the water with large vessels, remember that it is harder for them to see you or change their route to avoid you. It also takes them longer to stop. These are all good reasons to be ready to move out of their way. Some boaters do not realize the risk they take when they cross shipping lanes or pass in front of larger vessels. Here are some tips to remember since these vessels probably will not see you until it is too late. • Always watch for others on the water and be ready to yield to large vessels in the safest way - keeping in mind the water and weather conditions. Use radar and radio if you have them. • Navigate in groups of other small boats when possible, to be more visible. • Stay off the water in fog or high winds. • Stay clear of docked ferries, ferries in transit, vessels in tow and working fishing vessels. Vessels less than 20 m (65'7") and sailing vessels must stay out of the way of larger vessels that can safely navigate only within the navigation channel. A large vessel will remind you to give way by giving five or more short blasts of its horn. This means there is an emergency and you must get out of the way. 
Give Plenty of Space to Tugs and Other Towing Vessels Tugs may tow vessels on a long tow line that extends behind the tug. The tow line is often so long that it hangs below the surface of the water and is nearly invisible. Never pass between a tug and its tow. If a small boat were to hit the hidden line, it could capsize and be run down by the object being towed. Many towed objects will also have a long trailing line behind them. Give the tug and its tow plenty of space in every direction. 
Learn How to Recognize a Towing Vessel at Night Be alert for special lights displayed by tugs (or any vessels) towing barges, other boats or objects. The tug is usually more visible than its tow. In fact, the navigation lights of the tow may not include masthead lights and are often much dimmer than the tug lights. If a power-driven vessel is towing another vessel or object from its stern, the power-driven vessel must display: • sidelights; • a sternlight; • a towing light (yellow light with the same characteristics as the sternlight); • two masthead lights in a vertical line - three if the tow exceeds 200 m (656'); and • a diamond shape where it will be easy to see if the tow exceeds 200 m (656'). The barge, vessel or any other object being towed must display: • sidelights; • a sternlight; and • a diamond shape where it will be easy to see if the tow exceeds 200 m (656'). If it is impractical for the vessel being towed to exhibit the lights stated above, it must have one all-around white light at each of the fore and aft _

It looks to me like Narrow channels are covered, or are supposed to be covered by the sailing schools.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

@Arcb raises a great question, and it could be a "hot potato," but I'll try to help. I am curious about where @Arcb's power boat syllabus comes from.

For a fee, ASA provides their affiliate schools with a series of textbooks, and assessments (tests), and end of course evaluations, among other things (marketing, etc.). ASA does NOT provide common course materials. Every school is expected to use the ASA materials and assessments, and combine them with (stellar) instruction onboard the school's boats to prepare the student to pass the ASA written test and to demonstrate on the water skills. The quality and consistency of the instruction and the boats can vary from school to school.

The latest ASA textbooks are; Sailing Made Easy (101), Coastal Cruising Made Easy (103), and Bareboat Cruising Made Easy (104). There is no mention of Rule 9 in Sailing Made Easy. In Sailing Made Easy the COLREGS presented are; rule 5 (lookout), rule 18 (sail over power), rule 13 (overtaking), rule 12 (sailing), rule 14 (head-on), rule 15 (crossing), rule 16 (action by give way), rule 17 (action by stand on) in that order on pages 90-93.

In Coastal Cruising Made Easy (103) the rules presented are; rule 5, rule 12, rule 13, rule 14, rule 18 and rule 10 (in that order). RULE 9 is presented in a separate green box (usually reserved for a relevant tip - usually skipped by the casual reader) at the lower right of page 86. The specific text in the box states:


> RULE 9: NARROW CHANNELS
> Rule 9 states: "*A vessel less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway."*
> If you are sailing or motoring in or near a marked channel, be on the lookout for larger vessels that may be restricted to navigating within that channel. Even overtaking situations, which are cut and dried in open waters, require cooperation and communication between the overtaking and the overtaken. Don't cross a channel if by doing so you will impede a vessel navigating within the channel.


The need to be aware of the COLREGS, and a brief review is presented in Bareboat Cruising Made Easy on pages 106, and page 107 is a summary of rules 12-15. But there is no mention of rule 9 in the current 104 textbook. It is strange to me that the current version has only a summary. In the old 104 textbook, Cruising Fundamentals, there was a complete review of rules 1-19 on pages 68 through 72.

An ASA 101 student could, therefore, have read the book and passed the exam while never being made aware of Rule 9.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Makes sense E. I am working with unfamiliar territory here (sailing school syllabus).

I was responding to this post and the NABLA link provided. If you click on the link there is what appears to be minimum guidelines for both basic power boat and sailboat courses. This is not territory I know the ins and outs of, I just read the link and responded. I have never even taken a cruising sailboat course, much less taught one.

_In fact, any boating training program in the US that conforms with the ANSI standards published by NABLA https://www.nasbla.org/nasblamain/ed...l-ed-standards will not, as it's not in the agenda. _

Like I said though, nearly every boater I encounter knows to stay to the starboard side of the channel, so its clear to me the information is getting out there, even if its just pier to pier education. It might not be framed as rule 9, it might just be somebody saying something along the lines of, its like driving down the road, you stay the right.

For whatever reason, the lady in the OPs scenario didn't get the message.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

> FWIW - I have also taught courses for a US\Sailing affiliate. The rules are not mentioned by number in Basic Keelboat. However, this is the relevant section of how COLREGS are addressed;
> 
> Sailboats have right of way over powerboats:
> Except when powerboat is
> ...


Isn't that interesting. I see no reference in the actual regulations that a narrow channel has anything to do with a commercial vessel. The fact that there is so much confusion around this subject is becoming pretty clear. On the one hand it seems rarely or obscurely taught at all. On the other, this commercial reference just seems incorrect.

I would think Rule 9 was written to allow for the orderly transit of traffic within a channel. We all know that what's outside the channel can still contain uncharted hazards to navigation. You also could never tell if the vessel in the channel needs to be there for draft reasons. Therefore, I see why a sailboat is told not to impede other vessels (ie use their privilege) that are trying to stay in the channel (ie proceed along it's course). It just makes sense.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I learned from one ASA instructor who presented rule 9 this way; "When in a channel, you always stay to the right side. Just like when driving a car - in any _civilized_ country." As much as this usually got a chuckle, I felt that it kind of glossed over the importance of recognizing when you are in a channel (ATONs on either side), and not impeding any other traffic despite the fact that traffic may involve sail vs power.

However, it seems that the statement in the little green box of the ASA 103 book directly pertains to the situation from your OP... In effect, this is an extra burden upon vessels of less than 20 meters and sailboats. Now if only everybody would read what's in the little green box...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

CiviliSed

You lot of Neanderthals can't even spell it! 


Anyway, I never made any such claim. I drive right up that white painted line thingy.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

capta said:


> The next day the harbormaster dropped by to say the sailor had complained. He told me not to worry and that it wouldn't happen again, as he had kicked the fool out of the marina on the basis that the marina rules clearly stated that it was prohibited to sail in or out of the harbor.


Just wonderin' where would one find these marina rules, and do they carry any legal weight? 

I ask because while shadowing another instructor (he teach, I watch) we sailed into a narrow cove with several (12!) marinas. A guy on one of the docks yelled that we weren't supposed to sail there, as it was a narrow channel. There was no other traffic in the cove, and we weren't interfering with anyone on that day (early in the season). I have never brought my classes in there because it seems fraught with peril for little gain. However, the incident did cause me to wonder if the guy on the dock knew something that the other instructor and I didn't.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

eherlihy said:


> Just wonderin' where would one find these marina rules, and do they carry any legal weight?


I don't know about marinas, but I know of lots of narrow channels where sailing is prohibited. Burlington Canal is a short narrow channel providing access to Hamilton Harbour, which is a major steel port on Lake Ontario.

Rule 8 of the Burlington Canal regulations, which is a Federal Statute, so it definitely carries weight:

8 No vessel shall operate under sail in the canal.

I have found at least one statute that defines a vessel that can only operate within a narrow channel too. Its
the port of Southampton, and the minimum criteria is 150 meters or 450 ft.

www.cowesharbourcommission.co.uk/local_notice_to_mariners_no_10_of_2016:

The Southampton Harbour Byelaws enforces the requirement that all vessels over 150 metres in length when navigating in the Precautionary Area referred to in this notice are automatically allocated a Moving Prohibited Zone (MPZ). The MPZ is an area extending 1000 metres ahead and 100 metres either side of any vessel greater than 150 metres within the Precautionary Area.

The Master of a small vessel (less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel) shall ensure that his vessel does not enter a Moving Prohibited Zone.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

@Arcb Thanks - yes I know that there are several canals - the Cape Cod Canal is one that I have transited many times - where sailing is prohibited. I was just wondering if this was easily referencable from one source.

from http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Porta...ochures/Recreational_Boating_Safety_Guide.pdf


> • Sailing vessels are required to have and use auxiliary power during passage throughout the Canal. Use of sails while motoring is permitted. But, large course changes and/or tacking are strictly prohibited in the landcut and approach channels


I don't know of such a document for Warwick Cove though...


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

FWIW - I have also taught courses for a US\Sailing affiliate. The rules are not mentioned by number in Basic Keelboat. However, this is the relevant section of how COLREGS are addressed;
Sailboats have right of way over powerboats:
Except when powerboat is

Anchored
Capsized
Aground
Towing
Fishing (commercial)
On official business
*Commercial vessel in narrow channel*
Being overtaken
A rowboat or paddleboat has right of way over a sailboat[/quote]

Why not teach the actual rules.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Here's an interesting piece I clipped off a website:



> On 22nd of March 2008, an Ukrainian flagged oil rig supply vessel NEGTEGAZ 67 collided with Chinese flagged panamax bulk carrier Yao Hi. The collision took place in the western approaches of Hong Kong harbour. The supply vessel sank because of this collision and 18 of the 25 crew died. Captain of the supply vessel was found to have breached rule 9 (Narrow channel) because he did not keep on the starboard side of the channel. There were number of debates on the court's finding which considered this to be a narrow channel. Many experts did not agree with the court's decision that it was a narrow channel. The experts argued that even outside this buoyed channel, there was sufficient sea room for the bulk carrier.
> 
> https://www.myseatime.com/blog/detail/5-confusing-terms-of-ship-navigation-and-its-clarification


In this case, even though there was room to navigate outside the channel, the courts found that Rule 9 still applied.

In my case, I really don't think there even was reasonable room to maneuver outside the channel. Nevertheless, there are two overarching points.

First, if you're the vessel doing the impeding, you can't know visually whether the vessel proceeding along the course of the channel is constrained in any way.

Second, the explicit purpose of any marked channel is to delineate safe passage. Expecting/forcing a vessel to exit that channel would require them to face potentially uncharted hazards. The vessel proceeding along the course of the channel is presumed to have made the determination they must remain within it.

It seems, according to my reading, these are the overarching reasons that the courts expect the prudent mariner to assume Rule 9 applies.

This follow, from explanatory notes on the ColRegs, was also interesting, although, I'm not sure of its authority:



> ......a vessel which was required not to impede the passage of another vessel should take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel. Such vessel was obliged to fulfil this obligation also when taking avoiding action in accordance with the steering and sailing rules when risk of collision exists.
> 
> http://www.imcbrokers.com/frontend/files/userfiles/images/2008/07/colreg-explanatory-notes.pdf


This reads to me that a vessel is still obligated not to impede a vessel within a narrow channel, even if they are steering to avoid another vessel under another ColReg.

Rule 9 seems pretty solid.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

MarkofSeaLife

It's been more than a day since your criticism regarding the word 'civilized' and no one has argued the point. Check your spelling sources, you may find that even you can make a mistake.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I think that Mark was injecting a bit of colour into the conversation.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

paulinnanaimo said:


> MarkofSeaLife
> 
> It's been more than a day since your criticism regarding the word 'civilized' and no one has argued the point. Check your spelling sources, you may find that even you can make a mistake.


One is the English spelling. One is the American spelling.
That's what made my bit funny.

If a joke needs to be explained it was not good enough.... Or to the wrong audience.

:nerd


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

Sorry. I read your post again and could hardly contain myself.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I’m curious. Most boats like yours in the 40-50’ range have AIS and radar. in the summer sail out of Barrington RI 
. There’s a active shipping channel into Providence just outside that harbor. Just south of Barrington the channel is very restricted by a lighthouse on one side and rocks on the other. At low channel depths fall into the 40s so virtually all ships are both in a narrow channel and draft restricted.
So why not use your electronic aids to not even get into that area of the channel if there’s the possibility of issues with ships? I actually do this for the first time before even throwing off lines. 
Similarly when transiting the gate or other areas of New York harbor have taken to monitoring 13, 9 and 16. Find 13 most helpful. Simply ask the ships what they want me to do. Then I do it. No pucker moments.
Will share a funny story.
After going up the Delaware then the C&D was going down the Chesapeake and heard this to the best of recollection. 

Female: sailboat with red spinnaker do not approach bridge.
Male: no I’m a sailboat and have right of way.
Female: I repeat take evasive action NOW.
Male: no I have right of way.
Female: I’m a 700’ loaded ship about to approach bridge. I’m steel .... you are glass. I’m restricted....you are not. I’m big ... you are not. I will not die....you may.
You wish to argue right of way any more?
Male: oh


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

outbound said:


> I'm curious. Most boats like yours in the 40-50' range have AIS and radar. in the summer sail out of Barrington RI
> . There's a active shipping channel into Providence just outside that harbor. Just south of Barrington the channel is very restricted by a lighthouse on one side and rocks on the other. At low channel depths fall into the 40s so virtually all ships are both in a narrow channel and draft restricted.
> So why not use your electronic aids to not even get into that area of the channel if there's the possibility of issues with ships? I actually do this for the first time before even throwing off lines.
> Similarly when transiting the gate or other areas of New York harbor have taken to monitoring 13, 9 and 16. Find 13 most helpful. Simply ask the ships what they want me to do. Then I do it. No pucker moments.


I'm not sure who you are addressing, but if it is @Minnewaska in the OP, the situation that he describes would be similar to leaving Bullock Cove by the channel, and having a small sailboat zipping across the channel between Bullock Point and Annawomscutt claiming that they are the stand on vessel because of Rule 18 (the ROW hierarchy). The fact is that per Rule 9 they are not the stand on, and they are obstructing the channel.

In my experience with sailing instruction, there can be a lot of emphasis placed on Rule 18, but seemingly not as much on Rule 9.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Ed you’re spot on


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Let's not conflate (a) "constrained by her draft" with (b) "restricted in her ability to maneuver". Each is a separate category in Rule 18, and in what lights are carried at night. The term "constrained in her ability to maneuver" or words to that effect, doesn't appear in the rules. It's understandable that (a) may cause (b), but not necessarily. But they are separate situations, and "*constrained* maneuverability" isn't an actual thing under the Rules.

Turning to our typical dilemma, namely the jetties or narrow buoyed approaches to it, you don't actually have the "right" to tack up that channel if you can't stay on or at least near your own starboard side of it. Rules 9a and 9b say so. What to do? Wait outside til that big tug and tow have cleared? Drop the hook close to the edge near the starboard jetty and wait it out? Short-tack the hell out of it? (good luck with that in most instances, you'll need it). 

Or just don't let it get that far. Carry a handheld VHF, learn what "Securitay securitay" means and use it to ask if anyone's coming before you commit yourself to entering or exiting. And plan your trip with enough extra time that you can.

That said, I've tacked up the jetties a lot, though not in big-ship harbors. But in a boat that can short-tack up it in half the width without having to take it all. And will use radio or hand signals to advise the (powerboat) in question, or wave him by before I have to tack back out towards the middle.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> That has occurred to me. However, Rule 17(b) states the stand-on vessel, which was me according to Rule 15 (recalling that Rule 18 has been superseded), "...shall take such action as will best avoid collision". I've been instructed to make large, obvious moves, but I don't actually see that requirement in the Reg. This is a "there are rules you know" discussion, after all.


With regard to the "Large, obvious moves" It's contained in:

Rule 8b : Any action taken..."Shall be" Large enough,to be readily apparent...small adjustments of course or speed should be avoided

[/QUOTE] One could say that a full stop would have been best. I was in neutral and coasting as close to the edge of the channel as I could manage. But, defacto turns out to be incorrect, since a collision was avoided.

Still, this is a question of whether the sailboat was give way. I think they were. [/QUOTE]

I agree

[/QUOTE] 5 blasts would have been appropriate. However, Rule 9(d) says the "...vessel may use the sound signal..." It's clearly not required. [/QUOTE]

For the record....Rule 9(d) uses the word "shall" not "may"

[/QUOTE] Thanks. It was concerning, although, I was going pretty slow by then and probably would have swung hard right and full reverse about one second later. I don't recall anyone immediately behind me, but this was an active day in the harbor. Stopping in the channel would have been an obstruction to flow for sure.[/QUOTE]

Not if no-one was behind you


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Thanks for your input. The forward slash (/) prior to quote, denotes end of quote. I fixed them for you in my replies below. Easy fix if you want to repair/remove them at the beginning of the quotes you included. Up to you.



tempest said:


> > 5 blasts would have been appropriate. However, Rule 9(d) says the "...vessel may use the sound signal..." It's clearly not required.
> 
> 
> For the record....Rule 9(d) uses the word "shall" not "may"


This is quite interesting. I just checked my copy and and confirmed it says "May". I will go check the USCG directly.

Edit..... I checked the USCG website. Rule 9(d) says "may". You may have seen 9(f), which says shall, but pertains to blind corners or other like obstructions.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf



> > Thanks. It was concerning, although, I was going pretty slow by then and probably would have swung hard right and full reverse about one second later. I don't recall anyone immediately behind me, but this was an active day in the harbor. Stopping in the channel would have been an obstruction to flow for sure.
> 
> 
> Not if no-one was behind you


While I don't recall if anyone was immediately behind me, it was a busy summer day. Stopping would definitely have disrupted flow of someone coming up soon.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Another interesting thought. How could a vessel proceeding along a course of a major row channel possibly be expected to make large, readily apparent adjustments. They’re in a narrow channel that doesn’t provide room for one. I think case law has established there is not an expectation to exit the channel. Other than the ultimate “everyone for themself catch all” to avoid a collision. However, that was clearly not the rule the sailboat was referring to. They thought they were stand on. 

Rule 9 did permit me to slaken speed or take way off, which I did, and it worked. That is not a large, readily apparent adjustment, so I don’t think Rule 8 is primary in this case.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> I'm curious. Most boats like yours in the 40-50' range have AIS and radar. in the summer sail out of Barrington RI


Fundamentally agree with your post, but I'm not sure most boats have AIS yet. I don't. None of my neighbors do. All 40+. I do have and occasionally use a lame app on my phone.



> Simply ask the ships what they want me to do. Then I do it. No pucker moments.


And, I would add, a pretty legit way to fulfill your obligation not to impede. The Rule, as we've discussed above, does not say you can't be in the narrow channel. It just says that you have to stay out of the way of those proceeding along its course that can only safely navigate within the channel. Staying outside the channel is legit too, just not mandatory.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Thanks for your input. The forward slash (/) prior to quote, denotes end of quote. I fixed them for you in my replies below. Easy fix if you want to repair/remove them at the beginning of the quotes you included. Up to you.
> 
> This is quite interesting. I just checked my copy and and confirmed it says "May". I will go check the USCG directly.
> 
> ...


I believe that you are reading 9(d) from the international side.. The Inland rules which would have applied in your situation state, "shall".

I think we agree that the sailboat was wrong to impede the channel. My practice FWIW is to be more proactive in dealing with situations like that and avoid the close quarter aggravation.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> I believe that you are reading 9(d) from the international side.. The Inland rules which would have applied in your situation state, "shall".
> 
> I think we agree that the sailboat was wrong to impede the channel. My practice FWIW is to be more proactive in dealing with situations like that and avoid the close quarter aggravation.


Hey, you are right! There is a conflict, not only between international and inland, but between what I have in printed form and the USCG site.

I should have blasted the heck out of her. Would have made me feel better too.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> I think we agree that the sailboat was wrong to impede the channel. My practice FWIW is to be more proactive in dealing with situations like that and avoid the close quarter aggravation.


Curious what you would have done differently. If we were alone in the channel, I would have altered course to take their stern, but that wasn't possible. I also couldn't leave the channel in the other direction. I went to idle. Only thing left was a full stop, but I think that would have been pretty aggressive, given the close quarters and traffic flow, as the sailboat was suppose to tack out of the way. I initially thought it was obvious they would.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

capta said:


> IMO, it all boils down to "if a vessel *can* avoid a collision, then a vessel *must* avoid a collision". All the rest of the rule is just fluff for the Admiralty attorneys to argue over.


I agree with that statement. I would add, also, that the general gist of the rules seems to be "whatever vessel is easier to get out of the way is the stand down vessel".


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Curious what you would have done differently. If we were alone in the channel, I would have altered course to take their stern, but that wasn't possible. I also couldn't leave the channel in the other direction. I went to idle. Only thing left was a full stop, but I think that would have been pretty aggressive, given the close quarters and traffic flow, as the sailboat was suppose to tack out of the way. I initially thought it was obvious they would.


I wasn't there, so it's difficult for me to say what precisely I would have done. I regularly navigate through a narrow channel creek, two bridges (with blind corners) , a rocky inlet + strong currents. I keep one of those small handheld horns at the ready near the helm.

To answer your question though, generally speaking, I probably would have just stopped the boat and let them clear. I don't like playing guessing games. In your situation, where you wanted to keep moving, and rightfully should have been able to, you could have sounded 5 blasts as soon as you saw the developing conflict... perhaps they would have gotten the message and tacked away earlier. However, given their comments, they thought they were "Stand-on", and may have just held their course.

If they don't tack, after hearing the horn, That then leaves you back at square one..avoiding collision... but at least now you "know" their intent earlier and can avoid the close quarter stuff. You can always cuss them out later..

Another last option could be to turn the boat around, traffic and room permitting, and do a slow 360 until they clear.

At the end of the day, no one got hit, so it all worked out, albeit with some anxiety.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Lazerbrains said:


> > Originally Posted by capta
> > IMO, it all boils down to "if a vessel can avoid a collision, then a vessel must avoid a collision". All the rest of the rule is just fluff for the Admiralty attorneys to argue over.
> 
> 
> I agree with that statement.


It is accurate, but would you agree it is not the "there are rules you know" that the sailboat was referring to? In the end, both of us complied with this catch all rule.



> I would add, also, that the general gist of the rules seems to be "whatever vessel is easier to get out of the way is the stand down vessel".


I get your point, but it's technical. Rule 9 would say that a 150ft Schooner, without a motor, must not impede any vessel of any size that was proceeding along the course of a narrow channel (safely and only provisions noted), even if the vessel in the channel is more maneuverable. Even though it would easier for the maneuverable vessel, the schooner must stay out of the away. Once the crosssing vessel is powered and over 65? ft, then we're back to Rule 18 et al.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> I wasn't there, so it's difficult for me to say what precisely I would have done. I regularly navigate through a narrow channel creek, two bridges (with blind corners) , a rocky inlet + strong currents. I keep one of those small handheld horns at the ready near the helm.
> 
> To answer your question though, generally speaking, I probably would have just stopped the boat and let them clear. I don't like playing guessing games. In your situation, where you wanted to keep moving, and rightfully should have been able to, you could have sounded 5 blasts as soon as you saw the developing conflict... perhaps they would have gotten the message and tacked away earlier. However, given their comments, they thought they were "Stand-on", and may have just held their course.
> 
> ...


The horn would have provided more clarity of their intentions. However, there was absolutely no room to turn around, without driving in front of oncoming traffic. I was poised to turn hard into the mooring field in full reverse as my plan B, to ultimately avoid. I was slower by then. I hope it was high tide, I don't recall.

This would have all developed over 30 seconds is my guess, including the period of time where there was another boat coming the other way between us. Somewhere in there I could have come to a full stop, but it would have been on the dramatic side, IMO. It would have required heavy reversing, cavitating the prop, etc, but could have been done.

Thanks again for the horn clarification.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Minne -

Sorry, wasn't picking on you - just making a general comment about how I read the rules.

IMHO - you were in the right, and did the right thing. 
I suspect her rules comment meant someone told her once that "boats under sail have right-of-way", and that is
probably as deep as her understanding of the rules. I have met many sailors who believe this is as simple as it is.


----------



## JoCoSailor (Dec 7, 2015)

Minnewaska said:


> Hey, you are right! There is a conflict, not only between international and inland, but between what I have in printed form and the USCG site.


I just started reading this thread....finally some pointed out the difference between international and inland rules. The posts with constrained by draft references were making me wonder....


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> I should have blasted the heck out of her. Would have made me feel better too.


On your boat I would have for sure. 5 blasts to question her intentions, then 3 blasts when you threw her into reverse would have covered your obligations for bold maneuvers under 8 (which really is about communication). 8 blasts total would have gotten your message across. Not saying you were wrong doing what you did, but sometimes you need to give these folks the horn 

My boat isn't equipped with reverse, and I manage to get myself boxed in from time to time. I usually just holler that I don't have reverse and throw my hands up into the air. I can turn my boat nearly instantly though by simultaneously dropping the inboard bilge board and throwing the tiller over.

Your storey reminds me of a similar good karma story. We were proceeding upstream towards a lock station at top speed of about 5 knots, Canada Day week end, Ottawa, so busy. About 400 yards from the station which had closed for the evening about an hour earlier I saw a huge power cruiser, maybe 60 feet, approaching from behind on step, narrow channel. I hauled over as far as I could get without leaving the channel. He hit me beam on with about a 4 foot wake (I have a 6.25 ft beam). Then about 100 yards in front of me hit the breaks and came to a complete stop looking for an open dock. 6pm on Canada Day week end, not likely.

While he was dithering around, I slipped passed him to port and tied up to the butt end of the only remaining dock. I put my stern on the 4 feet or so of available dock and my bow on the shore in the bull rushes. Perfect- lots of room.

30 minutes later after anchoring out in the middle of the river he came zipping over in his zodiac cursing me for tieing up at the dinghy dock (which wasn't accurate, I was just at the butt end of the Blue Line dock). I told him to have a good evening, a lock master would be in at 8:30 the next morning and he could discuss my mooring arrangement with them then if he didn t like it.

And he did! First thing in the morning. Lockmaster came strolling down the dock with him at about 8:45, and called me by my first name, since I was after all at my local lock station... He explained to me that I had taken the only dinghy dock available and in order to clear up space for the anchored boats dinghies, he would need to put me ahead of all the power boats and give me the first lock of the day. Priceless, there were about 30 boats waiting to go up.

A couple of pics, the so called dinghy dock he said I had taken, then some of the anchored boats waiting to go up. there were another 20 or so boats at the tie up wall and anchored around the corner.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I was doing some reading today and I happened across a some information, that very much validates that the small vessel was in the wrong. Not because it was small, but because it was on the wrong side of the channel.

Rule 9 was written in 1972. However, it was written to replace Rule 25 of the 1960 Collision regulations. Rule 25 from 1960 stated:
*Rule 25
(a) In a narrow channel every power-driven vessel when proceeding along the course of the channel shall, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fairway or mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel.*

The change in 1972 was meant to update the rule so that all vessels, not just power driven vessels were meant to stay to starboard. No doubt in 1972 there was considerable discussion about this, as in effect there was a change in a law, that previously gave sailboats privilege. I guess the understanding that sailboats would have priority in a narrow channel would pre date 1972.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Lazerbrains said:


> Minne -
> 
> Sorry, wasn't picking on you - ......


Didn't take it that way. Appreciate the contribution. Thanks.


----------



## ps23435 (Jul 13, 2011)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> If you were genuinely limited by draught, you could have eliminated any ambiguity by displaying the appropriate day shape, a black cylinder (Rule 28). My understanding is, however, that this is a "may show" , not "shall show" situation, so you did not have to.
> 
> Whether you carry one of those is a different question. I myself don't since it is very unlikely that I will ever need it. The only day shape I carry is a black ball for anchoring which I very (!) rarely deploy.
> 
> Whether the ladies would have had the foggiest what that thing means is yet another question.


Not sure the OP noted where he was, but assuming in US Inland waters, there is no Rule 28. "Constrained by draft" is a COLREGS International rule only under Rule 18(d). There is no corresponding Inland rule.


----------

