# Sailboat and Powerboat collide outside Newport



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sadly a woman on the sailboat was killed in the collision. We were sailing just north of this incident, shortly before it occurred. The Bay was very busy, with boats of all kinds going in all directions. My wife and I commented on how it was clearly the height of the season.

In fact, we had a large (estimate 45-50ft) powerboat approaching us at full cruise speed on a collision course, from our port side. We were motor sailing, at that moment, with just the main up. No matter whether the stinkpot thought we were sailing or motoring, we were stand on. He had plenty of room to maneuver, but he plowed right through. I had to back down to let him cross our bow by about 50 ft.

Never take for granted that anyone knows or seems to care about the rules.

https://www.providencejournal.com/n...after-boats-collide-near-newports-pell-bridge


----------



## Telesail (Dec 28, 2011)

Sailing Anarchy front page has a tribute to the lady who died on their front page. Very sad and I am sure that there will be more news stories about exactly what happened but it seems likely that the motor boat just did not take any notice of the rules of the road.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

As I suspected. Lots of it on the Bay this time of year.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I operate similar to how i rode my motos, assuming i am not seen.
This is so, so unneccssary. 
I assume all powerboaters are drunk, have attitude, are on auto, etc.
I am usually the 1st to blink. They can come up so fast


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

There should be a penalty between wrongful death and man slaughter to take care of incidents like this and impaired driving. Think her family and that of the marine motorcyclists would agree. Obligatory incarceration seems to be in order.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I dont think punishment is the cure for this problem, speaking broadly


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

With all the friendly banter between sailboats and powerboats aside, I've heard serious animosity expressed by many powerboaters that they need to give way. They literally don't understand they are more maneuverable, they have no idea what makes a sailboat sail. Add summer heat, cranky passengers, motion sickness, or whatever and some act out on their frustrations and get belligerent about their approach. They push the limits or play chicken. The jerk that crossed my bow on Sunday, played chicken and I backed down, even though I was stand on. Then there are those that are simply too stupid to know the rules. 

The difficulty with any fines or imprisonment is that, by definition in the ColRegs, each party is responsible to avoid every collision.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

I had a sailboat come right at me this weekend from a distance. I was on starboard tack and close hauled. I waited for him to either bear off to pass to my port, (not the best move for him because he would be ddw), or simply head up from his broad reach to cross my bow. He did neither. At 100 feet away, I had to pinch. Just then a gust hit and I rounded up away from him, which was actually a good outcome. He smiled and waved along with his oblivious guests. Hailed him on 16, but of course he wasn't monitoring. 

I've actually had more close calls with sailboats around here.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I think it foolish to assume that just because someone is operating a sailboat, they are more familiar with the ColRegs than some guy operating a powerboat.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I simply avoid any close encounters with all recreational boaters. I don't assume anyone on the water knows or follows coleregs.

Very sad story.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

capta said:


> I think it foolish to assume that just because someone is operating a sailboat, they are more familiar with the ColRegs than some guy operating a powerboat.


Yes, I agree, however if that sailboat is sailing it is safe to assume the have right of way.

The thing that annoys me is that so many powerboats come straight at you on a collision course, and don't alter course until the last second. It leaves us watching nervously and wondering if they see us instead of relaxing and enjoying the sail. Some of the big gin palaces seem to take a particular glee in cutting as close to sailboats as they can, kicking up max wake of course.

To be fair, there are plenty of courteous powerboaters that alter course early and keep their distance, but it is always the asshats that stick in your mind.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Cal39Tantrum (Jul 12, 2018)

I knew sandra,
if there was anyone who would be prepared on the boat, it would be her. she was a consumate racer-the best of the best..once in a while we see someone taken who is MOST prepared out of all of us...that was her. 
tragic.
Jim


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

Part of the problem may be the fact that powerboats ARE more easily maneuvered than sailboats, so that they CAN wait until the last moment to avoid collision. Not knowing if they are actually going to alter course is the other side of that coin. Having to pull a crash gybe with a spinnaker up to avoid contact when the powerboater only has to flick his finger on the wheel or throttle is more than annoying - it is dangerous for sailboats. What is too close is another issue. While everyone has a different opinion on that, a miss is as good as a mile most of the time. Well-publicized prosecution of lackadaisical operators might go a long way to helping focus more people on what they’re doing on the water.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I was out in the West Passage on Sunday and heard the report on the VHF. I was single-handing, and busy trying to return to Greenwich Bay, so I couldn't follow the communication other than to hear a male voice stating that he had collided with another boat and someone was in the water. I am very sad to learn the rest of the story.

At one time I was opposed to manditory licensing for boating. However, as I have heard of more and more senseless boating accidents I have changed my mind. Today, anyone with a checkbook or credit card can buy and operate a boat, at least in the USA. I regularly see "go-fast-boats" with well over 600 horsepower flying past Warwick Neck at over 40 knots. It seems to me that boating, especially powerboating, is at least as dangerous as operating an automobile. I would like to give the COLREGS a chance to work by assuring that EVERYBODY is aware of what the rules are.

[EDIT] And it is not only powerboats. In 2016 I had a run-in with a catamaran race about half a mile from where this fatal accident happened. I posted this elsewhere on SailNet about it;


> We were sailing wing on wing (main was on a starboard tack), returning to home port, and there was a serious race of about 50 little one-design catamarans (mylar sails, sailors in wetsuits, wearing helmets etc.) sailing across the entire channel. I advised the helmsman to adjust course slightly to give them more room (and get us away from them). A pack of about five catamarans continued to come toward us from the port quarter. Most of them gybed and sped away, except for one turd.
> 
> While trying to overtake us this idiot comes within 10 feet of our port side and yells; "Get outta the way. I'm racing!" to which I replied "Yes, and you are still obligated to follow the rules of the road." I tried to use my air horn to sound 5 blasts, but the horn malfunctioned (due to lack of use), and there was no sound. He didn't like this and let loose with a barage of explitives as he continued to overtake us, but he was now in the lee of my main. We maintained our course and speed, as we are obligated under COLREGS to do.
> 
> ...


Like @SanderO I try to avoid any close encounters with recreational boaters, and assume that NONE of them know the COLREGS.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I read the story and the fact that the sailboat was a cat, perhaps a Prindle 18(?), brings up a multitude of different scenarios. The cat could be more than a victim here.


----------



## requiem (Jul 24, 2018)

RegisteredUser said:


> I dont think punishment is the cure for this problem, speaking broadly


Very few boaters (hopefully) go out with a plan to kill someone, so I don't see more severe punishments as likely to influence behavior. Handing out fines for the "everyday" violations that don't kill someone, OTOH, might influence people before they do end up killing someone.

A few weekends ago I heard the Coast Guard broadcasting a reminder of Rule 9 over the VHF. I said to myself, that's something you don't hear everyday -- there must be a story behind it. No idea if there was, but that afternoon I could make out the distant sounds of freighters giving five blasts again and again.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> ....At one time I was opposed to manditory licensing for boating. However, as I have heard of more and more senseless boating accidents I have changed my mind. Today, anyone with a checkbook or credit card can buy and operate a boat, at least in the USA. ......


I'm open to what would improve the situation and reduce accidents. However, nearly every state already has mandatory boater safety certification, which includes the ColRegs. For that matter, I wonder how the relative incidence of accidents on the water, compares to those on the road, where all drivers are licensed. I wouldn't be surprised the road is higher, per driver.

Interestingly, mandatory insurance might help. Insurance companies are good at stats. They want to know you're statistically capable of handling your new boat, not just in possession of a license, before they'll take on your financial risk. If you don't have documentable experience, they may require formal training. In airplanes, they often require minimum "dual time" where you must operate your new make/model plane with an instructor for a defined period, before flying on your own. Not sure I love the idea, but it's something to think about.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

He should be charged with involuntarily manslaughter. Was there a blood alcohol test? What was his excuse? Let's hear the facts.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Its self regulation...and not leaving your brain on the dock.
Wild wild west is best experienced via movies......

Education at many points. Yes, we all should be reminded. Its not a difficult thing


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

News quickly pointed out that alcohol was not involved.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

You can’t license or legislate stupid or common sense. Too often people today 
Think that the government putting a regulation license in place is the answer and will change the result

Only a severe penalty through incarceration and monetary will give the senseless pause when they do stupid things

Very tragic. Heart goes out to her family and friends for this senseless act


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm open to what would improve the situation and reduce accidents. However, nearly every state already has mandatory boater safety certification, which includes the ColRegs.


Rhode Island Boating Education Requirements:
All operators born on or after January 1, 1986, must have the Rhode Island Certificate of Boating Safety Education to operate a vessel powered by a motor of more than 10 horsepower. All operators, regardless of age, must have successfully completed an approved boater education course to operate a personal watercraft (PWC).

So if you are over 33 and you're not operating a PWC, you can buy ANY boat and have at it without ANY awareness of the COLREGS...

Because there is no license required to operate a vessel, an operator could be guilty of _any infraction_ (OUI/BUI, manslaughter, negligent operation, etc.) and as long as they're not in jail, continue to legally operate a vessel.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I’m certainly fine expanding the cert requirement to all. I do object to simply paying money for a renewed license periodically, like I do for my car. That does nearly nothing. Still, I’m not sure I see a statistical correlation to accidents. I would hope it would work, but I’m skeptical. 

Nevertheless, do we know the age of the powerboat operator or if they were even from R.I.? Ironic that PWC operators are the worst.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

For interest, here is some data I found (most recent years used). I focused on fatalities, as they're likely reported. Not all accidents are.

In 2016, there were almost 6 fatalities per 100,000 boats on the water.

In 2017, there were almost 15 fatalities per 100,000 vehicles on the road.

Both stats have improved significantly over the years. These may not be fair comparisons, given different speeds and proximities, but non-licensed boaters are ostensibly less likely to kill someone.

Where instruction was known, 77% of deaths occurred on boats where the operator did not receive boating safety instruction. Interesting. Hard to say if that's causal or just representative of the population currently required to have one.

80% of boat fatalities were drowning and 80% of those were off boats less than 21 ft in length.

All just food for thought. Obviously, States like RI will eventually require all Residents to be certified, as older ones age out. NY just recently began phasing out the DOB exemptions.

To be sure I'm not misleading, I personally have all of these safety certs and then some. State, BoatUS, Safety at Sea, numerous ASA and US sailing courses and have passed all the testing for my OUPV, Master a Sailing endorsement (never filed for the licenses, as I don't need them).

I don't think these make me safe. I think the fact that I'm the type of person to do them, without being required is. So far.

https://americanboating.org/boating_fatality.asp
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

License to operate ANYTHING should never come with automatic renewal. Periodic testing should be required. It may be costly but it would save property and lives. I see many older drivers who should not be on the road based on what I perceive about their driving competence.

Sorry to say that the right to boat reminds me of the right to own weapons argument. There are no "god given" rights. Rights are granted by the state... and they can be altered and removed.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Just to be devils advocate, the most recently tested licensees are teenagers and they have the highest accident rate. 

It could be personal responsibility, basic know how and experience that drive safety, not state sponsored testing. Most auto drivers still speed.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I don’t recall anyone using the term right. Maybe I missed it. 

This isn’t a question of rights, it a question of what society’s ruling system decides everyone must do, within that society. In the US, that’s the majority forcing it’s opinion on the minority, regardless of whether they can support their opinion factually. Imperfect, but better than other systems, I suppose. 

I assume you don’t believe there is a right to universal health care either. 😉

The inalienable rights in the US are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We added, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, etc.

I can’t really think of any other reason for recreational boating to exist, other than the pursuit of happiness. 😁


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I don't recall anyone using the term right. Maybe I missed it.
> 
> This isn't a question of rights, it a question of what society's ruling system decides everyone must do, within that society. In the US, that's the majority forcing it's opinion on the minority, regardless of whether they can support their opinion factually. Imperfect, but better than other systems, I suppose.
> 
> ...


Pursuit of happiness is a empty, undefined and useless standard.

Please close this thread because it's going political.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

Minnewaska said:


> .
> 
> Never take for granted that anyone knows or seems to care about the rules.


The weekend boating crowds on the water is one of the reasons why I like to stay put on summer weekends. I'll sail over to nearby Port Jefferson and pick up a mooring at the Yacht Club on Thursday or early Friday morning and stay there until Monday before heading back. 
I settle in and spend the time working on board and enjoying an occasional meal on shore. I've been listening to a lot more warning blasts from the Bridgeport/PJ ferry in the harbor recently as boaters seem oblivious to the maneuvering needs of ships and other boats. For me it's much more enjoyable to sail the area after the weekend crowds have all gone home.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

mbianka said:


> The weekend boating crowds on the water is one of the reasons why I like to stay put on summer weekends. I'll sail over to nearby Port Jefferson and pick up a mooring at the Yacht Club on Thursday or early Friday morning and stay there until Monday before heading back.
> I settle in and spend the time working on board and enjoying an occasional meal on shore. I've been listening to a lot more warning blasts from the Bridgeport/PJ ferry in the harbor recently as boaters seem oblivious to the maneuvering needs of ships and other boats. For me it's much more enjoyable to sail the area after the weekend crowds have all gone home.


This past weekend every LI boater was out on the water. We had one of our grand daughters aboard and she wanted to "go somewhere"... so we headed to the close by lovely pond at Eaton's Neck. I expected at most 4 or 5 sailboats... and it's often empty and peaceful... not a house in sight. WOW the place was full of small power boats with as Dani calls them... floaties. I think there were 3 sailboats and maybe 30 stink pots... anchored one on top of the other. We had lunch below and left... and of course suffered from huge wakes as the stink pots headed out or returned from LIS. Way too many boats. But what can be done? Nothing.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Everyone, both sailors and powerboaters, have many stories of rude, rule-breaking and downright dangerous behavior on the water. 

I assume that the next guy doesn't know or care about the COLREGS, and I act accordingly.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> Pursuit of happiness is a empty, undefined and useless standard.
> 
> Please close this thread because it's going political.


Relax. It's not going political. You apparently missed the big smiley. You started it anyway, Mr. Rights. :grin <--carefully note

Discussion over what to do about boater safety is warranted and not all have to agree with licensing, lest we close the thread over simple disagreement.

I'm returning to my thoughts on mandatory insurance. The propensity of accidents in the <21 ft range may only be indicative of the distribution of the fleet. They also make up the majority of registered vessels. Still, I can see folks being more likely to be uninsured on that investment than most with a 50 footer, for example. You can't get insurance on a 50 footer, without some experience. You might not get it on a 21 footer, without demonstrating some safety training. You might get the benefit of the doubt on the 21 footer, as your first boat, but you'd be dropped for having an at fault accident and, if it were mandatory, you might take better care to keep that from happening.

There are many examples of the insurance company's standards be more well defined than the governments. That makes sense, as the government can't administer a complicated rule, the insurance companies can.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

mstern said:


> Everyone, both sailors and powerboaters, have many stories of rude, rule-breaking and downright dangerous behavior on the water.
> 
> I assume that the next guy doesn't know or care about the COLREGS, and I act accordingly.


Agreed, but some some situations are hard to act accordingly. Let me try to explain what we faced this past weekend, with the offender.

In front of me and to my starboard is a sailboat, under full sail, heading in roughly the same direction. I'm motor sailing, so he's stand on, not to mention I'm overtaking, so I'm give way. Far to my starboard is a powerboat, for which I would also be give way. Although, this power boat is creeping along, likely do to the congested traffic. I determine there is no risk of collision, as I'll easily pass in front by 100 yards or more. Still, I can't turn to starboard, lest I create a collision risk. There is another powerboat passing my port side, on opposing courses. No risk of collision, but it prevents any course adjustment to port on my part.

Then there is the offending powerboat on my port, at full cruise speed, heading directly into the mess. We are on a collision course, there is no relative movement, and I'm not sure who he'll hit. As stand on, I maintain course and speed. All he has to do is adjust course slightly to take our stern and he'd clear everything, as he should have. I really can't change course, all I have at my disposal is to slow down. I wait and the bum makes absolutely no adjustment. I pull the throttle and he passes in front of me by 50 ft, literally taking a center path through it all, like he owned the place.

I truly think this one was road rage. No way he didn't notice the potential conflict.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

And you didn't blast him? (with the horn, not the 12 gauge)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Horn blasting would have just confused the entire gaggle. No way to direct the blast to just the offender. Everyone else was doing fine. A 12g would have been more helpful in directing where it belonged. In the end, I took matters into my own hands to correct the situation, which is also part of the ColRegs.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Similar situation; I was returning to my marina under power one afternoon. A sailboat to my port and closing on me was under power and raising his sail. There were at least two aboard the other boat, and they seemed focused on the sail. They got within 100 feet of me and I sounded 1 long blast (Attention!) at them. He then looked at me and gave a shrug as if to say "What?". I didn't care, as I was the stand on vessel and I wanted to be sure he saw me. Just because they were raising a sail that did not make them any more a sailboat than I was. Why they were motoring at 5 knots while raising sail I still can't figure out, but whatever...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

E, that’s an interesting scenario. If they were still holding course, with their motor, they were clearly a powerboat. But when does a sailboat become a sailboat? Motor off? First sail to the top of the mast? What if drifting bare pole?

I do find that sailboat to sailboat conflict resolution can be very tight. Especially the racer community thinks nothing of coming within 100ft. To them, 10 feet is plenty. The ColRegs, as I recall, do require the give way vessel to make an obvious adjustment (can’t recall the exact language) and clearing by 10 feet doesn’t comply, IMO.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

The exact language (emphasis added) is:


> RULE 8
> Action to Avoid Collision
> (a) Any action taken to avoid collision 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 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 or speed should be avoided.


When I took classes all that was shortened to "When you change course to avoid another vessel make it *early and obvious*."


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> E, that's an interesting scenario. If they were still holding course, with their motor, they were clearly a powerboat. But when does a sailboat become a sailboat?


COLREGS make this clear under Rule 3; I have always summarized it thus; "when the engine is running AND the transmission is in gear."
Here is the official version with my highlights;


> Rule 3
> General Definitions
> For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:
> 
> ...


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Sensible is to raise and drop your sails away from traffic... and go very slowly when you do it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> COLREGS make this clear under Rule 3; I have always summarized it thus; "when the engine is running AND the transmission is in gear."
> Here is the official version with my highlights;


I'm familiar, but not seeing how that addresses my question. I acknowledged the use of the motor disallowing the Sailing designation.

Say there is no motor (or as you say, it's NOT in gear), but the boat is only in the act of raising its sails. It's not underway yet. Is that under sail? The reg doesn't say it has to be under way. What is it? I think it's under sail, even though the sails aren't fully deployed.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

A vessel is underway when it is not attached to land (say by an anchor or has run aground), or to something attached to land (like a dock or pier). Yes those guys fishing from the powerboat drifting in the channel are technically a recreational vessel underway.

So in your example a boat in the process of raising its sails is probably underway.

When I raise my main *at the mooring* I am not underway until I drop the mooring pennant.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

mstern said:


> I assume that the next guy doesn't know or care about the COLREGS, and I act accordingly.


Actually, this is *not* the best solution! If you are the stand-on vessel and you alter course for any reason, the burdened vessel's operator will be confused by your actions, if he/she does know the rules.
It is best to do as the rules dictate until there is a significant reason to believe that continuing to do so may result in an incident. The stand-on vessel has a responsibility to adhere to the rules, just as the burdened vessel does.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I think its assumed that helmsman does not want to test a powerboaters knowledge, intentions, or sobriety...when very close.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

So you are headed into the wind halfway through pulling your mainsail up. Functionally you are restricted in your ability to maneuver but my read of colregs doesn’t include this fairly frequent scenario. 
Similarly you have a kite up or a headsail on a pole. Again you are somewhat restricted in your ability to maneuver. At least to one side. But again there’s no allowing nor forgiveness for this fairly common occurrence. 
We’ve taken to motoring out and finding a spot far away from traffic to raise sail. 
Once you get much above dinghy size I think sailing into or out of a mooring field is macho nonsense. Saw a small (~30’) sailboat run down a RIB sailing through the mooring field. Fortunately no hurt no foul. Then again there have been deaths from swimmers or snorkelers being run over by dinghies in mooring fields as well.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

outbound said:


> So you are headed into the wind halfway through pulling your mainsail up. Functionally you are restricted in your ability to maneuver but my read of colregs doesn't include this fairly frequent scenario.
> Similarly you have a kite up or a headsail on a pole. Again you are somewhat restricted in your ability to maneuver. At least to one side. But again there's no allowing nor forgiveness for this fairly common occurrence.
> We've taken to motoring out and finding a spot far away from traffic to raise sail.
> Once you get much above dinghy size I think sailing into or out of a mooring field is macho nonsense. Saw a small (~30') sailboat run down a RIB sailing through the mooring field. Fortunately no hurt no foul. Then again there have been deaths from swimmers or snorkelers being run over by dinghies in mooring fields as well.


Working sails falls under NUC regs, I believe, as it does limit one's ability to maneuver to a certain extent. However, since it *is* possible for a smaller sailboat, say under 80 odd feet, to maneuver out of impending danger, no matter how inconvenient, like trolling, it is not expressly covered. Since commercial sail has pretty much fallen by the wayside and most sailing is done for pleasure, I don't think it right or fair for pleasure sailors to obstruct the passage of commercial traffic, even if those pleasure craft are the stand-on vessel under the rules. 
As for running a chute or poled headsail on a busy day in some bay like Narragansett, that's pretty much a choice to put oneself into an uncomfortable situation at some time when under chute or pole, isn't it? 
And those who sail through crowded anchorages are not the type of folks I'm likely to make friends with. They may think they are all that, but I just think they are foolish and very inconsiderate. Numerous times I've seen them hit by a strong gust and rounded up, just missing someone's boat by inches, laughing a bit too loudly after they regain control of their boat. I can't even imagine what I'd do if one of these fools hit my boat!
When we sail into an anchorage for fun, we anchor outside all the other boats unless there is a huge hole in between two of the outer most boats. Without an engine, even farther from other boats. Showing off is just immature, not good seamanship.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

capta said:


> Actually, this is *not*
> It is best to do as the rules dictate until there is a significant reason to believe that continuing to do so may result in an incident. The stand-on vessel has a responsibility to adhere to the rules, just as the burdened vessel does.


Yep. Sometimes you just have to wait it out, and then make a judgment call as to whether you think the other boat knows the rules. If they show no signs of giving way and they are 150 feet from a collision, best to make to make an obvious and deliberate course change.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

capta said:


> Actually, this is *not* the best solution! If you are the stand-on vessel and you alter course for any reason, the burdened vessel's operator will be confused by your actions, if he/she does know the rules.
> It is best to do as the rules dictate until there is a significant reason to believe that continuing to do so may result in an incident. The stand-on vessel has a responsibility to adhere to the rules, just as the burdened vessel does.


I don't think we disagree here. I stressed the "early and obvious" course change in my post, so that the other boat won't be confused or burdened by my action of getting out of his way. If I can't make that kind of course change early enough, then yes, I stand on, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> Similar situation; I was returning to my marina under power one afternoon. A sailboat to my port and closing on me was under power and raising his sail. There were at least two aboard the other boat, and they seemed focused on the sail. They got within 100 feet of me and I sounded 1 long blast (Attention!) at them. He then looked at me and gave a shrug as if to say "What?". I didn't care, as I was the stand on vessel and I wanted to be sure he saw me. Just because they were raising a sail that did not make them any more a sailboat than I was. Why they were motoring at 5 knots while raising sail I still can't figure out, but whatever...


To each their own but if they 'were focused on their sails' I would have considered it a courtesy to let them raise their sails without blasting them with the horn. Maybe they had some sort of trouble you were not aware of. I suppose you were in the right but it would have cost you just a minute to be nice.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> To each their own but if they 'were focused on their sails' I would have considered it a courtesy to let them raise their sails without blasting them with the horn. Maybe they had some sort of trouble you were not aware of. I suppose you were in the right but it would have cost you just a minute to be nice.


No! if there is an option.,, and there almost always is.... you don't raise or lower your sails in a fair way or channel or where other boats are underway.

Some sailors will raise their sails at anchor and sail off. This is OK if this does not represent a collision hazard to other anchored boats or boats in the process of anchoring. Same applies to raising your sail in a mooring field. I assume there is wind or the sail wouldn't be raised and it can be gusty and lead to problems. Why take this chance? Motor out to an area free of boats and raise your sail... or drop it. Others can see what you are doing but the burden is not on them.

Avoid problems.... don't create them!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> A vessel is underway when it is not attached to land (say by an anchor or has run aground), or to something attached to land (like a dock or pier). Yes those guys fishing from the powerboat drifting in the channel are technically a recreational vessel underway.
> 
> So in your example a boat in the process of raising its sails is probably underway.
> 
> When I raise my main *at the mooring* I am not underway until I drop the mooring pennant.


E, I think we're talking past each other. Yes, I understand this point too.

What I'm pondering is exactly when does a "boat with a mast", (ie a sailboat with no sails up), that is motoring via engine, change from being considered a powerboat to being considered a sailboat for the purpose of Rule 18, responsibilities between vessels.

I think it's the moment the engine is shut off, perhaps the moment it's taken out of gear, regardless of the status of the sails.

Therefore, if a sailboat is motoring and has the responsibility of separation as a power-driven vessel, the moment the engine goes to neutral, even if the sails are just being hoisted and not yet functional, it assumes the responsibility as a sailing vessel. Said differently, at that moment, power-driven vessels assume the responsibility of treating it as a sailing vessel.

In your scenario, you said the sailboat to port was under power and raising their sail, so they were still a power-driven vessel. If they had shut off their engine (perhaps just taken it out if gear), they would have been a sailing vessel and you'd be give way.

It academic, but interesting. When exactly under the reg does the power to sail transition occur.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

SanderO said:


> No! if there is an option.,, and there almost always is.... you don't raise or lower your sails in a fair way or channel or where other boats are underway.
> 
> Avoid problems.... don't create them!


I agree but he did not say it was in a fairway or channel.

As far 'where other boats are underway,' you would have to go pretty far out in some areas (like popular parts of the Chessie where I sail) to be completely away from any other boat.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I agree but he did not say it was in a fairway or channel.
> 
> As far 'where other boats are underway,' you would have to go pretty far out in some areas (like popular parts of the Chessie where I sail) to be completely away from any other boat.


I can't comment on the Chessie... but I know LIS is packed with recreational boaters... But having sailed there for decades I can tell that boats follow well beaten "paths"... usually buoy to buoy or down fairways. Sailors will be tacking and gybing of course. But I believe you can find a place with no boats to do your sail raise/drop. This may mean motoring out into the more open sea to do this.

I have never had a problem in finding a place to raise or drop my sails which is not in the middle of other recreational boaters. I consider doing it this way the most prudent practice.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I don't know how some of you can live and boat in such congested areas. I just couldn't do it. I guess that's easier said than done since I'm not faced with being stuck in a big population center for work, and instead live in a small community in Vermont with hundreds of miles of relatively quiet water to explore on Lake Champlain. I can spend all day on the water on a Saturday in July and never come close enough to another boat to even give a friendly wave. 

Obviously, there are all kinds of factors at play when we talk about where we live, work and recreate, but I'll just say that reading about the challenges many of you face in your local waters is enough to make me never want to relocate to some of those areas.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

The Basic Rule to avoid collision is always in play. The Steering and Sailing rules are for vessels in sight of one another.

A recreational power boat, drifting while fishing is " underway" not to be confused with " making way" . They have the responsibility to have their engine at the ready and be prepared to avoid collision. 

Similarly, a sailing vessel that motored out to a spot to raise their sails should not suddenly turn their engine off or place it in neutral, halfway through the process, to claim " Stand on" status over a power driven vessel that it is in sight of. After all, Their Engine was clearly "available" to avoid collision. Once the sails are up and the vessel is making way under sail, and propelling equipment is not in use the burden would shift. Still, The burden to avoid collision is never abated. Just my take. 

That said, I sail in an area with lots of recreational fishermen. I also fish. If I'm sailing and I encounter a powerboat drift fishing, It's usually easy enough for me to head up, or fall off to allow them to continue fishing without having to reel their lines in and start their engine. It's also, always easy enough for me to find a spot to raise my sails without impeding other vessels.

This is similar ( imo) to the passing rules. The vessel passing, must pass free and clear. A passing vessel cannot pass and then immediately shift the burden to the vessel it just passed. A sailboat cannot suddenly become a sailing vessel simply by shutting its engine off, and place the burden on another vessel in it's proximity.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> E, I think we're talking past each other. Yes, I understand this point too.
> 
> What I'm pondering is exactly when does a "boat with a mast", (ie a sailboat with no sails up), that is motoring via engine, change from being considered a powerboat to being considered a sailboat for the purpose of Rule 18, responsibilities between vessels.
> 
> ...


I realize that we're drifting off topic, but what else is new. I did not state this earlier; my condolences to Sandra, her family, and those who knew her.

Now to your question; I have taught my students that as soon as the operator does anything to change the status with regard to the COLREGS (altering course or speed), they should behave as if they have relinquished their privilege and act as if they have become the burdened vessel.



> Rule 17. The stand-on vessel
> The stand-on vessel shall maintain her course and speed, but she may take action to avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action, or when so close that collision can no longer be avoided by the actions of the give-way vessel alone. In a crossing situation, the stand-on vessel should avoid turning to port even if the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action. These options for the stand-on vessel do not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligations under the rules.


Take my earlier example: I am in a 35-foot cruiser, wing on wing. Some pin-head wearing a helmet in a little (18-foot?) one design catamaran is coming up from my port quarter yelling at me to get out of his way. I had already moved to the starboard edge of where I was comfortable in the channel. His two companions had gybed and headded off on the opposite tack, but not him. He comes within 3 feet of colliding with the port side of my vessel. I held my ground because; 1 - he was well aware of my boat (or he would not be shouting at us), 2 - he was aware that a collision situation exists, 3 - if I failed to maintain course and speed (any change in course would have required a gybe in one sail) I would have relinquished my priviledge as the stand on vessel and could likely have contributed to a collision: Gybing either sail would have required a change in course and changed my speed through the water. If I turned to starboard, there was the possibility of my running aground, and I would still have been in his way. If I turned to port, I would have assured a collision. If I slowed down he was still going to hit me. At ANY TIME all this moron had to do was fall off and the risk of collision would have been averted. Had he hit me, I would have pushed among other charges; gross negligence AND assault. This would be no different than someone intentionally ramming your car with theirs in a road rage incident.

Consider two sailboats on an intersecting course and on opposite tacks. If the one on starboard tack were to execute a change in course or speed, this could CAUSE a collision. Therefore, any change in course or speed by the stand-on vessel
is relinquishing their priviledge as stand on at that moment.

Working sails does not fall under NUC. Again quoting rule 3;


> Rule 3. General Definitions
> For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:
> 
> (a) The word "vessel" includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) vehicle, and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
> ...


Working sails could fall under RAM, but one could challenge why the skipper chose to work raising or lowering the sail at that particular moment when the risk of a collision exists, and Rule 5 would come into play;



> Rule 5. Look-out
> *Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.*


In the "guy raising sails" situation that I used as an example, the other vessel was moving at about 4 knots INTO THE WIND (about 10 knots) heading toward a marina entrance and was likely at 3/4 or full throttle. He was NOT making a full appraisal of the risk of collision until I gave him 1-long blast.

When raising sails I advise my students to maintain sufficient speed to maintain steerage, and to do so with room to maneuver away from other boats. When lowering sails I have them either sail to the mooring, or start the engine with room to maneuver away from other boats.

Not trying to be a jerk, and I think that the readers of this forum are far more well versed in the COLREGS than the average boater. However, the fact that I am quoting the COLREGS is here is part of why I am becomming a proponent of some form of licensing for boating.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> ....
> 
> It academic, but interesting. When exactly under the reg does the power to sail transition occur.


From COLREGS, Rule 3:
"..
c) The term sailing vessel means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.
..."
The best interpretation of "being used" is if the engine is on, as that is far more definitive thant the question of whether in gear or not.


----------



## PhilCarlson (Dec 14, 2013)

sailingfool said:


> From COLREGS, Rule 3:
> "..
> c) The term sailing vessel means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.
> ..."
> The best interpretation of "being used" is if the engine is on, as that is far more definitive thant the question of whether in gear or not.


Since we're splitting academic hairs; wouldn't the "propelling machinery" be the transmission? The engine may be run for a number of reasons without "using" the transmission.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> From COLREGS, Rule 3:
> "..
> c) The term sailing vessel means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.
> ..."
> The best interpretation of "being used" is if the engine is on, as that is far more definitive thant the question of whether in gear or not.


I would tend to think that " Vessel Under Sail" is the key, operative language. Then look to the Propelling machinery.

A vessel motor sailing is a power boat. 
A vessel raising their sails with the engine on is a power boat.

A vessel, "under sail", with the engine on to simply charge the batteries is a sailboat.

Otherwise, I think unless you have no engine, all sailboats with auxiliary engines could be considered power boats. It takes me 2 seconds to start my engine and put it into gear. No different than a power-driven vessel drift fishing.

I think we've batted this topic around here before without coming to a definitive answer to this particular question. It's all academic of course, 'cause rule 2 says don't hit anything ;-)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> .....A sailboat cannot suddenly become a sailing vessel simply by shutting its engine off, and place the burden on another vessel in it's proximity.


In sprit, I agree this should not be done. However, technically, I don't see a rule that says it can't be done.

Shut your engine off and hoist your sails and the transformation has clearly occurred. That can be pretty quick on some vessels.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> ......Now to your question; I have taught my students that as soon as the operator does anything to change the status with regard to the COLREGS (altering course or speed), they should behave as if they have relinquished their privilege and act as if they have become the burdened vessel.


That sounds like pretty good practical advice. I'm solely exercising an academic view of the ColRegs and I'm not recalling where it says that. I don't have a copy handy and don't feel like googling. There is a part where you are encouraged to adjust speed to avoid a collision or accommodate circumstances. Doing so as stand on, because you don't believe the give way will take action, probably doesn't relieve your ultimate stand on responsibilities.



> In the "guy raising sails" situation that I used as an example, the other vessel was moving at about 4 knots INTO THE WIND (about 10 knots) heading toward a marina entrance and was likely at 3/4 or full throttle. He was NOT making a full appraisal of the risk of collision until I gave him 1-long blast.


I'm sure you know my ColReg discussion is not a critique of what you did.

I'm still not clear when the ColRegs consider the transition from power driven to sailing to occur. I get the practical issues. Would you agree that technically it occurs the moment the engine goes off, regardless of whether the sails are up yet?

Unless abundantly clear otherwise, such as making way directly into the wind, my first guess is any boat with sails up is a sailing vessel, when exercising responsibilities between vessels.

These vagaries are clearly why the ColRegs ultimately make it each vessels responsibility to avoid collision and why I like being offshore.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> In sprit, I agree this should not be done. However, technically, I don't see a rule that says it can't be done.
> 
> Shut your engine off and hoist your sails and the transformation has clearly occurred. That can be pretty quick on some vessels.


Notwithstanding rule 2, rule 7, rule 8 ?

Part of the act of raising sails is making sure there's no risk of collision as part of that process. That process requires a safe distance from other vessels to perform the maneuver. Once the maneuver is complete, you cannot suddenly claim stand on status over a vessel that 2 minutes ago, you were the give way vessel to. That was the point, I was making.

Typically, unless you're engine less or sailing off a mooring, most people, I know, hoist their sails, and then, once sailing, shut the engine off.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm still not clear when the ColRegs consider the transition from power driven to sailing to occur. I get the practical issues. Would you agree that technically it occurs the moment the engine goes off, regardless of whether the sails are up yet?
> 
> Unless abundantly clear otherwise, such as making way directly into the wind, my first guess is any boat with sails up is a sailing vessel, when exercising responsibilities between vessels.
> 
> These vagaries are clearly why the ColRegs ultimately make it each vessels responsibility to avoid collision and why I like being offshore.


Which is it ? Are the sails up or down? ;-)

If we are going by the Rules and your sails are up and you're motoring, and you're greater than 12 meters you should be displaying an inverted Cone. So that basically removes that question for everyone over 12 meters ( inland) Internationally everyone needs to display a shape.

For everyone under 12 meters, inland, they can display a cone, but don't have to. 
That said, if you have an engine fitted and your sails are down, you must use all available means to avoid collision. If you're bobbing around out there with just a stick in the air and an engine fitted, you're for all intents and purposes a powerboat. Status is given to " Vessels under sail" not sails under covers ;-)

I read the rules as stated: " Vessels under sail" Raising sails, doesn't make you " under-sail" and if your engine is off, it basically means you're adrift. ;-)


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

My sailboat does 5 knots a WOT or sailing . Its nearly impossible for me to make a meaningful course change that assures me that I wont be hit when a large powerboat is coming at me at 30 knots. I have found the horn to be the only thing I really have to ensure some safety other than a flare gun, lol. . For that reason I keep a canned air horn in the cockpit on busy days. Before I am hit I will empty that thing. 


I feel so sad for the woman who was killed and so outraged for her and her family.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm still not clear when the ColRegs consider the transition from power driven to sailing to occur. I get the practical issues. Would you agree that technically it occurs the moment the engine goes off, regardless of whether the sails are up yet?


Nope - Technically the transition from sailboat to powerboat is when the engine is on AND the transmission is engaged.

Otherwise we're good.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

caberg said:


> I don't know how some of you can live and boat in such congested areas. I just couldn't do it. I guess that's easier said than done since I'm not faced with being stuck in a big population center for work, and instead live in a small community in Vermont with hundreds of miles of relatively quiet water to explore on Lake Champlain. I can spend all day on the water on a Saturday in July and never come close enough to another boat to even give a friendly wave.
> 
> Obviously, there are all kinds of factors at play when we talk about where we live, work and recreate, but I'll just say that reading about the challenges many of you face in your local waters is enough to make me never want to relocate to some of those areas.


You don't have to pity us. The congestion only occurs near the marinas where many boats are kept. Otherwise the Chessie is a great place to boat.

Even those some of us like the peacefulness of our boats and living in the country we also get the great museums and cultural advantages of leaving near population centers as well as good entertainment live and outstanding restaurants. It's not all bad living near the big cities when you can escape to your boat and ply the nature on the Bay


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm still not clear when the ColRegs consider the *transition from power driven to sailing* to occur. I get the practical issues. Would you agree that technically it occurs the moment the engine goes off, regardless of whether the sails are up yet?





eherlihy said:


> Nope - Technically the *transition from sailboat to powerboat* is when the engine is on AND the transmission is engaged.
> 
> Otherwise we're good.


I give up, E. You keep answering a different question. In this case, the exact opposite one I proposed.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

OMG .....arguing the technical nuances of Collerege rules....What about the rules of common sense.

I’m not saying they are not a necessity, but expecting the average Joe in the boating public to interpret them constantly when using there vessel is not realitisic. I doubt many sailors let along powerboats even know the exist let alone read a couple of the most basic ones they learn in a safe boating course.

I doubt the Kayaker in Back Creek run over knew them. Laws and rules passed by idiot legislators do not replace basic common sense.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

Minnewaska - Technically, a sailboat of 12m or bigger with sails up and with the engine in gear must display an inverted cone dayshape (Part C - Lights and Shapes) showing it is motorsailing. This allows other boats to detect that the vessel is indeed a power vessel according to the COLREGs. I've rarely seen these used in the Caribbean and never in the USA; but this rule is rigidly enforced by the water police in parts of Europe. This means that while such a vessel motorsailing without a dayshape is in breach of the rules, other vessels still need to treat that boat as a sailboat rather than powerboat when it comes to stand-on or give-way rules. In this case I believe the sailboat was <12m so the rule doesn't apply, but on your boat and mine we need to be aware of this rule.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Zanshin said:


> Minnewaska - Technically, a sailboat of 12m or bigger with sails up and with the engine in gear must display an inverted cone dayshape (Part C - Lights and Shapes) showing it is motorsailing. This allows other boats to detect that the vessel is indeed a power vessel according to the COLREGs. I've rarely seen these used in the Caribbean and never in the USA; but this rule is rigidly enforced by the water police in parts of Europe. This means that while such a vessel motorsailing without a dayshape is in breach of the rules, other vessels still need to treat that boat as a sailboat rather than powerboat when it comes to stand-on or give-way rules. In this case I believe the sailboat was <12m so the rule doesn't apply, but on your boat and mine we need to be aware of this rule.


Zan, really good point and, as mentioned by another, the 12m limitation does not apply in international waters. I suppose, all sailboats in international waters (>12m inland), not flying the inverted cone, should be treated as sailing vessels. Therefore, even if the sailing vessel were violating the ColRegs, by not flying the inverted cone, with their sails up and full, the power driven vessel is obliged to give way, as they have no other way of knowing for certain they are being propelled by machinery. Even exhaust could be a generator or not in gear. I'm sure, if there was an accident, as a result, the violation by the motorsailer would then be considered. However, if the power driven vessel failed to give way, they would be consider to have violated the rules as well. As we all know, that's the typical outcome. Both responsible.

Further to your point, if one is in the process of raising or dousing sail and meet the 12m qual and are not flying the inverted cone, they should be treated as a sailing vessel. This, however, is unclear whether the sailboat has the responsibility to fly the inverted cone, while raising or dousing. The Reg says "vessel proceeding under sail when also being propelled by machinery". It doesn't seem this vessel is proceeding under sail yet, or anymore and it's hard to know if there engine is propelling either.

As I've said repeatedly, this is merely an academic musing. I think it's interesting and helpful to work out the Regs a bit.

Ultimately Rule 2 prevails.

If anyone is further interested, for the purpose of responsibility between vessels, what would you consider a boat adrift, with a mast, but no sails hoisted? An apparent powerboat adrift is generally considered a power driven vessel, such as those with a fishing pole off the side. Can't know if the sailboat I'm describing has an engine or whether it's operable or whether they're in process of raising or dousing. It only gets to my bigger musing. When is a sailboat considered a sailing vessel. It does not appear that it's sails must be propelling the vessel.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Of greater probability is an anchored vessel being struck by another vessel. Was told of a anchored sailboat being struck by not one but two PWCs while anchored off a resort. Sailboat was not flying black ball. Insurance claim was denied.

We do hoist this day signal and use our anchor light religiously. We don’t use the inverted cone. Most times the engine is either on briefly or for days. When on for days it’s offshore and given it’s moving fairly obvious it’s under power. Also it’s just me and the chickens. The anchoring thing isn’t obvious. There you have a boat just sitting. Could be anchored or under power and pausing in movement or moving slowly. Depending on angle the snubbers or chain may not be visible. So the ball makes sense. Given we try to anchor out to avoid noise and traffic think there’s more chance for ambiguity.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

The real problem is not the colregs... they are fine... it's that way way way too many boaters have no training, are unqualified and uninterested in rules and regulations or protocols. The sea to this crowd is the last frontier where they can do what they want... rarely a posted speed limit or a no right turn on red.

When there are lots of boats order is in order and that means rules which need to be followed. But having the rules means little because not enough know or follow them. And there is virtually no enforcement.

Of course if one is courteous, and respectful and considerate and sensible accidents can be avoided. That is asking a lot from many stink pots I am sorry to say... and too many sailors. Way way too man people are selfish and inconsiderate.

As I have written before... with consideration to the above... the best policy is to avoid situations where you are close to other boats. Don't play chicken assuming the law is on your side... It is possible but sometimes inconvenient.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Good points about the anchor ball. I see almost no one use them. In the rare occasion that I do, it's always been a charter/commercial vessel, with a paid skipper whose license is at stake. I suppose we all have something at stake. 

In fact, I saw a couple of anchor balls at Cuttyhunk a few weeks back. They were indeed anchored, as you say, further north of the typical location and were clearly larger charter type vessels, or large enough they probably had a paid captain.

I can't say I've ever seen an inverted cone in the wild. Ever. I admit, I've never used one. I can't even imagine going out on the foredeck, each time I decide to fire up. No excuse, but it is reality.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

... the transition from power to sail is made when the sails are raised and the engine is shut off OR the transmission is taken out of gear. Again, because this requires action on behalf of the crew, it must not be done when it could interfere with a nearby vessel's operation. (i.e. you can't pop it into neutral just before crossing paths with a powerboat and claim privilege because you were "sailing while charging your batteries.")

Again, this is why I have taught my students that as soon as the operator does anything to change the status with regard to the COLREGS (altering course or speed ... and I'll add engage / disengage machinery), they should behave as if they have relinquished their privilege and act as if they have become the burdened vessel.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I've never seen the cone either. I have, on rare occasions, seen boats flying the anchor ball. I don't own one, but I think I'll put it down on the list for next spring.

Question: I pick up a mooring for the night. Do I fly an anchor ball?


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Ultimately Rule 2 prevails.
> 
> If anyone is further interested, for the purpose of responsibility between vessels, what would you consider a boat adrift, with a mast, but no sails hoisted? An apparent powerboat adrift is generally considered a power driven vessel, such as those with a fishing pole off the side. Can't know if the sailboat I'm describing has an engine or whether it's operable or whether they're in process of raising or dousing. It only gets to my bigger musing. When is a sailboat considered a sailing vessel. It does not appear that it's sails must be propelling the vessel.[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The last several posts, which address transition and identification of a sailing vessel, make abundant sense. I'd intuitively operate with the identified understanding, as well. What's vexing about it is that little of this practical implementation is actually define in the ColRegs. 

In many walks of life, the practical implementation of rules or process is unlike the technical construction. This applies to the law, to military exercises and sports. However, in each discipline, one practices themselves on the technicalities, so that their instinctive judgement in the moment is improved.

Thanks for the exercise.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

I haven't sailed in big waters nearly as much as most of you, but I've never seen an anchor ball.

The boats I've chartered have never had one on board, so apparently they're not worried about insurance claims being denied because of lack of a day shape.

The COLREGs say that the ball should be at least 0.6 meters (2 feet), but I see that both West Marine and Defender sell shapes considerably smaller. That seems odd. Why go to the trouble to fly the shape, but still be out of compliance?

Nuova Rade Anchor Ball - Day Shape
PLASTIMO Folding Anchor Ball


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Minnesail said:


> .....The boats I've chartered have never had one on board, so apparently they're not worried about insurance claims being denied because of lack of a day shape......


That's a very interesting point. I've lost track of how many bareboats I've chartered. Day shapes have never been a part of the inventory.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

mstern said:


> I've never seen the cone either. I have, on rare occasions, seen boats flying the anchor ball. I don't own one, but I think I'll put it down on the list for next spring.
> 
> Question: I pick up a mooring for the night. Do I fly an anchor ball?


You can leave your anchor ball up over night, but you would switch on your anchor light for the hours of darkness. One all around white light.

If you buy an anchor ball, the folding canvas balls are by far the easiest to store.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnesail said:


> The COLREGs say that the ball should be at least 0.6 meters (2 feet), but I see that both West Marine and Defender sell shapes considerably smaller. That seems odd. Why go to the trouble to fly the shape, but still be out of compliance?
> 
> Nuova Rade Anchor Ball - Day Shape
> PLASTIMO Folding Anchor Ball


Annex 1 84.11

c- In a vessel less than 20 meters in length shapes of lesser dimensions but commensurate with the size of the vessel may be used and the distance apart may be correspondingly reduced.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

On a practical level if I’m in the center of a mooring field tend to be more lax about the ball but on the edge the ball goes up. If anchored the ball goes up.
Point is well taken that most people on the water don’t know what the day shapes mean. I have a slide rule that explains them as I must admit looking at a tug or ship festooned with shapes or lights it comes in handy and keeps the bullfinch where it belongs down below. Knew it once for the test but now gone like so many peoples names.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

tempest said:


> Annex 1 84.11
> 
> c- In a vessel less than 20 meters in length shapes of lesser dimensions but commensurate with the size of the vessel may be used and the distance apart may be correspondingly reduced.


Ah, thank you. I guess I could have read the whole section instead of stopping after the 0.6 meter part 

The Plastimo one is 12", which is only 25% of the visual area of the 24" ball needed for a 65' boat, but it says it's good for a boat up to 49'. I suppose it doesn't really matter, since there is nothing specific in the COLREGs.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Back to the OP, I've read and heard of numerous accounts of the victim's life, mourning her loss. 

I've read or heard nothing of the circumstances of the collision, which is surprising, other than it was nearing the finish line and no alcohol was involved. The community is pretty small and there were obviously surviving witnesses. Any news anywhere?


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

Anchor ball or day shapes are fine but I would not expect 99% of the other boats to even know what they mean or what they are. it's a big boat thing


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

mstern said:


> I've never seen the cone either. I have, on rare occasions, seen boats flying the anchor ball. I don't own one, but I think I'll put it down on the list for next spring.
> 
> Question: I pick up a mooring for the night. Do I fly an anchor ball?


Answer: Yes. Look at a cruise ship at rest during the day carefully and you'll see an anchor ball. The only exception to the anchor light in the USA is an officially designated anchorage, and what is marked on a chart is not necessarily a designated one. See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title33-vol1/xml/CFR-2018-title33-vol1-part110.xml for the official list. If your anchorage isn't on the list then you need to fly a day shape (round ball) during the day and an all-around white light at night.

Even though I've had people on charter boats ask me why I'm hoisting a black round radar-reflector after I anchor, I don't think I've ever anchored or taken a mooring without displaying the shape. It is easy to do, takes only seconds and not only shows that I know what the rules are but might keep me from trouble if some lout rams my boat with a dinghy or jet ski while at anchor...

Left picture while motorsailing and the right while anchored off Green Island in Antigua with no other boats in sight


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnesail said:


> Ah, thank you. I guess I could have read the whole section instead of stopping after the 0.6 meter part
> 
> The Plastimo one is 12", which is only 25% of the visual area of the 24" ball needed for a 65' boat, but it says it's good for a boat up to 49'. I suppose it doesn't really matter, since there is nothing specific in the COLREGs.


Am I missing something math wise? 12" is 50% of 24" No biggie.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

tempest said:


> Am I missing something math wise? 12" is 50% of 24" No biggie.


Area is the square of the linear measurement. Pie are square, and all that.

The 12" sphere presents visible area of 113" square inches. The 24" sphere presents a visible area of 452" square inches.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Minnesail said:


> Area is the square of the linear measurement. Pie are square, and all that.
> 
> The 12" sphere presents visible area of 113" square inches. The 24" sphere presents a visible area of 452" square inches.


Well done, but it's cringe worth to see Pie are square. It's pi * radius squared, which you obviously know.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Zanshin said:


>


I realize the photo is from a distance, but that's not easy to see. I'm guessing that's a 12" ball?


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnesail said:


> Area is the square of the linear measurement. Pie are square, and all that.
> 
> The 12" sphere presents visible area of 113" square inches. The 24" sphere presents a visible area of 452" square inches.


Got it, the circumference is 50 %, the area is 25 %


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

On a sloop putting up a day signal takes a second. Make a loop of shock cord. Permanently attach it to your folding ball or cone. Make it big enough that you can loop it around the forestay and pass the day signal through that loop. Take thin cord and pass it through the other hole in the day signal. Tighten and cleat or tie to bow cleat or toe rail. Takes longer to explain than do. 
Have had charters dinghy by and ask “what’s that?”. Interesting conversation starter.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> ....Have had charters dinghy by and ask "what's that?". Interesting conversation starter.


Says it all.

Truth is these antiquated day shape rules are like curing people with leaches. They don't work and are in serious need of modernization.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Says it all.
> 
> Truth is these antiquated day shape rules are like curing people with leaches. They don't work and are in serious need of modernization.


What would you suggest they be replaced with?

My day shapes cost me about $40. They are simple, cheap, and easy to deploy. Using them covers my ass to an extent. Because others don't know what they mean doesn't let me off the hook ( Pun intended)

Drivers in my neck of the woods, don't know what a "yield" sign means either '


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> What would you suggest they be replaced with?
> 
> My day shapes cost me about $40. They are simple, cheap, and easy to deploy. Using them covers my ass to an extent. Because others don't know what they mean doesn't let me off the hook ( Pun intended)


How inexpensive they are, nor how easy they are to use, doesn't address the point that they have near zero actual effectiveness for the vast majority of boaters. Covering one's legal a$$ is very different from actual prevention.

No doubt they should be replaced by technology of some kind. Just like leaches were replaced with xrays and antibiotics. Leaches were pretty simple and inexpensive too. Obviously, AIS already exists, but I suspect a nearer distance, lower power draw tech would do just fine. It may even be resident in one's smartphone at some point.



> Drivers in my neck of the woods, don't know what a "yield" sign means either '


Of course they do, especially as it compares to day shapes. Whether one abides by them is entirely different, for sure. No one obeys the speed limits either, but at least they know what they are.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I guess when the new rule comes out, if I'm still alive, I'll use it. Until then, I guess I'm stuck using the leeches. ;-)


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

Minnesail said:


> I realize the photo is from a distance, but that's not easy to see. I'm guessing that's a 12" ball?


Yes, it is a 12" ball (and too small for my boat)


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Why don't they offer round buoy/fenders in black that can be hoisted as a anchor shape? Dual use!


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

SanderO said:


> Why don't they offer round buoy/fenders in black that can be hoisted as a anchor shape? Dual use!


A black cover would do the trick.

PC-A1 ? Polyform (A1) & Taylor Buoy(12? Dia.) | Procover


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

https://carolnewmancronin.com/remem...bXolbW6zUM6hhIK_Dqo85SIOZYTYKf1FfHidX66iDh8Ss


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> https://carolnewmancronin.com/remem...bXolbW6zUM6hhIK_Dqo85SIOZYTYKf1FfHidX66iDh8Ss


Nice article. No new info, but it underscores the incredible tragedy.

Having been written two days ago, I was taken back to see the author speculate about "cold ones". Alcohol was ruled out as a factor on the same day. Best I recall, it was the involved powerboat that hailed the Coastguard.

There is a guy I know who is heavily involved in the racing scene on the Bay. When I see him next, I'll ask if he has any news on the actual events.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Zanshin said:


> Yes, it is a 12" ball (and too small for my boat)


The way I read it, since you're under 20 meters it's your call what size to use (commensurate with the size of the vessel).

On the other hand, your boat is awfully close to 20 meters!

Anyway, props for actually flying the black ball. Makes me want to get one to take with me on charters, just so I can be hypercorrect.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> Says it all.
> 
> Truth is these antiquated day shape rules are like curing people with leaches. They don't work and are in serious need of modernization.


These shapes have limited utility but to me their value is that using them ensues should you be involved in an colision, the share of fault assigned to you will be less than it will be if you aren't using them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> These shapes have limited utility but to me their value is that using them ensues should you be involved in an colision, the share of fault assigned to you will be less than it will be if you aren't using them.....


Right, they provide protection against the law, which contrived this ineffective standard in the first place. Self serving bureaucracy. The anchor ball does not provide actual protection against the collision, as so few even know what they mean or notice them.

I'm not suggesting folks boycott them, although, ironically there are virtually none in practice anyway. I'm saying the idea needs to be modernized.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> ...
> 
> I'm not suggesting folks boycott them, although, ironically there are virtually none in practice anyway. I'm saying the idea needs to be modernized.


None is an overstatement as I for one use them...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> ...The anchor ball does not provide actual protection against the collision, as so few even know what they mean or notice them...


You might have added "in the USA" as in Europe they are used extensively.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> None is an overstatement as I for one use them...


I don't believe you missed "virtually none", I did not write none. You quoted me. Clearly you just wanted to declare your compliance for some reason that couldn't possibly dispute my point. The anchor ball doesn't work from a practical perspective.

Let's step back from the sense of compliance superiority for a moment and think about this. If one can see the bloody anchor ball, they can see the boat too, let alone likely see the anchor chain out. Other day shapes are more informative, such as RAM or NUC. Still, most don't recognize them either. There needs to be a much more modern solution that has a real practical impact on safety, not just one that make folks feel compliant.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Zanshin said:


> You might have added "in the USA" as in Europe they are used extensively.


Good to know about Europe. Thanks. I still say the anchor ball doens't provide any actual protection.

Curious if bareboats in Europe come equipped. As interestingly noted, I've never seen one aboard in the Caribbean.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> I don't believe you missed "virtually none", I did not write none. You quoted me. Clearly you just wanted to declare your compliance for some reason that couldn't possibly dispute my point. The anchor ball doesn't work from a practical perspective.
> 
> Let's step back from the sense of compliance superiority for a moment and think about this. ......


'Virtually none' versus 'none'? Yikes....

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> 'Virtually none' versus 'none'? Yikes.......


Virtually is defined as nearly; almost; not absolute. You as an exception does not dispute what I wrote, but you replied as if it did.

More to the point, do you agree or disagree that the anchor ball provides no practical protection from a collision.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I’ve seen them throughout the Caribbean. As much as I’m suspect and wary around any charter boat due to prior bad experiences when in their proximity I have seen them flown on charters as well.

I believe they are worthwhile to use not only for the vail of protection from tort but also if used by the knowledgeable members here there more common usage with encourage more the unaware to use them. 

I’ve been struck while moored by a 60’ charter cat. If that clown (a professional captain) went forward to put up a ball it would have been quite evident to him he had inadequate swing. Fortunately I was on on friends boat and so we jumped into our dinghies and pushed him off with no damage done.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

When I bought my first boat, an ex-charter Sunsail boat in the BVI, it did have both a balll and an cone dayshape aboard. Unpacked. Still in the original packaging.

an anchor day-shape provides no protection at all from a collision, just from legal liability in case of a collision.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

In Reality, None of the Rules protect you from collision from people who don't know them or choose to ignore them. None, Zero, Nada. 

As sort-of evidenced by the topic of this thread. 

I just never looked at them as a pick the ones you like and leave the rest set of guidelines. But that's just me. I'll see the boat, I'll look for the anchor rode. I'm not going to hit you ball or no ball. 

I find the ball most informative when I'm sailing among the big boys who are anchored out waiting for a berth, In NY Harbor and surrounding waters. They do display proper days shapes. There may often be a Tug tucked in or alongside a barge, with it's stack blowing smoke, but a quick look on the bow will reveal that the barge is still anchored. I can usually spot the ball, before the anchor chain. 

I'm not a tug or a barge, but I'll display a ball when anchored out.

Not worth getting in a quandary about though.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

mstern said:


> I've never seen the cone either. I have, on rare occasions, seen boats flying the anchor ball. I don't own one, but I think I'll put it down on the list for next spring.
> 
> Question: I pick up a mooring for the night. Do I fly an anchor ball?


It depends, are you sleeping in? No you don't need at night, but you do at day break.


----------



## theluckyone17 (Jan 26, 2018)

This incident taught me a great deal about liability in a boating collision, as far as New York State is concerned (where I do most of my boating). Do everything I can to ensure I've got my butt covered, lest I be unlucky enough to be run over by a upstanding member of "Good Ol' Boys Club". They'll find any and every excuse in the book to let one of their own off the hook.

If that means flying a dayshape, I'll do it. Anchor lights? Done. I'd like to have all my T's crossed and my i's dotted.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

mstern said:


> I've never seen the cone either. I have, on rare occasions, seen boats flying the anchor ball. I don't own one, but I think I'll put it down on the list for next spring.
> 
> Question: I pick up a mooring for the night. Do I fly an anchor ball?


If it's a " Special Anchorage" area Designated by the Secretary and you're less than 20 meters you need not display an anchor light. Likewise a Ball. These are Charted. I wouldn't display a ball there, but I might display my anchor light and a solar cockpit light, to help me find my way home at night. ;-)

There are also managed fields, that aren't charted. Rules determined by the municipality or the like.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> ....also if used by the knowledgeable members here there more common usage with encourage more the unaware to use them.


I think I follow what you meant. If one knows what it means and uses the anchor ball, others may follow. Fair enough. However, what value does that provide in actual collision avoidance, beyond compliance. Compliance could also be accomplished by removing the requirement from the ColRegs, at least for any recreational vessel.

No one is likely to find data on this. However, wouldn't we like to know if any collision at anchor could have been prevented by the ball. Seems so unlikely.



> I've been struck while moored by a 60' charter cat. If that clown (a professional captain) went forward to put up a ball it would have been quite evident to him he had inadequate swing.


I don't know, Out. Seems like a bit of a stretch. Do you sell anchor balls? :grin Are you saying we can all better tell our swing radius from the bow than we can from the cockpit? I take it this vessel, as would be common for a cat that size, had a remote windlass and didn't already have to go to the bow to deploy or set a snubber. I think 90+% of boaters have to go to the bow anyway.

I've had boats swing into me, although, it's been in a mooring field that went dead calm. Everyone swinging randomly, so nothing anyone could really do but sit in the cockpit, with a beer, and fend off for a few hours. I was also hit at night, by a boat that broke free from it's mooring in a high current area. Did 7k worth of damage, but the offending vessel was unmanned. No ball or light could help.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Minnie you’re right. All good points. Just strikes me (pun intended) anything that puts the brain dead public’s cortex in gear is to the good. Same as turn signals on a car. In Massachusetts they’re viewed as something you accidentally hit reaching for the doobie that fell on the floor. 
Agree I have unreasonable pet peeves.
On deck Hondas running at 5 am in crowded anchorages.
Rap music at 2 am when you are trying to catch Zs before a passage.
Unlit dinghies on plane zipping by 2’ off your stern while you you’re watching for the green flash.
PWCs playing at full speed in an anchorage.
One designs racing each other through the anchorage. (Saw a remarkable crash. One hit a family in a dinghy just putting along. Next hit a cruiser while trying to avoid the first crash. Third hit the other two. Was a wonder anyone was able to stop laughing to pull them out of the water. I helped the family. )
People get on boats and their brains stop working. They become even more egocentric than they are when driving. Anything that makes them think about others and how their actions or inactions may effect others is all to the good.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

A boat without sails could be motoring, a drift with no power, not under command, or anchored or moored. Moored boats are typically in a designated area (not always). Anchored boats are usually found in a designated anchorage (not always). Vessels adrift or not under command could be anywhere.

An "signal" which communicates to other vessels is useful because it informs them of the boat's status... signal flags do the same. I doubt many recreational boaters know the meanings of signal flags.

A vessel in a collision course with a sailboat with no sails, no signal flags, no anchor ball should be avoided. What sort of incompetent person would assume that they have right of way and are stand on vessel?

Do anchor lights "prevent" collisions? Perhaps because without one the vessel may go unseen.

Legal liability may be more complex. A vessel in a designated channel, not moving or anchored is clearly a hazard to navigation and should not be there. I don't know what would the legal situation with or without some sort of signal (flag, ball, horn, light, radio). That vessel seems to have a responsibility to "explain" why they are in the channel and not moving.

++++

Someone should make an anchor ball with an solar charged LED anchor light with a photo relay on off switch. Hoist it up when you anchor. When the light level drops the anchor light shows. It could even have a strobe function for emergencies.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

I can’t really see how the anchor day shape could prevent a collision. Does anyone have a link to an actual report where failure to have a day shape up cause someone to be partially at fault for a collision? In this thread there’ve been a couple anecdotal reports of insurance not paying out, but was the day shape really the issue? I find that kind of hard to believe.


I can see how they could be useful for informational purposes. Is that boat drifting, slowly motoring, or are they anchored?


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

SanderO said:


> Someone should make an anchor ball with an solar charged LED anchor light with a photo relay on off switch. Hoist it up when you anchor. When the light level drops the anchor light shows. It could even have a strobe function for emergencies.


Brilliant idea.

Do I have to share any of the proceeds with you?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnesail said:


> Brilliant idea.
> 
> Do I have to share any of the proceeds with you?


Absolutely.... let start a biz... smart anchor!


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

There are not many searchable databases for admiralty law out there. I found one Canadian one with some rulings regarding boats at anchor not displaying lights and being found partially at fault in collision cases, but none with missing day shapes. The one anecdotal case I recall dealt with a jet skier ramming an anchored boat or their anchor chain and being found not completely at fault during the subsequent trial (many Admiralty cases end up assessing percentage blame to each party) but my Google-fu isn't sufficient to find that case. Nevertheless, the COLREGs are pretty clear about the requirement for day shapes and that's sufficient for me to follow them. I agree with many of the posters on this thread that it won't do anything to avoid accidents, but I am certain that it will do something to avoid being found at fault for such accidents.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Z just curious if you fly anything while under power? You’re the real deal sailor so suspect the engine goes off or at least to neutral as soon as you’re out of the harbor or briefly while entering. Perhaps it goes on again in open ocean when there’s no vessels on the horizon or AIS when on passage. In short the engine is commonly on just long enough to heat up the oil or with no one is sight. Are you flying a cone in those situations?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The cone is more interesting. It does impart some knowledge, for no other reason I can think of, other than re-establishing responsibility between vessels. Even that is only relevant between powerboats and sailing vessels, as all other remain the same, regardless. 

Therefore, if a sail is up and your not properly flying the inverted cone, it would seem the powerboat still has the obligation to treat you as a sailing vessel. The mere presence of exhaust could be a generator or a main not in gear and charging batteries. It’s pretty grey, as it’s often obvious to another sailor when you’re motoring. If there were a collision and you weren’t flying the inverted cone, that could again cause liability.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

this may often be a sort of.... "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"


----------



## Solandri (Sep 7, 2012)

SchockT said:


> The thing that annoys me is that so many powerboats come straight at you on a collision course, and don't alter course until the last second. It leaves us watching nervously and wondering if they see us instead of relaxing and enjoying the sail. Some of the big gin palaces seem to take a particular glee in cutting as close to sailboats as they can, kicking up max wake of course.


I both sail and use a powerboat. The situation you describe happens because sailboats tack. During my first year powerboating, I noticed I was approaching a sailboat almost head on on a collision course, so I changed course to starboard from about a half mile away. The saiboat then proceeded to tack to port, putting us on a collision course again (I'd hit it broadside). It took me about 10-15 seconds to gauge whether I'd pass in front or behind it, and I decided it was too close to call. So I changed course again, this time to port to bring myself back closer to the heading required for my destination and passing behind the sailboat. Well wouldn't you know it, the sailboat tacked again. This time to starboard and then some, putting us back on a collision course. So I had to change course again.

That taught me that it's pointless trying to make course adjustments to avoid a sailboat which is far away - it could be undone by the sailboat tacking. So powerboaters will wait until both vessels are fairly close, so that the sailboat doesn't have time to make multiple tacks, and only a single course correction is needed to avoid the sailboat.



Minnewaska said:


> For interest, here is some data I found (most recent years used). I focused on fatalities, as they're likely reported. Not all accidents are.
> 
> In 2016, there were almost 6 fatalities per 100,000 boats on the water.
> 
> ...


Those aren't comparable stats because people spend a lot more time and more miles in a car than on a boat. So while cars may kill more people per year, boats are more dangerous per hour spent in the vehicle.



tempest said:


> The Basic Rule to avoid collision is always in play. The Steering and Sailing rules are for vessels in sight of one another.
> 
> A recreational power boat, drifting while fishing is " underway" not to be confused with " making way" . They have the responsibility to have their engine at the ready and be prepared to avoid collision.


This actually came up in a fishing forum. One of the things many sailors don't seem to understand is that there are times when a powerboat has the right of way over a sailboat under sail. One of these is when the sailboat is the overtaking vessel. So if you're sailing towards a drifting powerboat and you're looking at their stern, and you're moving faster than their drift speed, you are the overtaking vessel. They are the stand-on vessel, and it's the sailboat's duty to maneuver to avoid the drifting powerboat. Not the powerboat's duty to fire up its engine and get out of the way. (If you're approaching them at an angle where you're not looking at their stern, then you aren't overtaking. And it's their duty to fire up their engine and get out of the way.)

https://www.boatus.org/study-guide/navigation/rules/


> The Overtaking Situation
> two vessels in an overtaking situation
> Any vessel overtaking any other vessel must keep out the way of the vessel being overtaken. The former is the give-way vessel and the latter is the stand-on vessel.
> 
> This rule applies even if the overtaking vessel is propelled by wind, oars, or rubber band paddlewheel.


That said, these rules are mainly guidelines and for the purposes of assigning blame in the event of a collision. The best outcome is achieved when _everyone_ does whatever is necessary to avoid a collision, whether they have the right of way or not. It's better to maneuver to avoid a vessel even if you have the right of way, than the stick to your course because you have the right of way and end up colliding.

The only time it's crucially important to follow the rules is when one boat maneuvering incorrectly could cancel out the avoidance maneuver of the other boat. i.e. In a head-on-head situation, both boats should move to their starboard to avoid a collision. If one maneuvers to port, it will collide with the other boat moving to starboard.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Solandri said:


> .....That taught me that it's pointless trying to make course adjustments to avoid a sailboat which is far away - it could be undone by the sailboat tacking.


The answer has come to me!! Every boater should have a certificate showing they've passed a basic sailing course, not just a boater safety course. If one already understands the principles of sailing, it's much easier to determine if the sailboat can actually hold the course they are on, or why they are on that course or even whether they have any maneuvering room to one side or the other. Most powerboaters just don't understand any of that.



> Those aren't comparable stats because people spend a lot more time and more miles in a car than on a boat. So while cars may kill more people per year, boats are more dangerous per hour spent in the vehicle...


I get your point, the do not reveal the likelihood of having a fatality for any given hour of usage. I looked them up to determine whether the operator having a license reduced their likelihood of ever having a fatality. Every automobile driver is licensed, most boaters are not. I'm not sure the license itself would change behavior, as people still do stupid things in cars and more individual operators, per car, have fatalities.

How about an online refresh of boater safety that you must pass annually? Maybe they could contain some PSA announcements of actual fatalities caused by folks that didn't follow the rules. Force everyone to watch them once per year, like we were in high school health class.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

The problem with “boater safety courses” and the testing engendered is that if they’re run by the DMV they turn out to be about alcohol consumption, trailer lights, and ramp launching. If they’re run by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, they’re about Colregs, alcohol consumption, lighting (and shapes!), and powerboats. Getting the average Bass-Boat fisherman to focus on which way the wind is blowing and how sails interact with it is an exercise in futility. 

Would this thread’s initiating powerboat helmsman (Was there actually anyone at the wheel??? We don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Was he flying the right shape, by the way? We don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Why are day shapes involved in this thread at all? We don’t know. Maybe they have nothing to do with this thread topic.) have been better able to avoid the sailboat (a small catamaran, under sail, and not required to fly a shape) in the incident this thread is purportedly about, if he had a better understanding about sailboats and how they work? 
Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Truly not interested in more government regulations nor testing. Has no impact for impaired or egocentric operators.
Some of us travel 5000 to 10000 miles per year on their boats. I’ve had several years with many more miles on my boat than my car. I believe the statistics will bear out ocean sailing is safer per mile travelled than automobile. Believe coastal and inland power are more dangerous. Believe smaller vessels are more likely to be involved in accidents and fatalities. Same with faster versus slower. 
So believe I’m safer and less likely to be injured or die traveling on my boat than in my car. Say that in spite of having accident avoidance systems in the car (automatic breaking, lane control, adaptive cruise control etc.). In both it’s not you that’s the concern but the other guy. Rather that not be in an event when two vehicles of 3000 lbs are closing at 80 mph with huge kinetic forces involved. 
Currently accidents (boat,car, truck or plane) are way more likely to occur from operator error than mechanical failures. (Even true for Boing). Fatalities in boating are remarkably low for cruising sailboats. It takes some digging to get realistic numbers given the very low N as compared to cars or even other forms of vessels.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I think a state administered... CG administered should be mandatory to operate a marine vessel. There also should be annual or bi annual exams of some sort to "renew" the operator's qualifications.

The test could require a course certificate or for grandfathering, a log/history of marine experience.. and so forth. The system where anyone can buy and then operate a boat is not tenable.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

So you are on US flagged vessel but not in the US. You come back to the US on rare occasion usually during holidays when government offices are closed. If you take a test on the Internet you can sign in and have some else take it for you. If you must appear in person you will need to spend thousands of dollars in transport and housing to sit the biannual testing. Do you really think this is fair? Do you really think this will have any impact on boater safety? Do you not believe this will not dramatically decrease the number of US flagged pleasure boats? Given “not for sale in US waters” you can kiss the few remaining US boat manufacturers and boat brokers good bye if you institute your plan. Any significant vessel will be built, sold and papered offshore. Coastal US cruising of these vessels will decrease with major impact on US marine businesses. Even now I question coming back to the US. That’s with US citizen crew. What you will see is US citizen crew on foreign flagged vessels putting up with cruising permits. 
Although many more small boats are sold there’s more margin in large boat sales. It’s large boats that keep the brokers alive. Being US flagged is of benefit to both the US and the boater at present. Due to your plan the equation changes. I know I’d flip to C.I. or the like. 
Pragmatically once you get to a certain size economics and insurance predicates a certain level of knowledge and judgement as the operator has too much at risk. Believe it’s this rather than regulation that has a more meaningful impact on behavior. 
Have less issue with a system of “certificate of competence “ renewed every 5 years than what you are proposing. Particularly if you could go to a certified school at your convenience to obtain it. Perhaps RYI, ASA and like schools could administer the test. To go to Europe I can do RYA in the Caribbean. Still have to put up with permitting. Hell, even now I stay out of Florida as I’m documented out of R.I..


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

outbound said:


> Truly not interested in more government regulations nor testing. Has no impact for impaired or egocentric operators.


Perhaps we should do away with licensing for operating a motor vehicle, aircraft and doctors too... The fact that there is a license requirement does nothing to prevent impared, incompetent, or egocentric operators in these activities either.

I had to take my father's drivers license away when he was 93, because he had moderate dementia following a heart attack and resuscitation when he was 90. His eyesight was terrible, he couldn't hear without hearing aids - that he would usually forget to wear, and because of the dementia he couldn't tell where he was, or where he was going unless my mother was in the car directing him, and she was legally blind! I reached the conclusion that he was incompetent, and had his license revoked pending review. About a year later he received a letter from the DMV that his license was reinstated... I "lost" that letter. Frankly, I cannot believe that there is no legal requirement to pass any kind of test after, say age 80, to renew your driver's license. (Personally, I would like to see a requirement that one pass a written test every 10 years that you have had your license, and an on-the-road test every 20, regardless of age.)



> Currently accidents (boat,car, truck or plane) are way more likely to occur from operator error than mechanical failures. (Even true for Boing). Fatalities in boating are remarkably low for cruising sailboats. It takes some digging to get realistic numbers given the very low N as compared to cars or even other forms of vessels.


We don't KNOW why this accident occoured. Were both vessels operating according to Inland COLREGS? I can't say for sure. I wasn't there, and I only heard part of the distress call on the VHF. It seems that sombody violated Rule 5. As I recall, the powerboat operator did not seem to know how to make a distress call - I do not believe that I heard the word "Mayday" in any of the transmissions.

However I believe that there is an AWARENESS of COLREGS problem. When teaching ASA or US/Sailing courses I have surprised many people with my statement that the only thing that you need in order to legally operate a boat in most of the USA is a checkbook or credit card. Many states are implementing, or have implemented laws that require new boaters to prove some awareness of the COLREGS (refer back to my earlier post; Rhode Island requires that those under 34 take an online course), but the mechanism for administering this test (usually ON LINE) is severely flawed - who is to stop someone else from taking the on-line test for you. Requiring a license to operate would NOT stop unlicensed operators from operating a vessel, but it would probably give everybody something to think about before they assume command of a vessel. A license would prove that the person that holds it has demonstrated a level of awareness of COLREGS. Operating a vessel without a license would be an additional offense.

The fact is that most boats operate at lower speeds than motor vehicles. This leads to fewer accidents, and fewer fatalities. I doubt, however, that this fact is much consolation to Sandra Tartaglino's family and friends.

At least in Europe if you want to charter a boat the government and the charter companies require that you show them a valid ICC / IPC. In order to earn those certificates one must demonstrate a level of awareness of the COLREGS.

I hope that this post does not come across as snippy. There are a bunch of societal issues in the US that Government SHOULD be able to help address, but there are special interests that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so nothing gets done and people die needlessly as a result. If the arguement is that the curent bureaucracy is inefficient or ineffective, that is no justification not to try to address the underlying problem.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the crux is whether we can show that licensing would reduce fatalities. That correlation is not in evidence. Just because one proves they know the material, doesn't necessarily correlate with how they will behave.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Here's an interesting article. While it's written sensationally, I think there is a different take, when you read the actual numerical statistic.

Approx the same percentage of sailors are killed as skiers. Does anyone think we need more licensing for skiers? I think it's all about how you behave.

https://www.yachtingmedia.com/magazine/sailing-dangerous-sport.html


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

E as noted above and stated clearly above I have less objection to a “certificate of competence “ requiring basic knowledge of colregs. It was to the specifics of S’s post that I had issue. I think such a requirement would suffice. Requiring detailed knowledge of all the day shapes and lights seems excessive. I forget them and have various “cheat sheets” (a slide rule of the lights is my favorite). I also have a sticker of the basic nav aids and colregs on the helm pod so crew and the bride can glance at it if behind the wheel. If you can tell me the night lights of a vessel laying cable with a tow 300’ behind off the cuff bless you. I forget. 

I can self attest for 100t ocean. From experience I know it’s meaningless. I currently don’t have a license and don’t judge a US license as a positive on crews resumes. After having “captains” crew for me who were incompetent to stand watch without close supervision I stand by that opinion. Here I would wish to see more regulation. RYA and elsewhere in the world a practicum is included. So I’m not adverse to regulation which is not onerous and most importantly has actual impact on the issue at hand. Requiring all operators to return to their country of origin biannually to be tested on regulations which rarely if ever change is onerous in my view.

In my professional life have given testimony concerning competence or implemented removal of various licenses. Of interest cared for a very demented judge and found out the difficulties of and near impossibility of involuntary removal from the bench on a practical level. So yes there are places where more regulation may be of use.

I know all too well having initials after your name nor honorifics in front doesn’t impart additional intelligence nor competence nor even commonsense. I’ve worked with noble prize winning physicians who I wouldn’t feel comfortable about treating a cold in a dog let alone having them near a human in distress. They don’t treat in the clinic nor hospital. Only work in the lab although fully licensed and doing their CMEs(continuing Ed). Experience and commonsense are more meaningful.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Minnie the CG numbers and evaluations from US sailing support your post. Suspect deaths/injuries from cruising sail boats not following colregs is a vanishing small number. Implementing the program S suggests seems most unreasonable. Have great respect for S as a knowledgeable reasonable guy in his other posts but like us all (especially myself) sometimes neglects unintended consequences. I’ve surely screwed up worst than this elsewhere on this site.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I think the crux is whether we can show that licensing would reduce fatalities. That correlation is not in evidence. Just because one proves they know the material, doesn't necessarily correlate with how they will behave.


The numbers on this are posted annually by the Coast guard. In 2017, for instance, in 81% of the deaths that occurred the operators were found to have had no training. vs. 14 % of deaths where some training was documented. The ratios are pretty consistent each year.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> The numbers on this are posted annually by the Coast guard. In 2017, for instance, in 81% of the deaths that occurred the operators were found to have had no training. vs. 14 % of deaths where some training was documented. The ratios are pretty consistent each year.


Statistics, my friend. If that simply correlates to the population's distribution of documented training, then there is no impact from training. This will be very difficult. I'm sure the term "documented" was chosen, because it's unclear in many cases.

In other words, as an example, you'd want to see a much greater percent of fatalities from the untrained than they represent as a percent if the entire population.

I also linked the stats, early in the thread, that showed something like 80% of all fatalities are on boats less than ~25ft. While it would be tempting to focus on them, that's probably because most boats are less than 25ft.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I apologize, my friend, I really have no idea what you just said. Or, of the point that you're trying to make.

What I do know, is that the States with the highest numbers of registered boaters and the highest number of Fatalities, have had, for a long time, the least restrictive rules regarding training. ( in some cases no rules) That is changing. 
New York, California, Texas, Florida have all recently passed boating safety laws. These are being phased in, so it will take years to see if there is any impact. Those 4 states account for over 30% of the fatalities.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tempest said:


> I apologize, my friend, I really have no idea what you just said. Or, of the point that you're trying to make.


I'll take one more crack at it. Assume, for the sake of making my point that 20% of boaters have training and 80% of boaters do not. If only 20% of fatalities are caused by those with training, it's doesn't prove the training had any impact on the fatality rate. You'd have to show that significantly fewer than 20% of fatalities involved boaters with training to be able to say it had a statistical impact.

One more way to say it. 83% of the population has brown eyes. If 83% of the accidents involve people with brown eyes, it does not mean that people with blue and green eyes are safer.



> What I do know, is that the States with the highest numbers of registered boaters and the highest number of Fatalities, have had, for a long time, the least restrictive rules regarding training. ( in some cases no rules) That is changing.
> New York, California, Texas, Florida have all recently passed boating safety laws. These are being phased in, so it will take years to see if there is any impact. Those 4 states account for over 30% of the fatalities.


Let's put this to use now. Those four states, according to the link below have 32.2% of all the registered boats in the country. There is no correlation to their reported lax training rules. It's only cause that's where the 30% of boats are.

In fact, if you were correct, you'd want to see that only 10% of the registered boats were in these states, when they disproportionately had 30% of fatalities. But they don't.

Make sense?

https://www.discoverboating.com/res...ot-from-michigan-with-most-boat-registrations


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Yes, I see what you're saying. I don't think we can know, just by the laws or lack of them alone how many boaters have had training. I could live in NY where there was scant training requirements yet still have held a license or volunteered to received training elsewhere: Power Squadron, USCG, Navy, CG Auxiliary etc. Also, a registered boat doesn't necessarily equate to a boat that gets used.

What we do know is that 80 % of the people who die in a boating accident have received no training at all. That said, most of the deaths are on small open boats and Jet skis etc. on inland waters. Sailboats are not a not a big contributor. 

Interestingly, Florida's new law says you can purchase any sized vessel at all, and operate it without any training whatsoever, for 90 days. Sounds to me like a successful lobbying effort.

I know of few activities where less or no training produces positive results. If your argument is that Boater safety training would not result in fewer fatalities, Or that there's no evidence that it would. I guess we'll have to see how it goes now with those states that have decided to implement programs. 

If I were implementing rules, I'd certainly target the most likely suspects, I don't think making sailors take a required course will have a significant impact.

If Saving lives were the ultimate goal, I would imagine that making it a requirement that everyone on an open boat 25 foot or less wear a life jacket, might save more lives than making everyone in the universe take a course. Along with Periodic DUI stops. But, there's no political will to do that. So they blanket everyone lest they offend someone.

One last comment, Let's assume that the Sailor of this thread that was killed had training. If the other Boater did not ( don't know) , it would show up in the stats as a " trained" fatality. Raw numbers don't tell a complete story. They need some additional context. ie How many fatalities of trained boaters were caused by untrained or inebriated ones or visa versa.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If everyone were required to learn to sail, there might be fewer powerboats.


----------

