# Do you think he needed fresh shorts



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

Just saw a Video of an incident between a power boat and a Washington State Ferry on Sunday afternoon 

Sorry I don't know how to do links. Found it by google Washington State Ferry hits Boat. Or maybe it should be the other way round.
The really surprising thing is.
apart from 

Do you think he need fresh shorts?

It all looked just fine.


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

Here is the link:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...th-washington-state-ferry-near-vashon-island/


----------



## seabeau (Oct 5, 2014)

It was reported later that the boats operator was in the head at the time of the collision.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

seabeau said:


> It was reported later that the boats operator was in the head at the time of the collision.


Changing his shorts????


----------



## seabeau (Oct 5, 2014)

Don0190 said:


> Changing his shorts????


After that collision, I have no doubt.


----------



## chuck53 (Oct 13, 2009)

I hope he learned his lesson about standing watch while under auto-pilot.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Link to the video;






It seems from the video that "Nap Time" was under auto pilot control and was overtaking the ferry. It also seems that the ferry was slowing before the collision, and then reversed after the collision. It also seems that "Nap Time" continued under auto pilot after the skipper came on deck.


----------



## seabeau (Oct 5, 2014)

My hail to this clueless skipper would not have been, "Are you okay"!


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

the boat is named "Nap Time".

Heh.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

This is exactly what every commercial skipper dreads.
The skipper must immediately notify the CG of the incident and quite possibly remain on station until an investigation team arrives. Then hours and hours (perhaps days) of CG investigations (often unpaid hours), vessel inspections (for damage) and a write up (perhaps even a black mark) in your jacket, for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
And the idiot who causes it all tootles on unaware of the havoc he's created and with no consequences. There oughta be a law.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

capta said:


> There oughta be a law.


There are a bunch of them.

At the end, there is no sign that, despite many issues (security zone for ferry, and the ferry being give way) the ferry didn't appear to take action beyond the horn blasts until way too late.

Lots of responsibility to spread around.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> There are a bunch of them.
> 
> At the end, there is no sign that, despite many issues (security zone for ferry, and the ferry being give way) the ferry didn't appear to take action beyond the horn blasts until way too late.
> Lots of responsibility to spread around.


Quite often the incredulity of a situation and the disbelief that *ANYONE* could actually be *THAT* stupid, causes a sort of incapacity.
It as a pretty lousy angle on the film, and someone mentioned that the ferry was being overtaken. At what point do you break convention and alter course (as the overtaken vessel)? Not knowing the area, was the ferry constrained by her draft?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Setting aside the security zone (which is predominant) it doesn't look to me like the recreational vessel was overtaking. It looks like he was stand on and the ferry was give way. That said all reports are that the small boat was on autopilot and the skipper was in the head. That means no watch. 

Plenty of accountability all around. Ferry should have gone astern. Boat should not have been crossing a known ferry track with the bridge unattended. Oh - and the ferry did five blasts wrong. *grin*


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Under Colregs the ferry was the give way vessel, the other boat was required to maintain course and speed (and a watch which they obviously did not do). The ferry was not constrained by draft (or anything else that would have changed the situation) and should have altered course in time to pass astern of the boat. The ferry did sound the five blast danger signal and slow down, eventually going into reverse, but the burden was on the ferry to avoid a collision by altering course in time to pass safely behind or slowing/stopping to let the stand on vessel cross safely. The boat did not have a watch manned and failed to sound any signals and ultimately was required to take action to avoid the collision when the ferry failed to alter course. Blame will be divided but I wouldn't want to be in the ferry skipper's shoes.

This happened just south of us, near Seattle. Just a couple of years ago another ferry completely ran over a sailboat here in the San Juans (also no watch) in a similar situation. Might does not make right, at least in the eyes of the USCG and Colregs, although self preservation is a strong motivator in most cases and the smaller vessel usually gives way no matter what the Colregs say.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

What I see is an overtaking vessel hitting the ferry fwd of amidships?????????? They seem to be on roughly parallel courses??????????
Maybe if I had a picture of the ferry with all those railings I'd see it differently.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

Just amazed at Capt. Ahole's lack of a watch. I get nervous just going down below to make a sandwich. Whenever I see a power yacht heading toward my boat I always assume they are on auto pilot and they are down below watching a game on a flat screen TV. Though I am impressed with how his boat held up after the crash. Though internally it might be a different story. Would also love to hear his conversation with his insurance company.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

capta said:


> What I see is an overtaking vessel hitting the ferry fwd of amidships?????????? They seem to be on roughly parallel courses??????????
> Maybe if I had a picture of the ferry with all those railings I'd see it differently.


Pretty much perpendicular courses.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Strange, I see two vessels that Edit: had room for improvement with regards to their obligations. Maybe I'm getting my lefts and rights mixed up, but it looked to me like the ferry bumped into a vessel crossing and approaching from the starboard side. It kind of looked like the skipper of the ferry spent his time telling his mate to go cuss out the power boat rather than hit the brakes or take his stern.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

This is info on the ferry;









Class: Kwa-di Tabil	Type: Auto/Passenger Ferry
Length: 273' 8"	Engines: 2
Beam: 64'	Horsepower: 6,000
Draft: 11'	Speed in Knots: 15
Max Passengers: 748	Propulsion: DIESEL
Max Vehicles: 64	Displacement (weight in long tons): 2415
Tall Deck Space: 9	City Built: Seattle
Auto Deck Clearance: 16' 0"	Year Built / Re-built: 2010


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

eherlihy said:


> This is info on the ferry;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cool details! She is definitely bigger than I thought. Lots of horse power, but she is a big boat in a small channel. She does appear to be a double ender.

The ferries size should offer some level of defence for the ferry skipper.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Intuitively, it has to be hard to claim stand-on rights under ColRegs, when one is not even on watch to know. Ultimately, ColRegs also require evasive maneuvers to avoid collision, regardless of stand-on/give-way. Same evasion requirement for the ferry, however. Hard to say, if the reverse thrust was attempted prior to impact.

I will say that stinkpot could take a punch. Give the law of gross tonnage, I would have expected splinters.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Not sure about this boat, but I understand that some ferries have two distinct drive lines, and engage only the drive line that they intend to use for a particular trip. Starting up the opposite drive line takes some time, and may be the reason for the seeming late appearance of the prop wash in the video. If this is the case, the ferry could have been operating with full reverse thrust from the aft drive line throughout the video.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

eherlihy said:


> Not sure about this boat, but I understand that some ferries have two distinct drive lines, and engage only the drive line that they intend to use for a particular trip. Starting up the opposite drive line takes some time, and may be the reason for the seeming late appearance of the prop wash in the video. If this is the case, the ferry could have been operating with full reverse thrust from the aft drive line throughout the video.


Your logic is very sound. I think if I was running the ferry in confined waters like that, I would be inclined to want both engines running and an Engineer in the engine room. But, you never know what kind of pressure there was to save on diesel, or if man power budgeting required the engineering officer to be out of the engine room. Of course there are scheduling pressures on the bridge team too, but I don't consider that to be much of an excuse, personally.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

The ferry skippers have a tough job here dodging small boats in narrow channels all the time and I know from seeing countless encounters that "almost" always the recreational boats give way to them whether they should or not according to the rules. When I see that I'm going to cause a problem for one I make a course change (a big one that they can see) well before they need to start worrying about me. I'm not in a hurry, they are on a schedule. I'm sure they just expect little boats to avoid them and when one doesn't, like in this case, it turns into an emergency in a big hurry. I'm actually pretty impressed that the ferry had slowed almost to a dead stop prior to the collision, and by going to emergency reverse when it did helped push "Nap Time" away from the bow with the prop wash and probably avoided what surely would have been major damage.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

jrd22 said:


> The ferry skippers have a tough job here dodging small boats in narrow channels all the time and I know from seeing countless encounters that "almost" always the recreational boats give way to them whether they should or not according to the rules. When I see that I'm going to cause a problem for one I make a course change (a big one that they can see) well before they need to start worrying about me. I'm not in a hurry, they are on a schedule. I'm sure they just expect little boats to avoid them and when one doesn't, like in this case, it turns into an emergency in a big hurry. I'm actually pretty impressed that the ferry had slowed almost to a dead stop prior to the collision, and by going to emergency reverse when it did helped push "Nap Time" away from the bow with the prop wash and probably avoided what surely would have been major damage.


Im with you, but did the ferry operator do all he could do to prevent? NO he didn't. Clearly the power Boat was on auto pilot or at least steady (collision) course for some time and noticed, apparently, still there was a collision. Both at fault only one licenses at stake. Im a sailor and a license holder and life safety aside the license holder has more skin in the game. Unfortunate but in a collision, rules aside all parties are required to do all possible to prevent. Of all the water I have ever run in Im most uncomfortable in the wash of a big tug, the power is most evident here. I could say something like I'm surprised there are no more incidents than there are but I don't want to put my mouth on it.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

A part of me thinks the captain was tired of this crap, and wanted to give him a little bump. He could have gone full reverse earlier, and used up lots of fuel for 'nth' time, but screw it...


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

eherlihy said:


> This is info on the ferry;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you suggest about where the film was shot from? There seems to be an indentation in the deck at that point with the railing continuing on the other side that I can't pick out in the picture you posted.


----------



## willyd (Feb 22, 2008)

capta said:


> Can you suggest about where the film was shot from? There seems to be an indentation in the deck at that point with the railing continuing on the other side that I can't pick out in the picture you posted.


There are two "arms" that come out from the main passenger deck, above the car deck, where passengers walk out to take selfies or watch seals, whichever they find more absorbing. Here's a similar boat:


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

seabeau said:


> It was reported later that the boats operator was in the head at the time of the collision.


A fortunate coincidence which may have saved his shorts?


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Intuitively, it has to be hard to claim stand-on rights under ColRegs, when one is not even on watch to know. Ultimately, ColRegs also require evasive maneuvers to avoid collision, regardless of stand-on/give-way. Same evasion requirement for the ferry, however. Hard to say, if the reverse thrust was attempted prior to impact.
> 
> I will say that stinkpot could take a punch. Give the law of gross tonnage, I would have expected splinters.


My first impression, very surprised how tough the stinkpot is. It appeared unscathed.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

I routinely sail the waters plied by Washington State Ferries and BC Ferries. My expierience has been I follow the rules and so do they.
Only seeing the video. It looked like a crossing situation gone wrong to me. Though the experts on G Captain were saying overtaking. 
The skipper of the boat in the head. Not sure where this was reported. I am sure it was quite a shock. 

My take on it is he was hell of a lucky. 
The Ferry unlucky. 
They almost avoided a collision, the notoriety and the paper work. The Ferry crew shorts may have taken a beating. 
They are extremely lucky, they very nearly killed someone. I guesstThe ferry was approaching a Ferry Dock. There are local rules about not obstructing or impeding ferries near their docks. How close the dock was is hard to tell.

The ferry is one of the newer ones. Not sure about its propulsion system. I think it is a similar design to the older ones Washington State double enders. And the Older double ended BC Ferries. McLaren. 
Two Identical wheelhouse or Bridges. With identical control panels.
A Single shaft through the length of the vessel from a CPP and rudder at each end. 
Two Medium Speed , Diesel main engines. 
Two main clutches fore and aft of the main engines. 
The ships can be run in two distinctly different configurations or modes. 

Mode 1. Both ME Clutched in to main shaft. FWD end of shaft declutched and not turning forward CPP feathered. 
Or 
Mode 2. Both ME Clutched to the main shaft both fore and aft shafts clutched in to main shaft. CPP turning. Bridge controls throttle handles. Are identical and provide thrust in the direction they are pushed for or aft. (when all thrust is fwd, the aft CPP is pushing ahead, the forward CPP is actually pulling in astern) 
The Throttles are independent and CPP's can push in opposite directions. There are handles to control the rudders independently on the bridge consol. 
When running in mode 1 or when going "ahead" the forward rudder is left midship. 
While on main part of the run. The ships run at full cruising speed in mode 1 just like a conventional single screw ship with a CPP and Rudder. The FWD Shaft disconnected and CPP feathered. 
They ships cannot run at full speed in mode 2. 
Mode 2 is used for manoeuvring into and out of docks.
To go into mode 2 the ships slows down, clutches in forward shaft, CPP unfeathers and goes to throttle setting. Depending upon ship and class. This can take up to between 60 and 90 seconds. The new ships may be able to do this faster. Even so, those would be very long seconds of waiting for the CPP to cycle up if you are trying to do an emergency stop. To avoid a collision.

From the wash it is clear the ferry was in mode 2 with the forward CPP giving lots of" astern" thrust. 
It's not clear when or why the ferry went to mode 2. For Docking or to emergency stop. 
It is clear it stopped in mode 2. 
The boater is incredibly fortunate the ferry crew had the ferry just about stopped in the water when the collision occurred. If the Ferry had still had some forward momentum. The Boat would have been rolled right under the bow. 

Imagine a boat in a blender? 

No doubt there is some form of emergency stop button for the CPP but it would still be nasty.
You can tell the ferry was initially going quite a bit faster than her wash until just about impact. Because you can't see the wash till after the impact. 

Scary? 

Not sure what score I give them out of 10 for collision avoidance, not a passing grade 4 or less.
I will give them a pass for the emergency stop 6? 7? I would have given a 9 or 10 if they had tried to stop just a bit sooner and used the aft CPP for the astern thrust.


----------



## seabeau (Oct 5, 2014)

Uricanejack said:


> A fortunate coincidence which may have saved his shorts?


But not, the floor of the head.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

> Do you think he needed fresh shorts


Nope he already had them down... 

He left them helm to use the head while he apparently left it on auto-pilot (violation of COLREGS Rule 5). He has also _reportedly_ said that he was not using his hearing aids.

"TACOMA, Wash. - A private boat and the state ferry Chetzemoka collided on the run between Tacoma and the southern tip of Vashon Island, and the Coast Guard says it could have been avoided.

*It turns out that the only person aboard the boat was using the bathroom at the time of the impact.*"


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Had this been the Martha's Vinyard Ferry during August, Nap time would have been greeted by this when he crossed the half-mile security perimeter around the ferry.








- credit Wikipedia By Petty Officer 3rd class Kelly Newlin, U.S. Coast Guard - This Image was released by the United States Coast Guard with the ID 040901-C-4938N-077

There would have been a gunner on each end of the boat.

Had Nap Time approached to within a quarter-mile, there would have been a bunch of .50 caliber and 7.62 mm holes in it.


----------



## willyd (Feb 22, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Had this been the Martha's Vinyard Ferry during August, Nap time would have been greeted by this when he crossed the half-mile security perimeter around the ferry.
> 
> There would have been a gunner on each end of the boat.
> 
> Had Nap Time approached to within a quarter-mile, there would have been a bunch of 30 caliber holes in it.


They've done that in the past in Washington as well. Speedy boats provide extra muscle for state ferry system | The Seattle Times


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Speaking of Martha's Vineyard ferries, one can't help but wonder if the Edgartown ferry has ever attempted to evade a conflict. For those unfamiliar, there are two flat top car carriers, that cross a few hundred feet of harbor, simultaneously, in opposite directions. They depart without any overt warning I've ever noticed. I personally know enough to check and see if they are loading or offloading, before crossing their path. A full ferry, with no deck movement is about to depart.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

Uricanejack said:


> J
> Do you think he need fresh shorts?


Probably not. I think he was down below sitting on the head with the morning paper, comfortable with the fact Otto had everything under control.

Both Skippers should be removed from the helm. I guess one of them never was at the helm.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> Intuitively, it has to be hard to claim stand-on rights under ColRegs, when one is not even on watch to know.


I'm going to be fussy here. COLREGS aren't relevant. It's Inland Rules. Almost but not completely the same.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

eherlihy said:


> Had this been the Martha's Vinyard Ferry during August, Nap time would have been greeted by this when he crossed the half-mile security perimeter around the ferry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I seriously wonder at what point would they open up with guns fore and aft on a recreational boat approaching a protected zone? Has the coastguard actually strafed a recreation boat for getting too close?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> I'm going to be fussy here. COLREGS aren't relevant. It's Inland Rules. Almost but not completely the same.


COLREGS DEMARCATION LINES

*§ 80.1385 Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The 72 COLREGS shall apply on all waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

§ 80.1390 Haro Strait and Strait of Georgia.
The 72 COLREGS shall apply on all waters of the Haro Strait and the Strait of Georgia.

§ 80.1395 Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters.
The 72 COLREGS shall apply on all waters of Puget Sound and adjacent waters, including Lake Union, Lake Washington, Hood Canal, and all tributaries.
*


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

jephotog said:


> I seriously wonder at what point would they open up with guns fore and aft on a recreational boat approaching a protected zone? Has the coastguard actually strafed a recreation boat for getting too close?


I was once stopped from entering Port Jefferson harbor on Long Island by one of those armed Coast Guard inflatables when the Ferry was exiting. I of course did not push back against the request.  Though getting back to the Ferry vs Poweboat discussion. I do like having my AIS transponder. Both I and the BIG ships can see when things are not going to end well and often both of us make the adjustments needed to avoid a bad situation without saying a word or sounding a horn.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> COLREGS DEMARCATION LINES
> 
> *§ 80.1385 Strait of Juan de Fuca.
> The 72 COLREGS shall apply on all waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
> ...


That will teach me to open my mouth without checking charts. *sigh*

I'm just too used to people referring to COLREGS inside the demarcation line.


----------



## senormechanico (Aug 20, 2012)

Ninefingers said:


> A part of me thinks the captain was tired of this crap, and wanted to give him a little bump. He could have gone full reverse earlier, and used up lots of fuel for 'nth' time, but screw it...


How much time passed between the time you SAW the reverse wash and the time the TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THREE long ferry put it into reverse PLUS the distance traveled AFTER it finally came to a stop?
Botom line, it probably was in reverse for quite a while as the five blasts were being produced and maybe even before that.

Look at the tonnage.

I ride the Mukilteo / Clinton ferry to Whidbey and it's just a little one, but I see how much wash it generates when coming into the slip. It goes into slow reverse a good 3 or 4 minutes before even getting close to the slip.

Imho, it's 99.999% on the idiot in the pleasure boat with no one on deck.
If he REALLY needed to go when in a tight spot like that, modesty be damned. Piss over the side!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

I solo motor around here a bit too. with otto now that I have one......I'm surprised this guy went below near a ferry. I have a landing just outside the marina I am at. I am ALWAYS nervous going in front of them, as one does not always know when they will take off. So it is looking at ramp to ascertain if vehicles are loading or unloading. Looking at the cars on the deck to see how many are left etc to fill/unfill. 
As I have always heard or been taught, around here the ferries have right away over the other boats, including the ones coming or going in the channel from the pacific. BUT, I notice that the ferry will usually give right away to the ships in the channel. With that in mind, we do have the most BIG ships in the salish sea than any other west coast port, One will cross your bow about every 30 min on ave, including the Wa St ferries as shown, ones running up to Victoria, tugs with barges to Alaska, Summer 2-4 cruise ships a day from 4-7pm depending upon where you are in the puget sound or Admiralty straight area. Not to mention a dozen nuclear subs in Hood Canal, 2 carriers in Bremerton and support ships........Safe Boats doing testing on their foam filled inflatable style boats to the CG and other military type programs thru out the world.........
This area can be a busy place! To a degree, I am surprised more collisions do not occur. But many like myself, give these bigger boyz and girlz room vs trying to push the who has right of way over the other.

Marty


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

The video is being taken from the port hull of the ferry, and you cans see the railing of the starboard hull in the right edge of the video, so the camera aim is like 60-70 degrees to starboard of the ferry's course. It is clearly a crossing situation, and barring some reputed local rules (which I have never heard the existence of such type of rule), the ferry was clearly the give-way vessel.

I would expect the ferry's insurance company will pay the boater any damage, butl ding him for his contribution to the accident by failing to keep a proper lookout. However I think what is on display here is the comfort that many commercial boat operators have to cut the ColRegs rules because they expect stand-on recreational boaters to give-way, after all they have customers and are on a schedule. Probably almost always, the recreational vessel does giveway, but a licensed captain only gets complacent with that behavior at his or her own risk. 

Both operators had fault here. But the boater's fault does not lessen the ferry's. Before the start of the video the ferry captain had already failed his give-way obligation, he should have already gone into reverse, or started a turn to port... 

I would guess the ferry's insurance company to pay 70-80% percent of the boater's damage but I would expect the USCG to hold the ferry operator 100% at fault, I don't see how they could do less without contributing to the attitude that give-way doesn't always and really mean give way.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

senormechanico said:


> Imho, it's 99.999% on the idiot in the pleasure boat with no one on deck.
> If he REALLY needed to go when in a tight spot like that, modesty be damned. Piss over the side!


At the very least he could have just stopped the boat heading down the terlet.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I can't see either one of these guys being held %100 at fault. Some thoughts to consider. It isn't clear to me whether Nap Tyme was over taking or crossing, however, when determining who was at fault, I would consider the following and how it might apply to each of the vessels.

*Rule 2 
Responsibility
*(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

*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.

*Rule 6
Safe Speed 
*
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
(i) the state of visibility,
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels,
(iii) the manoeuvrability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions,
(iv) at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter of her own lights,
(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards,
(vi) the draught in relation to the available depth of water.

*Rule 7
Risk of Collision*
a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

*Rule 8
Action to avoid Collision*
(a) Any action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.
(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.

*Rule 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel
*(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

jephotog said:


> I seriously wonder at what point would they open up with guns fore and aft on a recreational boat approaching a protected zone? Has the coastguard actually strafed a recreation boat for getting too close?


The Coast Guard had come up to me once when I had the VHF off, and strayed near the ½ mile security zone near Woods Hole. The guy with the helmet on hanging onto the .50MM gun on the bow had the barrel pointed AT MY BOW! I don't know how much of a threat my O'day 35 presented, or how close he was to pullin' the trigger, but we dramatically changed course (despite the fact that we were crossing the ferry's bow from his port) and stayed the hell away from that ferry... and I had to go below to change my shorts... 

The one thing that I'll say in favor of Donald Trump is that he will not vacation on Martha's Vineyard.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

When racing in San Diego Bay there is a "water fence" that limits entry into the areas that border certain naval areas. During the traditional spinnaker run racers hug that fence to protect from being passed to windward. Often a 50mm armed naval RIB will chase a racer off this fence then turn to the next upwind boat to do the same to them. 

My altercations and the ones described here involve a one time wave off from a sailor that responds to an order backed up with a large caliber machine gun. The key here is someone at the helm, eye contact and a positive response to commands. 

My question is has CG or Navy ever fired upon a pleasure craft for not paying attention or following orders? While this ferry was unprotected, if there ever was a case for a sinking of a boat, this would have been it. An unmanned fairly large vessel aiming straight for a passenger packed ferry. This owner got off lucky Puget sound is unarmed. I wonder if he would have heard the bullets whizzing through his boat while sitting on the head without his hearing aids?


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

I just can't muster any sympathy for the powerboater -- even if he'd have been plowed under the ferry.

Talk about a complete disregard for everyone else on the water. This guy should lose his boat.

I know some will criticize my saying this, but for me the "law of gross tonnage" trumps the Colregs. If I'm coming anywhere near a commercial vessel I change course early so my intention is clear. I prefer to avoid any kind of close crossing situation with a large commercial vessel, better to pass well behind them if I can.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

jephotog said:


> I seriously wonder at what point would they open up with guns fore and aft on a recreational boat approaching a protected zone? Has the coastguard actually strafed a recreation boat for getting too close?


If it had happened I've gotta believe it would have been all over the news.

I've also gotta believe the Coasties would be VERY restrained about using those guns unless truly provoked.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

Arcb said:


> I can't see either one of these guys being held %100 at fault. Some thoughts to consider. It isn't clear to me whether Nap Tyme was over taking or crossing, however, when determining who was at fault, I would consider the following and how it might apply to each of the vessels.
> 
> *Rule 2
> Responsibility
> ...


Well that a lot of rules. Add 15 or 13 as the case may be. Looks like 15 to me. 
The old guy with his shorts down, in the head, no hearing aids, full speed, auto pilot. Hits a Ferry which was possibly the give way vessel. 
I guessing there was quite a few breaches of those rules by both vessels.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

JimMcGee said:


> I just can't muster any sympathy for the powerboater -- even if he'd have been plowed under the ferry.
> 
> Talk about a complete disregard for everyone else on the water. This guy should lose his boat.
> 
> I know some will criticize my saying this, but for me the "law of gross tonnage" trumps the Colregs. If I'm coming anywhere near a commercial vessel I change course early so my intention is clear. I prefer to avoid any kind of close crossing situation with a large commercial vessel, better to pass well behind them if I can.


I do have some sympathy for him. He certainly qualifies as a fool. He probably got quite a shock. He has been on TV so his friends all know. 
Hopefully he learned something from this.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Uricanejack said:


> ....
> I guessing there was quite a few breaches of those rules by both vessels.


For sure.

But the fact that some recreational boater, operating his 40 footer with one POB is careless in his operation is one breach. That a professional captain, operating a large vessel with perhaps 1-200 POB, and doing so perhaps 200 days a year, mindlessly ignores the most basic ROW giveway standard, with no attempt to met his responsibilities until the last second, is a whole different magnitude of breach.

The boater should get a ticket, I assume from the state...the ferry captain will lose his job and should lose his license to operate.


----------



## cascoamarillo (Aug 8, 2013)

eherlihy said:


> The Coast Guard had come up to me once when I had the VHF off, and strayed near the ½ mile security zone near Woods Hole. The guy with the helmet on hanging onto the .50MM gun on the bow had the barrel pointed AT MY BOW! I don't know how much of a threat my O'day 35 presented, or how close he was to pullin' the trigger, but we dramatically changed course (despite the fact that we were crossing the ferry's bow from his port) and stayed the hell away from that ferry... and I had to go below to change my shorts...
> 
> The one thing that I'll say in favor of Donald Trump is that he will not vacation on Martha's Vineyard.


Yep, couldn't agree more...When you see one of those CG with funny toys, you just stay sharp trying not too do foolish manoeuvres near channels or the ferry.
One day I was standing on the hard looking at the hole, and see how they (CG) approach a kayak. The person in the kayak just stopped paddling and like, "OK can I continue or are you coming aboard?". Meanwhile, their toys were being hold by two guys...summer in WH


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

sailingfool said:


> For sure.
> 
> But the fact that some recreational boater, operating his 40 footer with one POB is careless in his operation is one breach.
> 
> ...


I don't think a guy single handing a 40' pleasure craft is any kind of breach I have ever heard of, I single hand my 35' all the time, but I do endeavour not to make a deposit while I'm in close proximity to traffic.

Regarding the second part, mistakes happen, there was no loss of life. I don't know what else was going on on the bridge at the same time, the NTSB will figure that out.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

This thread has a serious case of arm chair QB fail. 

Several have suggest that the ferry boat captain did not take effective steps to avoid a collision. I would suggest that you have no idea, unless you were standing next to him. If the boat's cruising speed is 15 knots, can you actually slam the boat in reverse at 15 knots?? I highly doubt it. Boat transmissions do not have synchros or clutches. Any attempt at cramming it into reverse would strip the teeth from the gears. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I would suggest putting your car in reverse at 20 mph. Go ahead, I dare you. Even at three knots cramming it into reverse is puts excessive stress on the gears. SO when watching the video, it is impossible to know when the ferry hit reverse, or at what speed it would be safe/effective to do so. The camera does not show the stern/bow until after contact is made. Therefore no one knows at what point the ferry went into reverse. One must also note that there are no other boats around, so prevailing conditions are wide open water except for one loan power boat. The video starts part way through the incident, so there is no documentation of what happened prior to the start of the video. It is quite possible that captain had already cut the engines to slow the boat.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Daveinet said:


> This thread has a serious case of arm chair QB fail.
> 
> Several have suggest that the ferry boat captain did not take effective steps to avoid a collision. I would suggest that you have no idea, unless you were standing next to him. If the boat's cruising speed is 15 knots, can you actually slam the boat in reverse at 15 knots?? I highly doubt it. Boat transmissions do not have synchros or clutches. Any attempt at cramming it into reverse would strip the teeth from the gears. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I would suggest putting your car in reverse at 20 mph. Go ahead, I dare you. Even at three knots cramming it into reverse is puts excessive stress on the gears. SO when watching the video, it is impossible to know when the ferry hit reverse, or at what speed it would be safe/effective to do so. The camera does not show the stern/bow until after contact is made. Therefore no one knows at what point the ferry went into reverse. One must also note that there are no other boats around, so prevailing conditions are wide open water except for one loan power boat. The video starts part way through the incident, so there is no documentation of what happened prior to the start of the video. It is quite possible that captain had already cut the engines to slow the boat.


I'm not following your logic, what gears? I thought this boat had a CPP?

If he hit another boat, how could he possibly have been simultaneously travelling at a safe speed and maintaining an adequate look out if he was neither restricted in his ability to maneuver nor constrained by his draft?


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

sailingfool said:


> For sure.
> 
> But the fact that some recreational boater, operating his 40 footer with one POB is careless in his operation is one breach. That a professional captain, operating a large vessel with perhaps 1-200 POB, and doing so perhaps 200 days a year, mindlessly ignores the most basic ROW giveway standard, with no attempt to met his responsibilities until the last second, is a whole different magnitude of breach.
> 
> The boater should get a ticket, I assume from the state...the ferry captain will lose his job and should lose his license to operate.


I doubt it, Nobody died, Nobody was hurt. just embarrassed.
The ferry Capt. may or may not have been on the bridge when incident started. He or She was probably there when it ended.
No charges filed. CG may investigate, or May Not, NTSB may investigate, Probably All will defer to an internal investigation by Washington State Ferries. Who will treat it as a learning experience. They will try and figure out what errors were made by the Bridge Crew and what they can do to prevent reoccurrence.
Most likely some procedure changes and some training.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

Daveinet said:


> This thread has a serious case of arm chair QB fail.
> 
> Several have suggest that the ferry boat captain did not take effective steps to avoid a collision. I would suggest that you have no idea, unless you were standing next to him. If the boat's cruising speed is 15 knots, can you actually slam the boat in reverse at 15 knots?? I highly doubt it. Boat transmissions do not have synchros or clutches. Any attempt at cramming it into reverse would strip the teeth from the gears. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I would suggest putting your car in reverse at 20 mph. Go ahead, I dare you. Even at three knots cramming it into reverse is puts excessive stress on the gears. SO when watching the video, it is impossible to know when the ferry hit reverse, or at what speed it would be safe/effective to do so. The camera does not show the stern/bow until after contact is made. Therefore no one knows at what point the ferry went into reverse. One must also note that there are no other boats around, so prevailing conditions are wide open water except for one loan power boat. The video starts part way through the incident, so there is no documentation of what happened prior to the start of the video. It is quite possible that captain had already cut the engines to slow the boat.


You are right, I wasn't there. I don't know what occurred prior to the video. Which is why I am not saying much about ether vessels actions or inactions. 
The video clearly shows a collision occurred. Its not a big stretch to conclude the actions taken to avoid collision were not sufficiently effective. It was only a minor collision no damage to ether vessel, no one hurt. So I can conclude reasonably easily the actions to avoid collision by the ferry. Were almost sufficient. But not quite.

Going astern. there are no gears. The Ferry probably has CPP. they can go from full ahead to full astern in one movement. It ill get everyone on boards attention but it can be done. It does take time for the pitch to cycle through from ahead to astern, depends on the ship, My rough guess 60 to 90 seconds.

I posted earlier how system works. Exactly where about in there normal routine the ferry was is not clear. It would appear it was in mode 2 with the FWD CPP going lots astern.
If already in this mode, going full astern with the FWD CPP is quite quick.

The other guy was in the can,


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I'm not following your logic, what gears? I thought this boat had a CPP?
> 
> If he hit another boat, how could he possibly have been simultaneously travelling at a safe speed and maintaining an adequate look out if he was neither restricted in his ability to maneuver nor constrained by his draft?


If CPP, the prop will cavitate, which limits how much you can vary the pitch and still produce thrust. I would also like you to tell me what the deceleration rate of the ferry is and how you calculated it from the video. I would also like you to tell me at what point the ferry took evasive action and how you derived that conclusion. You should also state what is a safe speed for the ferry to travel in those waters.

I would suggest you failed to state the term "prevailing conditions". Rule #5. The prevailing condition was clear water until the power boat chose to entered his path. At the point when it becomes apparent that the prevailing condition changed, you can not determine from the video what action the captain took.

Look up the definition of prevailing. It means typical or what is common. So if the observation was clear water and clear water was typical for that time period, then it is considered safe for the ferry to travel at a normal or we could even use the word "prevailing" speed. So if it is "prevailing" that the ferry crosses at that speed at that time, then the ferry is doing what is expected. Particularly if the ferry had been crossing at that speed in that location regularly. This would be evidence that it had been generally safe to do so. There is some evidence the ferry captain took evasive action. The only evidence we have shows he was fulfilling his obligation.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JimMcGee said:


> ....I know some will criticize my saying this, but for me the "law of gross tonnage" trumps the Colregs. If I'm coming anywhere near a commercial vessel *I change course early* so my intention is clear. I prefer to *avoid any kind of close crossing* situation with a large commercial vessel, better to pass well behind them if I can.


I agree. If you change course early enough, the ColRegs don't even apply yet. If I'm on starboard tack and see a vessel on the horizon that would theoretically be give-way, I am not yet burdened to stand on at all. Actually, I think the subject of exactly when give-way/stand-on becomes relevant is a topic of debate.

Narragansett Bay has container ships coming and going routinely. They're easy to spot and they make headway much faster than one would think when they first experience it. They are also predictable, so getting out of the way can be accomplished very early.

One would expect the same for ferry traffic.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> ,,,,,..the ferry captain will lose his job and should lose his license to operate.


Come on. We don't have nearly sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion. That's lynch mob stuff. Want to bet he has a family at home that didn't do anything wrong, but would suffer from such an uninformed conclusion.

Humans make mistakes, they take known risks and lose on occasion, they sometimes don't know the right answer, even when they should. Ever get your own kids/grandkids names wrong? Wanting them all in jail or to walk the plank is inhumane. Cruel and unusual is the line, actually. While remarkable, no one even got hurt here. If we learn the ferry captain was drunk or willfully negligent, that's a different matter. For the moment, we have a video of a crossing powerboat, with no one on watch and was evidently not a threat to the ferry boat's passengers. It was deflected like sargassum. IMO, there is no way the stinkpot can claim stand-on rights, if not even on deck to know they were privileged. Not to mention, both were still required to avoid and, whether early enough or not, I only see the ferry making any effort (horns, yelling, reverse prop wash).


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

Watching the video again, I am amazed the skipper of Nap Time would leave the boat moving that fast that close to shore and leave the helm for an extended period. He should lose his license. I know there is no license to lose, it makes me amazed that there is no standardization for who gets to take out a boat. Is there a way to prevent this guy from going boating again?

I think the ferry captain will likely get screwed because of this. Nap Time was under autopilot so the boat never changed course or speed. In theory it could have been easy for the ferry captain to make a small correction early to have avoided this collision. How many times a day do ferry captains look at boats and wonder when the other boat will alter to avoid a collision. A smaller boat skipper has to assume that they would lose in a collision with a 200+ foot ferry and will make the correction to avoid being hit. Now we all know boats just bounce off of ferries and keep on going. 

I would think as a ferry Captain you usually assume the law of tonnage appies and don't spend all day dodging small boats with the assumption they will stay out of your way. Even if I miss a larger boat by a close margin I want nothing to do with their wake. If this Captain loses his license over this, they may have to alter the ferry schedule to compensate for all other Captains that will spend more time dodging and weaving all boats in case they also decide to play chicken with their ferry.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

jephotog said:


> ...
> 
> I would think as a ferry Captain you usually assume the law of tonnage applies and don't spend all day dodging small boats with the assumption they will stay out of your way. ...


That's a very scary statement and one that I think is completely wrong. While I agree a ferry captain may anticipate that stand-on recreational vessels will often actually give way, a prudent, professional captain cannot not carry that expectation so far that he completely fails to monitor his responsibilities as a giveway vessels, and to giveway on the occasion that a standon recreational boater operates according to the ColRegs rules. The "law of tonnage" is not a law.

There are a dozen different reasons why a standon recreational vessel might hold course and speed, it really does not matter that what the reason is - that the reason was an egregiously stupid action as in this case, does not lessen the horribly negligent behavior of the ferry. That the ferry did not roll over and sink the powerboat was fortunate happenstance - if it had and as a result we never knew about the foolishness of the boat operator, what would be the story then? FERRY FAILS TO GIVEWAY AND KILLS BOATER IN FRONT OF 100 HORRIFIED PASSENGERS!

That the boater was in the head is just noise here, as stupid as that was, the important story is that a giveway ferry thoughtlessly ran into a standon boater with no obvious attempt to giveway. I dont buy that you can't tell the navigational circumstances of the incident from the video, you could not have created a better, more conclusive record of the event than this video, shot the way it was. If there is some rule that ameliorates the ferry's guilt here, I open to hearing of it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> ......the important story is that a giveway ferry thoughtlessly ran into a standon boater with *no obvious* attempt to giveway.......


Thankfully, the ColRegs do not say that your actions must be obvious in a passenger video.

Best I can tell, there is a safety zone requirement around all large passenger vessels in Puget Sound. The recreational boat was, therefore, not stand-on.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/165.1317


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

We routinely sail in areas where similar ferries ply their schedules.

These boats are on regular, predictable routes, are moving at speeds faster than you might think, and are damned big. I think in most cases it's foolish to press your 'stand on' rights even when your are at the helm. However it can be tricky.. especially near the ferries' turning points on their routes. A last minute panicky avoidance move on your part might put you squarely where the ferry captain intended to be. Obviously these boats cannot stop (or turn) on a dime.

Like jrd, we will usually make a course alteration (typically to a parallel course) early on so that the ferry captain can see, and return to course once they are past. It doesn't take long (these guys are moving at 20 knots plus, usually) and everyone has a more relaxed encounter.

Ferry routes are generally charted, and locals should 'know' what they are expected to do.

My take on the vid is that the ferry crew was well into avoidance mode (stopping) by the time the vid started. As for the trawler's skipper, going below and leaving the boat on AP (in a ferry zone esp) at that speed is pure irresponsibility and just plain dumb. I'd say that thanks to the ferry crew he may have gotten off with a warning (though how the boat really fared damage-wise would be interesting to know)

We had a similar incident 30 or so years ago where an pleasure boat was actually driven over by a ferry.. some family members died.

Mother and Son Lost in Cruiser-Ferry Collision

If you have nothing else to do, here's the subsequent civil suit. It appears the blame was apportioned 67/33%, with majority to the ferry skipper/corporation.
http://laxtongibbens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/KWOK2.pdf


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Daveinet said:


> If CPP, the prop will cavitate, which limits how much you can vary the pitch and still produce thrust. I would also like you to tell me what the deceleration rate of the ferry is and how you calculated it from the video. I would also like you to tell me at what point the ferry took evasive action and how you derived that conclusion. You should also state what is a safe speed for the ferry to travel in those waters.
> 
> I would suggest you failed to state the term "prevailing conditions". Rule #5. The prevailing condition was clear water until the power boat chose to entered his path. At the point when it becomes apparent that the prevailing condition changed, you can not determine from the video what action the captain took.
> 
> Look up the definition of prevailing. It means typical or what is common. So if the observation was clear water and clear water was typical for that time period, then it is considered safe for the ferry to travel at a normal or we could even use the word "prevailing" speed. So if it is "prevailing" that the ferry crosses at that speed at that time, then the ferry is doing what is expected. Particularly if the ferry had been crossing at that speed in that location regularly. This would be evidence that it had been generally safe to do so. There is some evidence the ferry captain took evasive action. The only evidence we have shows he was fulfilling his obligation.


And there was still a collision. I don't see how you could conclude the ferry operator was in the clear (fulfilling his obligation) even though there might be a clear zone that should have been observed. When it wasn't then both parties are equally required to avoid a collision.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

These threads are always interesting.

In my neighborhood multiple ferry's run back and forth to the islands. Particularly in Vineyard Haven, the harbor is small, there are cruising sailboat races, small power boats in motion, wind surfers, kite boards, optimists dingy races all at once. There isn't a lot of room to maneuver the big ferry's. Narrow channel and draft restrictions amongst many boater's who don't have a clue.

I don't know the spot in question in the PNW; however, if it's at all analogous to VH, being below deck on autopilot would be the equivalent to putting on a blindfold on the SE Expressway headed to Boston during rush hour. 

Even out in the more expansiveVineyard Sound, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the ferry is probably headed between Woods Hole and either Vineyard Haven or Oak Bluffs. I've taught the rules for captain license exams, but I still view it as a matter of common courtesy to stay out of their way when I'm out playing in Vineyard Sound, and if things look questionable and I cannot get out of the way, get on the radio so the poor guy trying to maneuver the beast has some idea of what they might expect of me.

IMHO, I feel very bad for the captain running that ferry who's manner of making a living was likely impacted by a guy on autopilot using the head when so close to another boat and land.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Faster said:


> .......I think in most cases it's foolish to press your 'stand on' rights even when your are at the helm. ......


Fast....... isn't there a fundamental difference here anyway. The law I posted above requires a 100-500 yard separation from the moving ferry. Shouldn't the ferry captain expect the boat to divert?

I tend to agree that it was likely that the ferry made efforts to slow down before the video started running, which may be why the stinkpot wasn't splintered.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

albrazzi said:


> .....I don't see how you could conclude the ferry operator was in the clear (fulfilling his obligation) even though there might be a clear zone that should have been observed......


Not so sure. The local regulation to Puget Sound allows another vessel to approach the ferry no closer than 100 yards (300 feet). By definition, there is no way to stop or divert a large ferry, when another vessel violates that zone. By the time the recreational boat was within the 500 yard zone, where it had an obligation to maintain a clear course and speed, I still think it's too late for the ferry to evade, even if they didn't have the right to expect the stinkpot to stay clear.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> Fast....... isn't there a fundamental difference here anyway. The law I posted above requires a 100-500 yard separation from the moving ferry. Shouldn't the ferry captain expect the boat to divert?


Absolutely.. certainly that's what would happen here in a vast majority of such situations.

But in this case it's all pretty moot... there was nobody on the helm to 'divert' or deliberately 'stand on' because the turkey was down below.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ......I tried reading the reg, and like all good security regulations, it's pretty cryptic.....


I admit, I had to read it twice. Here are the two driving parts, as far as I can tell. While there are provisions to request exceptions and authority for the USCG to patrol, I think these principles control......



> There is established a large passenger vessel security and safety zone extending for a 500-yard radius around all large passenger vessels
> 
> When within a large passenger vessel security and safety zone all vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course
> 
> No vessel or person is allowed within 100 yards of a large passenger vessel that is underway


Therefore, once within 500 yards of the ferry, the stinkpot had the obligation to maintain safe course and speed and was not permitted to approach within 100 yards. Clearly the stinkpot did neither!

I would argue that the law is in place, not for the security of the ferry, but to allow it less restricted ability to navigate across confined and often conflicted routes. The obligation being on other traffic to get out of the way.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> Thankfully, the ColRegs do not say that your actions must be obvious in a passenger video.
> 
> Best I can tell, there is a safety zone requirement around all large passenger vessels in Puget Sound. The recreational boat was, therefore, not stand-on.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/165.1317


Actually violating the safety zone justs becomes another violation the boater makes in this situation, which he makes from foolishly not keeping proper lookout.

However this violation like the boater's others, does not relieve the ferry of its ColRegs obligations re a crossing, standon-vessel, see item (e) of your quoted CFR reg:
(e) The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times within a large passenger vessel security and safety zone.

Again my beef is that the foolish actions of the boater don't compare in severity and significance to to the apparently purposeful actions of the ferry.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> Actually violating the safety zone justs becomes another violation the boater makes in this situation, which he makes from foolishly not keeping proper lookout.
> 
> However this violation like the boater's others, does not relieve the ferry of its ColRegs obligations re a crossing, standon-vessel, see item (e) of your quoted CFR reg:
> (e) The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times within a large passenger vessel security and safety zone.
> ...


I somewhat see your point. It says you maintain stand-on status, but only to the extent that standing-on does not bring you within 100 yards of the large vessel. Therefore, the stand-on vessel was required to alter course. How do you see this differently?

As for your quote, "apparently purposeful actions of the ferry", it's hard to see how you have enough evidence to assert such a conclusion. Do you know what was around the ferry or whether they had been attempting to slow/stop before the video started?


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

The security zone is an American regulation probably federal so I would expect it applies to all ferries in the US. I would think It's primarily about security and the threat level current at the time. Its also about safety so being foolish enough to get within 100 m would be a violation of this act. No charges have been filed. Which I conclude means the authorities who could press charges are not concerned in this incident the boat was a threat to the ferries security.

As for Safety. The ferry was apparently the give way vessel. The boat was apparently the stand on vessel. The Ferry should have given way at a point where the minimum distances were maintained. without the boat being required to alter. The stand on vessel has a requirement to act under the col regs when it becomes apparent the give way vessel is not taking sufficient action in sufficient time. The security reg. can be read as just giving guidance to what the limits the stand on vessel should use when determining if it should take action.

Short answer my opinion the collision regulations take priority. By applying the collision regulations as intended the security and safety requirements would be met.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

I expect Ferry Captains and Ferry Mates or Officers. Are just like any group of people. Good, bad and Ugly. Some very considerate of other vessels, Some less considerate and some just dicks.
Some may drive defensively and some may drive aggressively. There is no way of knowing from this video what the bridge crew on the ferry were thinking, as the boat approached. Or the personality or driving style of the crew. 
It was an error in judgement. Perhaps partly due to an assumption or expectation the boat would act in a different way.
The ferries bridge crew acted to avoid collision. Just not quite soon enough for the action to have been fully effective. Why they made this error may be due to a variety of reasons. 

Nobody was hurt, Its an opportunity for the ferry crew and system to learn from and move on making reoccurrence less likely.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Just had another thought. There is a legal principle that trumps ALL law. That legal principle is that laws must be clearly defined to be enforceable. The fact that we have 8 pages of discussion is strong evidence that the law is unclear and therefore unenforceable. 


legal dictionary said:


> Well-established and clearly defined laws allow individuals, businesses, and other entities to govern their behavior accordingly (United States v. E.C. Investments, Inc., 77 F. 3d 327 [9th Cir. 1996]). Before the government may impose civil or criminal liability, a law must be written with sufficient precision and clarity that a person of ordinary intelligence will know that certain conduct is forbidden. When a court is asked to shut down a paint factory that is emitting pollutants at an illegal rate, for example, the rule of law requires the government to demonstrate that the factory owner failed to operate the business in accordance with publicly known environmental standards.


 If the standards for navigation is so ambiguous that we can't decide if the ferry captain violated the law, there is a problem. It is not a matter of ignorance, we've copied and pasted the wording. Its just that overlapping regulation has proven to be too convoluted for there to be a clear understanding.

There is an unclear definition of what is a safe speed. It is also unclear for the size vessel, at what point in time is the captain required to take evasive action? Even at 500 feet, a fast enough power boat could cross into that zone, but it would be impossible for the ferry to take effective evasive action.

It seems like large vessels should have a clearly defined space, that when that space is breached, evasive action is required. This should be part of the license process for every large vessel. Otherwise, there is no clear definition of what is safe. It seems that the coast guard and local law enforcement have historically been given way to much latitude to providing well defined parameters for safe navigation. This has allowed for arbitrary definitions of fault when a collision occurs. (like the incident of the police boat traveling at high speed which rearended a sailboat and sited the sailboat for being at fault)


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I don't think the collision regulations are to blame, there is as much ambiguity built into them as there is, because the same basic set of rules are used by 170 something countries by international agreement. 

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 I think are intentionally non prescriptive, results driven rules. The intended result being, the prevention of collisions at sea. I think, odds are good, if you have had a collision at sea, you have run foul of the rules.

The security legislation on the other hand I think, is not by international agreement and is highly prescriptive in nature, hence the numerical figures.

I'm not American, and don't know US legislation very well, but I suspect the security legislation is in a silo, completely independant of the navigational safety regulations. I am guessing you could be compliant with both sets of legislation, compliant with one but not the other, or not compliant with either. I don't really know though, that's why I asked if some one else did.

It's entirely possible, no major investigation will ever take place by federal oversight people. There was no loss of life, no vessel was lost, there was no environmental impact.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Minnewaska said:


> Not so sure. The local regulation to Puget Sound allows another vessel to approach the ferry no closer than 100 yards (300 feet). By definition, there is no way to stop or divert a large ferry, when another vessel violates that zone. By the time the recreational boat was within the 500 yard zone, where it had an obligation to maintain a clear course and speed, I still think it's too late for the ferry to evade, even if they didn't have the right to expect the stinkpot to stay clear.


That still doesn't clear the Ferry operator of his obligation to avoid a collision. If its so blatant a last minute course change or such then that's different than this case, but we have a collision course set up here for a longer time than the operator evaded. Fair or not, that's the rule that prevails.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Daveinet said:


> Just had another thought. There is a legal principle that trumps ALL law. That legal principle is that laws must be clearly defined to be enforceable. The fact that we have 8 pages of discussion is strong evidence that the law is unclear and therefore unenforceable.
> If the standards for navigation is so ambiguous that we can't decide if the ferry captain violated the law, there is a problem. It is not a matter of ignorance, we've copied and pasted the wording. Its just that overlapping regulation has proven to be too convoluted for there to be a clear understanding.
> 
> There is an unclear definition of what is a safe speed. It is also unclear for the size vessel, at what point in time is the captain required to take evasive action? Even at 500 feet, a fast enough power boat could cross into that zone, but it would be impossible for the ferry to take effective evasive action.
> ...


I think we can decide we just cant agree. Maritime courts will not debate this the way we do. Clearly in a collision situation stand on or not you have an obligation to avoid at [any cost] reasonably speaking. I would need more information on your rear ending to comment on that one. I would assume there was something the Sailboat should of or could have done. That's the spirit.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Faster said:


> We routinely sail in areas where similar ferries ply their schedules.
> 
> These boats are on regular, predictable routes, are moving at speeds faster than you might think, and are damned big. I think in most cases it's foolish to press your 'stand on' rights even when your are at the helm. However it can be tricky.. especially near the ferries' turning points on their routes. A last minute panicky avoidance move on your part might put you squarely where the ferry captain intended to be. Obviously these boats cannot stop (or turn) on a dime.
> 
> ...


Interesting read, I got through most of it. I like the part where the small Boat operator said he didn't see the Ferry because it was in his "Blind spot" even more interesting was that he was sticking by the story that it was OK to have a blind spot affecting your view. Surely by this time his lawyer suggested that course was better than a realization that he had screwed up and contributed to this horrible situation.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Arcb said:


> I don't think the collision regulations are to blame, there is as much ambiguity built into them as there is, because the same basic set of rules are used by 172 countries by international agreement.


Screw international agreement. I am only bound by the constitution. If an international agreement violates the constitution, I will not bound by it.



albrazzi said:


> I think we can decide we just cant agree. Maritime courts will not debate this the way we do. Clearly in a collision situation stand on or not you have an obligation to avoid at [any cost] reasonably speaking.


My argument is not about the definition of the specific law, but rather is a constitutional argument, in the definition of the "rule of law". It is the observation of the disagreement amongst ourselves that is proof of the law's ambiguity. This argument would not be made in a maritime court, but rather on appeal to a Federal Court.

I realize I am being optimistic about the integrity of the court, but I am speaking from a moral standpoint regarding the definition of the "rule of law". Court rulings are bought and sold. Either your lawyer is friends with the judge, or he is not. True guilt rarely determines the outcome.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

The ferry route runs from the South end of Vashon Island to Point Defiance, in Tacoma, WA. The route show up in Google maps (I'm not allowed to include a link).

Newspaper stated the ferry was going North.

As far as I know, it's all pretty deep water around there. Lot's of steep terrain. It looks like there might be a small point of land hindering the view to the East up close to the ferry doc, but I'm not sure how high that particular point if or if the ferry was actually anywhere near it.

I'd assume the ferry should have seen the boat coming from 2-3 miles away, easy. The video show good visibility and pretty calm waters. The boat, Nap Tyme, on autopilot, was probably holding a steady course from more than a mile away. 

It's hard to imagine the ferry captain not seeing Nap Tyme and realizing he was on collision course, even if he did just come up from behind that point leaving the dock on the South end of his route, those boats take 15 minutes tops to load/unload and spend all day sailing back and forth (they don't sit idle at the dock), he would have seen Nap Tyme coming on his last trip South. (Unless Nap Tyme was leaving the Marina just next to the Point Defiance ferry dock, which seems very unlikely).

It's December, there's not a lot of pleasure boat out there for him to be dodging.

(I've never been on this ferry route, or sailed around this immediate area, but live about 10 miles North of this area and regularly commute on another of WSF's routes).


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

Daveinet said:


> My argument is not about the definition of the specific law, but rather is a constitutional argument, in the definition of the "rule of law". It is the observation of the disagreement amongst ourselves that is proof of the law's ambiguity. This argument would not be made in a maritime court, but rather on appeal to a Federal Court.
> 
> I realize I am being optimistic about the integrity of the court, but I am speaking from a moral standpoint regarding the definition of the "rule of law". Court rulings are bought and sold. Either your lawyer is friends with the judge, or he is not. True guilt rarely determines the outcome.


The ferry captain would be tested and licensed by the Coast Guard prior to being given command of that vessel. HE is responsible for knowing and complying with these rules / laws. (kinda like being an accountant of lawyer, you can't play stupid of all that overly complex law when you do something dumb violating it, you were tested to get your license)

The pleasure boat captain, not so much. I think if he's born after 1955 he's required to have a WA state boater's education card, and that "education" is pretty light, although I think they do go over the idea of going around crossing boats from starboard, which is what the ferry didn't do.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Daveinet said:


> Screw international agreement. I am only bound by the constitution. If an international agreement violates the constitution, I will not bound by it.


I don't think you understand what an international agreement is.

ITU and IMO regulations are one of the few areas where so very many countries agree. We aren't talking about Paris climate accords here. We ARE talking about 176 out of 196 countries that agree. The signatories, including the United States implement the agreement in law or regulation (in our case the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)). Thus the difference between International COLREGS and the Inland Rules and the demarcation line on our charts.

So we're talking about US law.

Let me know how a discussion with a police officer about the speed limit not being in the Constitution goes.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

We still have zero information posted in this thread, as to what happened prior to that video beginning. Speculation that the ferry captain saw this coming for miles is not credible. There is no way to know that, it's assumed without evidence and prejudicial. There is no way to know the ferry hadn't already taken evasive action, or hadn't already attempted to stop.

Large heavy vessels, in small spaces are incapable of avoiding all "potential" hazards. It can take such a long distance to stop, they would be paralyzed if they had to assume all traffic that far away might be a collision potential.

While I agree, the safety zone regulation is hard to read, it is there for a purpose. It gives specific distances that vessels are not permitted to approach the ferry. Inside those distances, there ferry is no longer capable of evading collision. 

I should give a maritime lawyer buddy a call, but I don't think it's worth the dime frankly. Maybe one will show up and clear up the seeming conflict between the safety zone and ColReg. 

In the meantime, in the court of personal opinion, I give the ferry the benefit of the doubt. If you go below, leave your boat on autopilot, near shore, without your hearing aids in, you have it coming. The ferry captains family should not suffer a lack of income, because of a moron like that.


----------



## willyd (Feb 22, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> We still have zero information posted in this thread, as to what happened prior to that video beginning.


Not so fast! It looks like they had steering problems back in November. My thesis is that the captain wasn't able to steer away in time from Krap Tyme: Point Defiance ferry routes canceled Thursday | The News Tribune , which is why he goes out to the starboard observation deck and yells at the guy with outstretched arms just before the collision. The video clearly shows this.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> I don't think you understand what an international agreement is.
> ...So we're talking about US law.
> 
> Let me know how a discussion with a police officer about the speed limit not being in the Constitution goes.


I think you misunderstood my point. The "rule of law" is a legal definition which is constitutionally based. It dictates HOW laws are to be written - specifically that law must be clearly defined. Laws which allow for arbitrary judgement are not constitutional. (35mph is pretty clear what that means).

Virtually in every accident, collision could be avoided. The ferry could have traveled at .2 knots, and could have easily stopped. Does that mean that all ferries which are traveling at speeds faster than . 2 knots will always be at fault? The law does clearly state "Prevailing" conditions. If it is "prevailing" (or common) for boats to change course when encountering a ferry, regardless of stand on, at what point in distance and speed is it the responsibility of the captain to realize the boat is not diverting, as is the common or "prevailing" practice?

The fundamental problem is that the point at which the "prevailing" condition changes to potential for collision, it is impossible for the ferry to avoid that collision. This means that the law is in conflict with its self, which makes it the definition of that law ambiguous.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Large heavy vessels, in small spaces are incapable of avoiding all "potential" hazards. It can take such a long distance to stop, they would be paralyzed if they had to assume all traffic that far away might be a collision potential.
> 
> While I agree, the safety zone regulation is hard to read, it is there for a purpose. It gives specific distances that vessels are not permitted to approach the ferry. Inside those distances, there ferry is no longer capable of evading collision.
> 
> I should give a maritime lawyer buddy a call, but I don't think it's worth the dime frankly. Maybe one will show up and clear up the seeming conflict between the safety zone and ColReg.


I'm not sure there is a conflict between ColReg and the safety zone, as the ColReg states "prevailing conditions". The safety zone is clearly a "prevailing condition". The problem becomes at what point outside of that zone does it become clear the stand on boat is not choosing to divert according to the safety zone. That is rather vague, and is going to be too late as you describe in your post, which is where the problem lies.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

There are courses available that explain the fundamentals of collision regulations in easy to understand, practical packages.

I know there are several sailing instructors present on this forum, they could make a better recommendation than me, but I think ASA 105 is the rules of the road course. I have never taken one of these courses, so better to check with the experts.

Edit: here is a good article I found that helps explain some of the fundamental concepts.

http://shipofficer.com/so/rule-of-the-road-explained/


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> We still have zero information posted in this thread, as to what happened prior to that video beginning. Speculation that the ferry captain saw this coming for miles is not credible. There is no way to know that, it's assumed without evidence and prejudicial. There is no way to know the ferry hadn't already taken evasive action, or hadn't already attempted to stop.
> 
> Large heavy vessels, in small spaces are incapable of avoiding all "potential" hazards. It can take such a long distance to stop, they would be paralyzed if they had to assume all traffic that far away might be a collision potential.
> 
> ...


I agree..(my bolding)... It is not reasonable, not smart, and shouldn't be legal to operate a vessel under autopilot without a watch on deck. Especially in a ferry zone.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Faster said:


> I agree..(my bolding)... It is not reasonable, not smart, and shouldn't be legal to operate a vessel under autopilot without a watch on deck. Especially in a ferry zone.


You may have made too broad of a statement to be practical. In open water, single handers must do it for ocean crossings.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

It's the varying levels of cognitive skills that make boating so dangerous and Sail net so interesting.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Daveinet said:


> You may have made too broad of a statement to be practical. In open water, single handers must do it for ocean crossings.


Yes, true.. but I was thinking in the context of this situation.. And I realize, how do we define when it's "OK" and at what point it isn't. Once again common sense and prudence _should_ prevail.

One of my beefs about operating in the vicinity of ferries is that (at least in BC) they seem reluctant to signal their intentions with sound signals. When we are on what I perceive to be a close crossing, presumably the ferry operator sees the same. A simple single (or double) blast would let us know which side he/she intends to leave us on. However, I suppose in a busy channel that's not really possible because its tough to know 'which boat is being signaled?' That leaves you wondering until you hear the 5 or 10 blasts telling you you're in trouble.. unless you do the prudent thing and simply avoid the situation the best you can.

Our ferries operate in close conditions in channels amongst islands, but also cross the 25NM Strait of Georgia as part of their routes. Even there we rarely get any signals of the ferry's intentions. Same for tugs and tows. Recently I've taken to calling marine traffic on VHF for clarification.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Sharing the narrow channels here in the islands with these ferries on almost a daily basis I have a lot of sympathy for the skippers. I've seen so many close calls caused by absolutely idiotic actions from recreational boaters that it's kind of hard to believe there aren't more serious accidents. To say that the ferry captain didn't take any actions to avoid the collision is simply wrong. Not only did they slow the ferry down from 18-20 knots to almost zero prior to Nap Time crossing in front but when it became obvious that it was going to be dangerously close they sounded the danger signal and ordered full reverse. With the strong currents we have in most of the channels it's more than likely that Nap Time was not going in a straight line even though it was on AP, this alone could account for the very minor miscalculation on the ferries part as to where Nap Time would be when it crossed the ferries path. Its' obvious from the video just after the collision that the ferry was at a dead stop or even drifting backwards after the brief blast in reverse. I hope the ferry skipper gets off with just a minor reprimand and the skipper of Nap Time should have to pay for any repairs to his boat (and new shorts). That is all that is justified from my perspective.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Arcb said:


> I know there are several sailing instructors present on this forum, they could make a better recommendation than me, but I think ASA 105 is the rules of the road course. I have never taken one of these courses, so better to check with the experts.
> 
> Edit: here is a good article I found that helps explain some of the fundamental concepts.
> 
> Rule Of the Road ? EXPLAINED | Ship Officers


FWIW ColRegs are covered in the ASA 101 agenda, I use about 90 minutes of lecture with boardwork to cover that subject.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

jrd22 said:


> Sharing the narrow channels here in the islands with these ferries on almost a daily basis I have a lot of sympathy for the skippers. I've seen so many close calls caused by absolutely idiotic actions from recreational boaters that it's kind of hard to believe there aren't more serious accidents. To say that the ferry captain didn't take any actions to avoid the collision is simply wrong. Not only did they slow the ferry down from 18-20 knots to almost zero prior to Nap Time crossing in front but when it became obvious that it was going to be dangerously close they sounded the danger signal and ordered full reverse. With the strong currents we have in most of the channels it's more than likely that Nap Time was not going in a straight line even though it was on AP, this alone could account for the very minor miscalculation on the ferries part as to where Nap Time would be when it crossed the ferries path. Its' obvious from the video just after the collision that the ferry was at a dead stop or even drifting backwards after the brief blast in reverse. I hope the ferry skipper gets off with just a minor reprimand and the skipper of Nap Time should have to pay for any repairs to his boat (and new shorts). That is all that is justified from my perspective.


No. the current doesn't make a difference both boats were in the same current. At the same time, and in the same place. The same place and time bit being the problem.

I sail in the same area and travel frequently on local ferries. I agree in many ways its surprising how few incidents we hear about. They just do what they have to do to avoid the multitudes of small boats. 
A long weekend in the summer in some of the channels is quite something.

If there is enough near miss's. By just the laws of probability there will be the occasional hit. This one although a hit. Was pretty much a near miss.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

sailingfool said:


> FWIW ColRegs are covered in the ASA 101 agenda, I use about 90 minutes of lecture with boardwork to cover that subject.


As an aside, thank you for doing that. A lot of instructors around here will just give you a book.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

Faster said:


> Yes, true.. but I was thinking in the context of this situation.. And I realize, how do we define when it's "OK" and at what point it isn't. Once again common sense and prudence _should_ prevail.
> 
> One of my beefs about operating in the vicinity of ferries is that (at least in BC) they seem reluctant to signal their intentions with sound signals. When we are on what I perceive to be a close crossing, presumably the ferry operator sees the same. A simple single (or double) blast would let us know which side he/she intends to leave us on. However, I suppose in a busy channel that's not really possible because its tough to know 'which boat is being signaled?' That leaves you wondering until you hear the 5 or 10 blasts telling you you're in trouble.. unless you do the prudent thing and simply avoid the situation the best you can.
> 
> Our ferries operate in close conditions in channels amongst islands, but also cross the 25NM Strait of Georgia as part of their routes. Even there we rarely get any signals of the ferry's intentions. Same for tugs and tows. Recently I've taken to calling marine traffic on VHF for clarification.


The Ferries get tons of complaints about the whistles. Particularly from idiots who buy or build houses near ferry terminals. But also from passengers, who despite all the notices and announcements get upset because they are loud. 
The Spirit Class even have a Whistle specially designed so it's not to loud close up. But designed to carry a long way. (I can often hear them in Active Pass). I suspect its part of the reason the old guy on the Star Ruby never even knew the ferry was there. 
I travel of the SGI ferry. It does blow sound signals sometimes. The rules require sound signals. often they are not sounded. I have heard one of the reasons they often don't blow the whistle when there are lots of boats. Is a lot of the small ones don't know what it means and start to panic and go around in circles. when all they want to say Is I am turning right. or left.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> We still have zero information posted in this thread, as to what happened prior to that video beginning. Speculation that the ferry captain saw this coming for miles is not credible. There is no way to know that, it's assumed without evidence and prejudicial. There is no way to know the ferry hadn't already taken evasive action, or hadn't already attempted to stop.
> 
> Large heavy vessels, in small spaces are incapable of avoiding all "potential" hazards. It can take such a long distance to stop, they would be paralyzed if they had to assume all traffic that far away might be a collision potential.
> 
> ...


You could:
1 - watch the video, and while it doesn't show before the motor boat being almost directly in front of the ferry, it clearly shows weather conditions and visibility. You can also notice on the video what other traffic was visible in the background (none).
2 - look on a chart for where the ferry was. On Washington State Ferry's Pt Defiance / Tahlequah route, going North to Tahlequah (reported by Seattle Times, which distributed the video). The ferry route may not be marked on the charts, but the docks on the end most probably are, or can easily be determined comparing the chart with other sources.
3- you can lookup the schedule and note that it's about 15 minutes one way, scheduled to leave one dock or the other every 25 minutes. Same boat going back and forth all day, they are generally on time.

The chart should show you where any shallow water might be and give a good idea about what obstacles there would be to visibility and how much space there was to maneuver.

And while knowledge gained from such an exercise isn't absolute and still will not explain what the ferry did or didn't do leading up to the collision, you should be able to deduce where some random boat could have been coming from and how far it should have been seen from. It's also possible other traffic was present we're unaware that he may have just swerved around, but given it's December, it's unlikely.

I'm also interested in if anyone has a clear description of how the safety zone needs to be considered in such a situation. While the general consensus with the folks I know is to try and stay out of their way as much as possible, there are some places it's not practical, like passing between the Southworth and Vashon Island docks, were boats sometimes go straight from one to the other, sometimes come out of the dock and turn around (double ended ferry managing which directly the loaded cars can unload from), and when they are going to leave the dock.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I have noticed quite a bit of discussion about the ferry being uniquely difficult to maneuver and stop. I have tried every search I can think of and I haven't been able to find the vessels maneuvering characteristics. Crash stop, advance, transfer etc. Have people been able to find maneuvering characteristics?

2400 tons, CPP, 6000 hp, double ended. It all seems fairly proportionate to me. With 36 dockings a day, I would think the boat and the skipper would be pretty accustomed to tight maneuvers. I am just curious if any one has specific or numerical details or if we are speculating about relative maneuverabilty?

For example, I have seen discussion of transit speeds of 18-20 knots, but the company website states the vessels maximum speed as 15 knots.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Daveinet said:


> Virtually in every accident, collision could be avoided.





Daveinet said:


> The fundamental problem is that the point at which the "prevailing" condition changes to potential for collision, it is impossible for the ferry to avoid that collision. This means that the law is in conflict with its self, which makes it the definition of that law ambiguous.


If the stand-on vessel waits to take action until it is impossible to avoid collision the skipper waited too long. De facto and de jure.

While there are idiot (<- term of art) laws on the books, the fact that multiple laws may apply does not constitute conflict.

In this case, in principle, the recreational vessel could be in violation of the security zone and the ferry could be in violation of the navigational rules. No conflict at all. In practice, and certainly in this case responsibility is usually divided. Clearly the recreational boat was not standing a watch. It certainly appears (*grin*) he violated the security zone. The ferry did not give way. Neither avoided collision. The Court of Dave says 65/35 recreational/ferry.

I crack myself up.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Uricanejack said:


> No. the current doesn't make a difference both boats were in the same current. At the same time, and in the same place. The same place and time bit being the problem.


The ferry started taking action to allow Nap Time to pass in front of it long before the video started. It takes them a long time to slow to almost a stop (although I don't have any way to know what speed it was making prior to slowing). Nap Time could have easily been in a cross or swirling current that would have made it difficult to determine exactly where it would be by the time the two boats came together. Quite often I have to head 20-30 degrees off course to maintain a straight course, even in the fishing boat at 24 knots. No way we'll know from the comfort of our armchairs, after the fact, with only a short video to go by.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> If the stand-on vessel waits to take action until it is impossible to avoid collision the skipper waited too long. De facto and de jure.
> 
> While there are idiot (<- term of art) laws on the books, the fact that multiple laws may apply does not constitute conflict.
> 
> In this case, in principle, the recreational vessel could be in violation of the security zone and the ferry could be in violation of the navigational rules. No conflict at all. In practice, and certainly in this case responsibility is usually divided. Clearly the recreational boat was not standing a watch. It certainly appears (*grin*) he violated the security zone. The ferry did not give way. Neither avoided collision. The Court of Dave says 65/35 recreational/ferry.


No, the safety zone IS a PREVAILING CONDITION as described in rule 5. ColRegs specifically allow for local law to create additional governance. Since there is a security zone, that creates a prevailing condition.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

jrd22 said:


> The ferry started taking action to allow Nap Time to pass in front of it long before the video started. It takes them a long time to slow to almost a stop (although I don't have any way to know what speed it was making prior to slowing). Nap Time could have easily been in a cross or swirling current that would have made it difficult to determine exactly where it would be by the time the two boats came together. Quite often I have to head 20-30 degrees off course to maintain a straight course, even in the fishing boat at 24 knots. No way we'll know from the comfort of our armchairs, after the fact, with only a short video to go by.


It doesn't matter how early the ferry started taking evasive action, they didn't take it early enough. If the master of the ferry isn't in control of his vessel well enough to avoid a stand on vessel traveling at a constant speed and course during benign conditions during the day then it raises questions in my mind about how he misses the dock every time he tries to dock the boat.

This one isn't even all that difficult. The ferry T-bones the MV about half way back on the port side.

Yes the MV should have been keeping watch, and yes the MV should have taken evasive action. But that in no way makes up for the ferry's failure to keep clear. 
My guess is the ferry captain looses his ticket, or at least gets suspended. With 85 (ferry)/15 (MV) assignment of fault.

Keep this in mind. If the MV had been keeping a proper watch, and had taken evasive action as soon as he was allowed to under the rules, the Ferry Captain's license would still likely be yanked for failure to keep clear.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

jrd22 said:


> The ferry started taking action to allow Nap Time to pass in front of it long before the video started. It takes them a long time to slow to almost a stop (although I don't have any way to know what speed it was making prior to slowing). Nap Time could have easily been in a cross or swirling current that would have made it difficult to determine exactly where it would be by the time the two boats came together. Quite often I have to head 20-30 degrees off course to maintain a straight course, even in the fishing boat at 24 knots. No way we'll know from the comfort of our armchairs, after the fact, with only a short video to go by.


The ferry should have set course around Nap Tyme before ever needing to slam the boat in reverse for evasive action. But Nap Time was clearly under auto pilot, which corrected back to the original heading and started heading away after the collision.

There are some strong currents in the more general area. I'm not sure about that particular spot, but it's right around the point from the Tacoma Narrow Straits. The ferry captain should be well aware of any current there though, he spends all day, every day, back and forth, 15 minutes crossing time, 10 minutes to load and unload, 15 minutes back, another 10 to load and unload, start over.... 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM, 20 round trips a day (I'm sure they change shifts, but he's probably making at least 6 trips a day, possibly 5 times a week for the last several years?).


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Stumble said:


> It doesn't matter how early the ferry started taking evasive action, they didn't take it early enough. If the master of the ferry isn't in control of his vessel well enough to avoid a stand on vessel traveling at a constant speed and course during benign conditions during the day then it raises questions in my mind about how he misses the dock every time he tries to dock the boat.
> 
> This one isn't even all that difficult. The ferry T-bones the MV about half way back on the port side.
> 
> ...


I agree,, and any security zones in place were void when the Mv failed to keep watch. I mean the zone is only secure when everyone is aware and respects it, in this case its moot, or at least no reasonable expectation it will be respected.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

jrd22 said:


> The ferry started taking action to allow Nap Time to pass in front of it long before the video started. It takes them a long time to slow to almost a stop (although I don't have any way to know what speed it was making prior to slowing). Nap Time could have easily been in a cross or swirling current that would have made it difficult to determine exactly where it would be by the time the two boats came together. Quite often I have to head 20-30 degrees off course to maintain a straight course, even in the fishing boat at 24 knots. No way we'll know from the comfort of our armchairs, after the fact, with only a short video to go by.


It is possible in Admiralty Inlet for two vessels to be in sight of one and other and relatively close, i.e. within a few miles of each other. To be subject to, two very different flows of tidal current. An example I am familiar with. Would be a vessel transiting south bound, between Marrow Stone Pt and Bush Point. On an ebb tide there is a very significant back eddy. Back eddies are usually very close to shore. And significant where there is a strong current. Currents tend to be stronger at the moths of inlets than at the heads of inlets. And stronger in narrow channels less where the channel opens up. 
It's unlikely there are any back eddies in the vicinity strong enough to make a significant difference so far from shore.

The OOW and Captains of Ferry's, will know the local waters and any significant back eddies quite well. They will see the tow boats using them regularly. Particularly log tows.

Even coming up with this much about what may or may not have occurred is just idol speculation from an old fart with a computer in his armchair. I agree with you there really is no way of knowing from here.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

Daveinet said:


> You may have made too broad of a statement to be practical. In open water, single handers must do it for ocean crossings.


No. Fasters original statement was just fine and dandy. It is illegal, A violation of rule 5. anywhere.
Problem is nobody gives a rats ass. 
If you are stupid enough to head out single handed and go to sleep when you should be on watch.
And get run down by a ship 
Don't cry about it. its your own dam fault.

Having said this I single hand, (without an autopilot). If I have to I looks around and I goes to the head provided its clear, I also balance up the boat and put the coffee on which usually results in a trip to the head.

The old guy may not be the brightest spark on the water but he is not as negligent as some clown who goes to sleep.:laugh

So if you ever go out single handed and go to sleep leaving the boat sailing along by its self anywhere
you cant point a finger at him:laugh


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Some rules etc to be used by sailboats, and "SOME" power boats in regards to larger vessels in the main part of the lower Salish Sea or Puget Sound per say.

Link see pages 13 and 14. This has been adopted or is mentioned by more than one YC here locally. May not be the whole rules or who is or is not in right of way.........Sorry about copy and past, did not format correct, hence why I am giving you all a link.

I usually as mentioned before, stay the HELL away from larger boats. I've had the Abe Lincoln stare me down. that thing is quick, with very little wake. Went 15 miles in the time it took me to go 1-2. I changed course to avoid it, still turned to go into Everett at a point I could not find on a chart......life goes on.

Marty

SPECIAL SAILBOAT SAFETY REG
ULATIONS OF PUGET SOUND 
2002 Revision 
As adopted by the Shilshole Bay
, Sloop Tavern, Corinthian, and 
Seattle Yacht Clubs 
We must share Puget Sound with its
commercial traffic, includin
g many deep-water vessels and tows. 
It is sobering to note that, if y
our boat is one mile dead-ahea
d of a freighter coming down the Sound 
at normal speed, and the freigh
ter's helm is put hard over to a
void you, the freighter's bow will miss 
you, but her stern will not. Obvi
ously, this implies that earl
y and decisive action is required to keep 
your boat out of the path of a l
arge oncoming vessel or tow. 
1. Yachts must not sail across 
a tow line, too close ahead, or 
too close alongside of 
commercial 
traffic. Deep water vessels ha
ve limited ability to change cour
se and 
speed. Barges under tow can 
yaw unexpectedly well out to the 
side at speeds essentially the
same as they are
being towed. 
Yachts should not pass less than 
one mile ahead and 1/4 mile to
the side of large vessels. 
2. Rule 10 of the International 
and Inland Rules to Prevent Col
lisions at Sea (COLREGS) requires that 
no power-driven vessel less than 20
meters (66 feet) in length,
and no sailing vessel (of any size) 
may impede the safe passage of a
power-driven vessel following 
a Vessel Traffic System (VTS) 
Lane. 
3. Rule 9 of the COLREGS require
s that no power vessel of less 
than 20 meters (66
feet) in length 
and no sailing vessel (of any lengt
h) shall impede the safe pas
sage of any vessel which can 
navigate only within a narrow c
hannel or fairway. Puget Sound 
can be considered a "narrow 
channel" for most large commercial traffic. "Impede" means to c
ause to alter speed or course or to 
take evasive action. 
4. A yacht in position where it m
ay impede commercial traffic m
ust exit from the "danger area" 
immediately, under auxiliary p
ower if necessary. If power is us
ed, it must be reported to the Race 
Committee at the finish
line. Also, a written report must be ma
de on a protest form, showing the 
location, time, durati
on of power use, speed
, direction of exit
, and that the compet
itive position of 
the yacht was not improved. If the 
last item cannot be demonstr
ated adequately, a time penalty 
may be imposed. 
5. Radar reflectors must be fl
own at all times when racing. A r
adar reflector, all meta
l, of the triplaner 
corner reflector type, each pla
ne at least 12" square or 12 ½ i
nches diameter to be carried at least 
13 feet (4 meters) above the wa
terline. Other types of reflecto
rs may be used provided that it has 
been demonstrated that they are e
ffective under a
ll conditions.
See PIYA Special Regulations 
paragraph 3.8. 
6. Navigation lights must be s
hown between sunset and sunrise a
s required by the International Rules 
of the Road. 
Observed and/or reporte
d violations of the sa
fety regulations m
ay be protested. The Race 
Committee shall have t
he option of issuing a "warning" when dee
med appropriate. Warnings are 
recorded and may be considered when judging any future reports.
ABOVE ALL, THE SKIPPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE 
CREW AND BOAT. 
Page 14 
STYC 2017 RACEBOOK 
COLREGS RULE 10* 
1. A vessel shall, so far as p
racticable, avoid
crossing traffi
c lanes but, if oblig
ed to do so, shall 
cross on a heading as nearly as p
racticable at right angles to 
the general direction of traffic 
flow. (
Why Do This?
Not only will this practice re
sult in a faster crossing of th
e traffic lanes, 
but will reduce the amount of time
of exposure to large vessels
operating in
the traffic 
lanes....Crossing at right angles w
ill also make you much more 
easily detectable both visually 
and by radar....) 
2. A vessel other than a crossing
vessel or a vessel joining or
leaving a lane shall not normally 
enter a separation zone. (Why? S
eparation Zones provide areas w
here a vessel can "bail out" 
in the event of an emer
gency. Furthermore
, fishing vessels, pa
rticularly in the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca, have a tendency to fi
sh in these "medians".) 
3. A vessel not using a TSS [Tra
ffic Separating Scheme] shall a
void it by as wide a margin as 
possible. (Why? Recreational 
boats are more maneuverable than 
a large vessel or a tug and 
tow. These vessels rely on the pr
edictability of the traffic f
low....) 
4. Vessels, when leaving or joi
ning traffic lanes, shall do so 
at as small an ang
le to the general 
direction of traffic flow as pr
acticable. (Why? This allows v
essels to safely "merge" with 
existing traffic in the lanes an
d minimizes disruptions to exis
ting traffic flow....) 
5. A 
vessel of less than 20 meters
(66 feet), 
or a sailing vessel
, shall not impede 
safe passage of 
a power driven vessel following a traffic lane. 
A vessel engaged in fishing
shall not impede the 
passage of a vesse
l following a traffic lane. 
NOTE: "Shall not impede"
means a vessel must 
not navigate in such a way as t
o risk the development of a coll
ision with another vessel (i.e. 
when a vessel following a TSS i
s forced to make an unusual or d
angerous maneuver in order 
to avoid one of the vessels list
ed above, then the vessel follo
wing the TSS has been impeded.) 
6. All vessels are required to keep
the center of the precautio
nary area to port. 
NOTE:
A 
Precautionary area is usually mar
ked by a yellow-lighted buoy a
nd is clearly marked on all 
nautical charts. (Why? This is an area where vessels followin
g the TSS are negotiating 
course changes and where other v
essels join or 
depart the TSS, 
therefore, all mariners must 
exercise caution....) 
NOTE: Failure to comply with these regulations could create an
unsafe navigational 
situation and may r
esult in a civil penal
ty of up to $5,000. 
*Taken from USCG, "A Recreationa
l Boater's Informational Guide 
to Puget Sound Vessel Traffic 
Service," January 1995.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Some rules etc to be used by sailboats, and "SOME" power boats in regards to larger vessels in the main part of the lower Salish Sea or Puget Sound per say.


Interest read, Marty. It seems to me that a few in this thread fail to full comprehend this follow snip. Large vessels are frequently incapable of avoiding a collision, once one is a threat. We do not know if that was the case for this ferry.

Do those on the side of the stinkpot insist these large vessels make full hard rudder for every vessel more than a mile out? How would these vessels actually transit? Restricted in ability to maneuver is in the regs for a reason. It's not absolute, the but point is, it can be too late for a large vessel to avoid a collision risk once one is recognized.



> SPECIAL SAILBOAT SAFETY REGULATIONS OF PUGET SOUND
> 
> It is sobering to note that, if your boat is one mile dead-ahead of a freighter coming down the Sound
> at normal speed, and the freighter's helm is put hard over to avoid you, the freighter's bow will miss
> you, but her stern will not.


Further, this following snip is pretty damning for the off-watch auto-pilot pooper, but it's not clear if this only applies to those organizations that adopted it.



> A vessel of less than 20 meters (66 feet), or a sailing vessel, shall not impede safe passage of
> a power driven vessel following a traffic lane


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> Do those on the side of the stinkpot insist these large vessels make full hard rudder for every vessel more than a mile out? How would these vessels actually transit? Restricted in ability to maneuver is in the regs for a reason. It's not absolute, the but point is, it can be too late for a large vessel to avoid a collision risk once one is recognized.


I am not on any ones side. I do know that restricted in ability to maneuver is defined in the ColRegs. Does this ferry meet the definition of restricted in her ability to maneuver? Keeping in mind, that if these vessels are claiming these conditions they must display the corresponding day shapes and lights. Would an 800 foot coming down this same channel be okay with giving way to a small (to them) ferry claiming RAM due to her size alone?

_(g) The term vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
The term "vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre" shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline,
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations,
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway,
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft,
(v) a vessel engaged in mineclearance operations,
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course._

I think I have shared my video explaining the shall not impede rule here before, so I am not going to repost it, but it means exactly what it says:

_(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway._

Can this ferry navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway? Can you point out the narrow channel or fairway the ferry is navigating in on a chart?


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Arcb said:


> There are courses available that explain the fundamentals of collision regulations in easy to understand, practical packages.
> 
> I know there are several sailing instructors present on this forum, they could make a better recommendation than me, but I think ASA 105 is the rules of the road course. I have never taken one of these courses, so better to check with the experts.
> 
> ...


Rules of the road are covered in ASA 101 and ASA 103, and reviewed in ASA 104. (at least when I teach these courses)

ASA 105 is navigation by paper chart (and it is harder than the USCG test).

Rules of the road are also covered on day 3 of US Sailing's Basic Keel Boat course.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Minne,

A number of "OTHER" clubs that I have done races out of, also show this same few pages of "RULES" shall we say. Per a Coast Guard meeting held once a year for fleet captains of clubs to learn about the "rules" of what the CG wants from permiting of races and "OTHER" water events that have multiple boats involved. When I went about 10 years ago a Fleet Captain of the club I was in, there were a few groups, like Wa Kayak club that has a trip from West Seattle at the ferry landing park to the north, over to Blake Island north of this route, but still crossing a major ferry lane. Their are usually about 50 folks crossing over. They did not think they needed a permit, but in reality did. The rules to get a permit are not onerous, but this lets the CG and a routing agency that MANY of not all of the larger vessels coming into the Washington St part of the salish sea from Port Angeles on in, what races etc are on the water, so the Captains know where there might be issues. 
From this meeting, is how I know the St Ferries HAVE the right away over ALL other traffic here. INCLUDING the BIG boys and girls coming down the channel. As noted earlier, the ferry captains usually give way to the BIG guys as they have a bit more maneuvering room. 
Some races like Swiftsure, ALL boats need transponders, so shipping can tell where they are. Hourly radio broadcasts are given by two US CG districts, and one Canadian CG for what boats are transiting the shipping lanes. 
Puget Sound has the most ships moving in the area of ANY west coast port. We need to be very careful around here! I prefer to steer as clear as I can. 
This meeting was initiated by 48North IIRC and some of the local clubs, as the USCG was attempting etc to limit races or cancel a lot of them due to issues with larger boats as happened in this instance. If Racing, and a BIG boy does do 5 blasts, as many clubs note, if they can figure out the boat name(s), auto DQ no questions asked.

Marty


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

blt2ski said:


> Some rules etc to be used by sailboats, and "SOME" power boats in regards to larger vessels in the main part of the lower Salish Sea or Puget Sound per say.
> 
> Link..


Marty,
These local yacht racing rules have zippo relevance to this incident, other than their restatement of ColRegs 10.

Unless someone can introduce new information, I believe these statements are facts in this situation:
1. The ferry is not a "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" per the ColRegs definition. To say so means you do not understand the definition.
2. The ferry was not operating in a "traffic separation scheme", per the ColRges definition. The ferry was not in a traffic lane. To say so means you do not understand the definition.
3. The ferry was not constrained by her draft.
4. The Security and Safety Zone CFR (specific to only Puget Sound) states that it does not trump ColRegs obligations.
5. The ferry was a give-way vessel in a crossing situation.

Now I dont think any poster is "on the side of the stinkpot" in this thread. Our point is you should not allow the boater foolishness to override the negligent operation of the ferry. Sure the boater's actions were egregiously bad. But so were the ferry's. The difference is we dont know the reason the ferry screwed up. Suppose it comes out that the ferry operator was texting at the time of the accident, would that change the perceived responsibilities? We are all so shocked that one of us (the stinkpot operator) could do something so stupid, that we give the ferry a pass on an action in my opinion far more perfidious, being apparently willful rather than stupid.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Arcb said:


> I am not on any ones side. I do know that restricted in ability to maneuver is defined in the ColRegs. Does this ferry meet the definition of restricted in her ability to maneuver? Keeping in mind, that if these vessels are claiming these conditions they must display the corresponding day shapes and lights. Would an 800 foot coming down this same channel be okay with giving way to a small (to them) ferry claiming RAM due to her size alone?
> 
> _(g) The term vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
> The term "vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre" shall include but not be limited to:
> ...


No the ferry is not restricted. Actually they are relatively maneuverable.

Secondly the <20m rule only applies to vessels traveling in the Traffic Seperation Scheme, which ferries do not, they are traveling across it. Meaning if either vessel could claim that priority it would be the MY not the ferry. I haven't seen the AIS plot of the accident, but I don't think either of them were inside the scheme at the time of the collision.

Frankly this is a simple crossing situation, where the ferry t-bones the stand on vessel.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

sailingfool said:


> Marty,
> These local yacht racing rules have zippo relevance to this incident, other than their restatement of ColRegs 10.
> 
> Unless someone wants to introduce new information, I believe these statements are facts in this situation:
> ...


Everything but 5 is correct. The ferry was the give way vessel, the MY was the stand on.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Stumble said:


> Everything but 5 is correct. The ferry was the give way vessel, the MY was the stand on.


Yikes, thanks I corrected my text.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Daveinet said:


> No, the safety zone IS a PREVAILING CONDITION as described in rule 5. ColRegs specifically allow for local law to create additional governance. Since there is a security zone, that creates a prevailing condition.


You are mistaken about the definition of prevailing condition, which in the COLREGs and Inland Rules is "prevailing circumstances and conditions." The rules are referring to weather and mechanical conditions not legal restrictions.

Further, the security zone does not supersede the navigation rules. The CFR security zones supplement the CFR navigation rules. They all apply equally.



blt2ski said:


> Some rules etc to be used by sailboats, and "SOME" power boats in regards to larger vessels in the main part of the lower Salish Sea or Puget Sound per say.


Standards of behavior are not rules per se. I have called commercial ships and tows to let them know that I was going to take their stern even though I was stand on. There is room for civility in the rules and on the water. Communication is paramount.

Most racing programs provide for a DSQ if you conflict with commercial traffic, stand on or not. Some yacht clubs have similar standards of behavior.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

We do have evidence that the ferry attempted to stop. The question is whether they attempted early enough, or made other available evasive maneuvers. We don't know that. While I still argue they should not be required to evade any potential conflict, within their ability to maneuver (such as the problem with the freighters mentioned above), is it not reasonable for the give-way to also assume the stand-on will make some effort, while choosing their option to evade? In other words, the Ferry did allow ample time for the stink pot to contribute to the solution, given the horns and slowing of the ferry, had they been on watch. The ferry may have done all they could and the rest was up to the auto-pilot pooper.

Clearly, if the ferry captain was negligent (such as texting, drinking, etc), this is a different conclusion, but we have no evidence or even suggestion of it.

I only object to a conclusion that the Ferrys actions were willful. We just don't have evidence of that. What is willful, is leaving your boat on auto-pilot and going below.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 8, 2007)

I feel a little angry at the thought of the ferry captain losing his ticket because of some idiotic mistake of the MV. What horse dung. If I was the idiot in the MV I would have a real hard time rationalizing my actions legal or not. Especially if my poor decisions lead to the loss of a career and livelihood. 

I have enjoyed the interesting discussion of the finer points of the COLREGS. I hope at some point someone can weigh in with the actual conclusion to this story. Will the Coast Guard release a public report of the investigation?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> While I still argue they should not be required to evade any potential conflict, within their ability to maneuver (such as the problem with the freighters mentioned above), is it not reasonable for the give-way to also assume the stand-on will make some effort, while choosing their option to evade?


I think you've lost sight of the responsibilities of give-way and stand-on. The answer to your question is "no, not reasonable."

In fact, if the stand-on vessel chooses to be polite and take action they should communicate that to the give-way vessel. Otherwise the give-way vessel will be taking action on the assumption that the stand-on vessel is, in fact, going to stand on.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> I think you've lost sight of the responsibilities of give-way and stand-on. The answer to your question is "no, not reasonable."
> 
> In fact, if the stand-on vessel chooses to be polite and take action they should communicate that to the give-way vessel. Otherwise the give-way vessel will be taking action on the assumption that the stand-on vessel is, in fact, going to stand on.


So, in the freighter example above, they should be in emergency hard over rudder to avoid all head on traffic over a mile away? It seems that's the only way they can be sure to evade, without assuming any action by that traffic. I don't see it happen, even in open water.

Polite? Doesn't the same ColReg that establishes them as stand-on, also require them to take action when a collision seems possible? The point being, if the ferry attempts to evade, but physically can't. The stinkpot could have easily assisted (and I understand are required to) avoid this collision.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> ...
> Clearly, if the ferry captain was negligent (such as texting, drinking, etc), this is a different conclusion, but we have no evidence or even suggestion of it.
> 
> I only object to a conclusion that the Ferrys actions were willful. We just don't have evidence of that. What is willful, is leaving your boat on auto-pilot and going below.


The ferry was negligent relative to their give-way obligations, that is the video evidence. Knowing WHY they were negligent has no affect or reduction in that negligence, it just provides some form of explanation or excuse.

If the ferry operator were texting, or otherwise distracted, then the negligence is due to failure to keep a proper lookout, just like the powerboater, which I see as less damning than the alternative. This is option one for the ferry, the same cause as the powerboater. Two cases of human error coming together.

Option two is the ferry was paying attention and purposely held course - for sure, and apparently speed - harder to say, right up to the collision, so they knowingly caused the accident, with intent. Only the powerboater displayed human error, the ferry operator was willful.

You pick. I find the second circumstance more troubling than the first.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Not sure if all are familiar with the legal principal of estoppel. I think it may apply here. Estoppel says you can't kill your parents, then ask for mercy because you're an orphan. I don't think you can go off watch, then claim a right that required you to be on watch to fulfill (which I read also includes your obligation to ultimately evade too)


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

SVAuspicious said:


> ......
> In fact, if the stand-on vessel chooses to be polite and take action they should communicate that to the give-way vessel. Otherwise the give-way vessel will be taking action on the assumption that the stand-on vessel is, in fact, going to stand on.


We 'communicate our politeness' by making a clear, early course change that makes our intent obvious. And while I agree with the idea that the stand-on shouldn't make any late, sudden moves, I've been the stand-on vessel numerous times and on occasion held to our course - but it's nerve racking when the ferry doesn't signal his intentions and seemingly is bearing down on us at 23 knots. In the end, they have always passed clear but it's an uncomfortable several minutes. (btw we have never received the multiple blasts one gets when actually getting in their way, but that's not the same as receiving a single or double blast to make it clear they plan to cross ahead or astern.) Taking ourselves out of the equation in an obvious, early manner is way less stressful.

The other avenue, as mentioned, esp on a longer time frame (steady bearings when still many miles apart) is to call the marine traffic authority.. they can identify the vessel and assist in making contact. I've found that tugs and freighters generally do not return hails on CH 16 - esp when you can't yet read the name.

..maybe we should all just buy AIS.. and mount a repeater in the head ???


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Faster said:


> We 'communicate our politeness' by making a clear, early course change that makes our intent obvious. And while I agree with the idea that the stand-on shouldn't make any late, sudden moves, I've been the stand-on vessel numerous times and on occasion held to our course - but it's nerve racking when the ferry doesn't signal his intentions and seemingly is bearing down on us at 23 knots. In the end, they have always passed clear but it's an uncomfortable several minutes. (btw we have never received the multiple blasts one gets when actually getting in their way, but that's not the same as receiving a single or double blast to make it clear they plan to cross ahead or astern.) Taking ourselves out of the equation in an obvious, early manner is way less stressful...


I gotta say that if you find yourself with a nerve-racking passing then you know you haven't handled the meeting properly. As standon vessel, at the point where you need to change course/speed for YOU to avoid a non-yet-avoiding give-way vessel, you need to do so then and there. Accepting a close approach by a give-way vessel, one that becomes nerve-racking, is to ignore your responsibility as a standon to avoid a giveway vessel who has not made an early-and-obvious action to resolve the collision risk.

This situation has been the subject of another thread and is one that drives me nutty. It's rare day I not not need to change course dramatically to get off the course of a fast moving powerboat or ferry.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

sailingfool said:


> The ferry was negligent relative to their give-way obligations, that is the video evidence. Knowing WHY they were negligent has no affect or reduction in that negligence, it just provides some form of explanation or excuse.
> 
> If the ferry operator were texting, or otherwise distracted, then the negligence is due to failure to keep a proper lookout, just like the powerboater, which I see as less damning than the alternative. This is option one for the ferry, the same cause as the powerboater. Two cases of human error coming together.
> 
> ...


This all assumes the stand on vessel did maintain speed and course as they are responsible to. With the auto pilot set, it probably did, maybe. :captain:


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> So, in the freighter example above, they should be in emergency hard over rudder to avoid all head on traffic over a mile away?


I didn't say that. Early course adjustments, and more often minor speed adjustments, avoid problems. We aren't talking about the Port of Singapore here. It's two platforms with no other traffic.



Faster said:


> We 'communicate our politeness' by making a clear, early course change that makes our intent obvious.


Exactly. Recognizing that sometimes a speed change and constant course is more effective.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

sailingfool said:


> I gotta say that if you find yourself with a nerve-racking passing then you know you haven't handled the meeting properly. As standon vessel, at the point where you need to change course/speed for YOU to avoid a non-yet-avoiding give-way vessel, you need to do so then and there. Accepting a close approach by a give-way vessel, one that becomes nerve-racking, is to ignore your responsibility as a standon to avoid a giveway vessel who has not made an early-and-obvious action to resolve the collision risk.
> 
> This situation has been the subject of another thread and is one that drives me nutty. It's rare day I not not need to change course dramatically to get off the course of a fast moving powerboat or ferry.


When racing, I've been taught to steer toward there mid ship from several boat lengths away. By the time you get there, they will have passed.
If they don't maintain course, chances of me hitting them are huge. And there's really not much they can do about it, if they tack, I hit them, head up, maybe I hit them, fall off, we run into each other head on.
If a ferry is coming at you going 20 knots, and they are supposed to go around you, are you really going to turn straight into them to come around their stern? or pull a full 180 and go back to exactly where they are pointed at to pass your stern?


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

cplunk said:


> ...
> If a ferry is coming at you going 20 knots, and they are supposed to go around you, are you really going to turn straight into them to come around their stern? or pull a full 180 and go back to exactly where they are pointed at to pass your stern?


Simple, you can only turn to a course that is 90 degrees off of theirs, so you are going at a right angle to their course. Nothing can be more obvious to the negligent standon vessel. If the resulting course is a slow point of sail, add engine as needed, after all it is your survival at stake.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

sailingfool said:


> Simple, you can only turn to a course that is 90 degrees off of theirs, so you are going at a right angle to their course. Nothing can be more obvious to the negligent standon vessel. If the resulting course is a slow point of sail, add engine as needed, after all it is your survival at stake.


As far as I can tell, from that video, Nap Time was at a course about 90 degrees off the ferry.

At a certain point, it's unreasonable to assume the ferry's going to swerve to starboard and come around your stern, no matter how loudly you scream "STARBOARD" sitting on the head down below... But from further away, when they still look like they are just headed straight at you, fast....

Sure you might be the stand on vessel, but how close does it get before you give up on the assumption they will go around. Maybe they are pointed straight at me intending for me to be past them before they get there, all racer like? If I don't keep on keeping on, there's going to be a problem.

I've seen what I assume are professional captains doing some pretty confusing stuff making it unclear to me if they care if they run me over... (like a tug boat coming the other way through a marina entrance, and suddenly decided to swing wide and make a full circle, so that he could pull up to the pump out station without using reverse...)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Arcb, not my stat. Just repeating what is posted above. Just a fundamental point that vessels only have a given maneuverability and it seems impractical to think the largest are going to execute fully evasive producedues early enough in all potential situations.

I did just watch a vid on a large Maersk container ship (can't recall if it was linked from here), which said it takes them two miles to come to a stop.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> Arcb, not my stat. Just repeating what is posted above. Just a fundamental point that vessels only have a given maneuverability and it seems impractical to think the largest are going to execute fully evasive producedues early enough in all potential situations.
> 
> I did just watch a vid on a large Maersk container ship (can't recall if it was linked from here), which said it takes them two miles to come to a stop.


The route that ferry was on is shorter than 2 miles.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I deleted the turning circle post, because I wasn't even happy using mathematically calculated turning circle, I'd only want to comment on actual maneuvering characteristics.

It is a fun exercise to sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate estimated turning circles though.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> I feel a little angry at the thought of the ferry captain losing his ticket because of some idiotic mistake of the MV. What horse dung. If I was the idiot in the MV I would have a real hard time rationalizing my actions legal or not. Especially if my poor decisions lead to the loss of a career and livelihood.
> 
> I have enjoyed the interesting discussion of the finer points of the COLREGS. I hope at some point someone can weigh in with the actual conclusion to this story. Will the Coast Guard release a public report of the investigation?


Then take solace in the fact he won't loose his ticket because of the actions of the stand on vessel, but because of his own actions. The stand on vessels OBLIGATION is to STAND ON (maintain speed and heading) until such a time that he must act in order to prevent a collision. By that point the ticket was already likely to get yanked.

COLREG Rule 17
(a)
(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances at the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

Yes the MY messed up, they should have taken evasive action under 17aii. But note that under the rules the MY did exactly what was expected and required of her right up to the point that a colission was imminent.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

What if it's not physically possible for the give-way to evade? Could be maneuverability, conflicting traffic, terrain, draft.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> What if it's not physically possible for the give-way to evade? Could be maneuverability, conflicting traffic, terrain, draft.


If a ship is out of control, due a mechanical issue or extreme weather event, it becomes Not Under Command. A yachting example might be riding a sea anchor in a storm.

If the issue is draft, it becomes Constrained by Draft. Capta mentioned this possibility early on in the thread before we had much concrete information.

If traffic density is an issue, you pretty well need to come to a complete stop and allow traffic to clear. A good yachting example- if you have big airshows or fire works displays in your area, then maybe you have seen so much traffic on the water that you decided to just stop and let the traffic clear before you head into the cut in your marina.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> What if it's not physically possible for the give-way to evade? Could be maneuverability, conflicting traffic, terrain, draft.


I watched the video a couple more times. It starts, Nap Tyme is at about 2:00, ends with Nap Tyme around 9:00 - 10:00. Not another boat in site, no other traffic in front of the ferry.








http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/18474.shtml

Nothing to indicate anything hindering navigation on the chart.

It does look like, on the video, for the ferry to pass Nap Tyme's stern, he would then have to come back around to port pretty far to get lined back up with his dock again (which you can see in the background, pretty high resolution video footage on those new phones).


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

There is only one ferry on the entire west coast I am aware of which can't alter course to go round a Motor or sailboat.
The Bayes Sound Connector. Between Buckley bay and Denman Island. 
Its A Cable Ferry.
Its also the only ferry route you are not allowed to cross when it is transiting.
Even it can stop.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

cplunk said:


> As far as I can tell, from that video, Nap Time was at a course about 90 degrees off the ferry.
> 
> At a certain point, it's unreasonable to assume the ferry's going to swerve to starboard and come around your stern, no matter how loudly you scream "STARBOARD" sitting on the head down below... But from further away, when they still look like they are just headed straight at you, fast....
> 
> ...


Not the point, even though stand on, nap time was not exercising that, she was asleep at the wheel. The best thing for the ferry to do is assume worst case scenario. Even as stand on you shouldn't cause a (much) larger vessel to change course. That's called playing chicken.


----------



## cplunk (Nov 28, 2016)

albrazzi said:


> Not the point, even though stand on, nap time was not exercising that, she was asleep at the wheel.


Stand on vessel is responsible to maintain course and speed, pretty much, unless to avoid immediate collision. Maintaining course and speed seems to be the only thing Nap Tyme did right, as far as any of us know. And she did it a little too well, failing to deviate from course to avoid an immediate hazard.



> The best thing for the ferry to do is assume worst case scenario.


If it had assumed worst case scenario, it shouldn't have been that close.



> Even as stand on you shouldn't cause a (much) larger vessel to change course.


You should maintain your speed and course, and any "give way" vessels should go around you. Regardless of size, it doesn't matter. If the "give way" vessel fails to go around you, or you have no intention of maintaining your course for whatever reason, then you've got decisions to make... Size only really matters from the practical standpoint of who lives and dies when there's an utter breakdown in what's supposed to be done to prevent the collision in the first place.



> That's called playing chicken.


But, actually, chicken kinda requires you to be aware of the situation and actively participating, not down below on the head, oblivious. 
And, I have played chicken before, with a pretty bad outcome that can be a teaching moment about right of way and the need to maintain course while stand on. 
We were racing, running the start line after the 5 minute warning, we were on port tack running along the start line straight at a boat on starboard coming at us. As we were prepared to pass them on our port side, leeward of them, about a boat length away, for whatever reason, they put the tiller hard over to port and, apparently turning to avoid us, put themselves broad side in front of us with no space to react (other than sitting down and holding on).:eek
Despite us hitting them broad side, mid ship (and bouncing off and hitting them a second time) and despite us being the give way vessel. They were found at fault, pretty much totally, they failed to "stand on" (we maybe should've maneuvered around sooner, but we were both racing, they should've called it if they wanted more room). And that is the one thing Nap Tyme did do correctly, maintained course for give way vessel to navigate around her.


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

A stand on vessel. Should stand on maintain course and speed. Until?

The give way vessel. Should alter course and or speed. No mention of size.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Uricanejack said:


> A stand on vessel. Should stand on maintain course and speed. Until?
> 
> The give way vessel. Should alter course and or speed. No mention of size.


Understanding the rules is one thing understanding the situation is another. There are many mentions of size, maneuverability, Draft etc. in the rules. The ferry captain knows these rules, the small boat operator usually does not, Nap Time in this case was not even in the mix aside from his Boat being in the wrong place. This can be debated in a thousand posts but after a while its not about rules any more its about what you do if you're either Boat should this happen to you. The ferry was counting on the small Boat to do the right thing and he couldn't, that doesn't excuse him, but it removes him from being able to do anything. First and foremost if the other guy does not have the ability (for any reason) to prevent a collision the other boat needs to take over. If you're on the water you need to know that.:wink


----------



## Uricanejack (Nov 17, 2012)

True to some extent. 

A lot of people appear to the think the Ferry could not have or should not have to alter course due to its size or being a ferry.
This is not the case the ferry if it was a crossing situation as it appears to be. Could have and should have altered its course and or speed in time to let the guy on the head in his boat cruise on by blissfully unaware the ferry was even there. 
The ferry of this type and size is has plenty of maneuverability.

Why the ferry didn't alter course or speed in time I have no idea. Anything I suggest would be just idol speculation. 

The Ferry company will carry out an investigation to find out why, They will talk to the crew, The crew will have a union represent them. 
The report will be written saying why. Making recommendations about what could be changed to help prevent a reoccurrence.
The crew are probably back at work today. Doing what they do. 
There was an error in judgment of some type. They will learn from it and move on. 
Even the boater probably learned something, like being on the head at full speed on autopilot with other traffic around is not a good idea.


----------



## seannguy (Dec 14, 2016)

Nice video that is..


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Perhaps this question is only to point out that we don't have all the facts, but I would be interested to hear thoughts.

What if (we don't know), the Ferry was being overtaken from behind, at the same time. That makes the Ferry Stand-On as well. Now what?

I'm genuinely interested in the scenario, we obviously don't know it's the case. We also don't know what traffic was to either side of the ferry, only speculation on time of year.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> What if (we don't know), the Ferry was being overtaken from behind, at the same time. That makes the Ferry Stand-On as well. Now what?
> 
> I'm genuinely interested in the scenario, we obviously don't know it's the case. We also don't know what traffic was to either side of the ferry, only speculation on time of year.


I'm going to try to answer this from a theoretical point of view.

If you have a copy of your rules handy, either your hard copy or open in a different window on your computer, take a look at rules 4-8. These are Application, Safe Speed, Risk of Collision and Action to Avoid Collision. These rules are based on judgement, situational awareness and common sense. They are the rules that are used the most, but in yachting circles, seem to be discussed the least.

Amongst these 4-8, is look out. When properly applied, look out should allow you to detect problems, long before they are problems. As many boaters have said on this thread, they avoid ships and ferries. It is their astute look out that allows this to happen. They are aware of traffic conditions because they are in their cockpits, radios on 16 and VTS, AIS and RADAR if they have them switched on. They just steer clear and don't need to worry about the situational rules.

The rules you are discussing are situational and assume the issue hasn't been resolved, early before its an issue.

If the hypothetical vessel being overtaken couldn't make arrangements or find sea room to comply with whatever situational rule was applying, the solution could be 8(e), stop and let the traffic pass.

I posted a video on a new thread last night, because I didn't want to risk hijacking this one. The short 3 minute video incorporates many of these issues.

I was up bound in a narrow channel. Another sailing yacht was down bound on the opposite side of the channel. I look behind me and see a 700' ship approaching from behind. I am aware from VTS there is a 600+ ft ship down bound around a bend, that I will be meeting.

When the up bound ship is about 1/2 mile behind me, I scoot over to the starboard edge of the channel so as not to impede. He remains the over taking vessel, I must now stand on, he has to give way. The down bound sailing yacht mirrors my action.

This leaves maybe 600-800' est between the sailing yachts for the 2 ships to meet. Meeting situation, so they both alter, slightly to starboard and meet in between me and the other SY. These 600+ foot ore/aggregate carriers had a closing speed in excess of 20 knots and about 150' of water between them. Easy, routine, just another day on the seaway.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

albrazzi said:


> ...The ferry captain knows these rules, the small boat operator usually does not, Nap Time in this case was not even in the mix aside from his Boat being in the wrong place. .. The ferry was counting on the small Boat to do the right thing and he couldn't, that doesn't excuse him, but it removes him from being able to do anything. ...


I do not believe the powerboater was in a wrong place, he was proceeding in a normal fashion as any of us might, while failing to keep a proper lookout. Maybe that's what you mean as a wrong place.
The ferry was counting on the small boat to do the CONVENIENT thing, not the right thing. The right thing for a stand-on vessel as others have said, is to stand on, what the ferry wanted as the convenience of the small boater giving way so the ferry could avoid the inconvenience of making its obligatory change in course and/or speed. We can assume that recreational stand-on vessels often, maybe almost always, extend this ferry the consideration of their nautical courtesy. Regardless of common courtesies, professional captains are bound by the ColRegs and should not be allowed to ignore the most basic navigational rule at their convenience. My opinion here would be the same even if the ferry had been the stand-on vessel, which it was not, and had been involved in the same collision.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

albrazzi said:


> Understanding the rules is one thing understanding the situation is another. There are many mentions of size, maneuverability, Draft etc. in the rules. The ferry captain knows these rules, the small boat operator usually does not, Nap Time in this case was not even in the mix aside from his Boat being in the wrong place.


As others have noted, the ferry in this case is not particularly large and is pretty maneuverable. Size, maneuverability, and draft simply aren't relevant.

My experience with ferries is that the pilots are too often entitled twits who think they "own" their route and ignore the navigation rules. Not all of course, but too many. The Staten Island Ferry drivers in particular come to mind. On the other hand I have had the Cape May-Lewes ferry take the other side of the Delaware breakwater for me; I'd call to offer to take their stern and they would have already shifted to the far end. The Isle of Wight ferry pilots go to the same school as the guys on the Staten Island Ferry.

Frankly I'd rather be in a crossing or overtaking situation with a 800 foot commercial ship than a 50 or 60 foot recreational boat. There are good reasons the commercial guys generally treat recreational boaters as a force of nature - completely unpredictable. Regardless of the rules, I try to communicate (VHF, early big course changes, call through Shipcom, etc.) with the big pros and establish clearly that I know they are there, I know the rules, I have a plan, and I won't trouble them any more than can be avoided.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

cplunk said:


> Stand on vessel is responsible to maintain course and speed, pretty much, unless to avoid immediate collision.
> ...
> And, I have played chicken before, with a pretty bad outcome that can be a teaching moment about right of way and the need to maintain course while stand on.
> We were racing, running the start line after the 5 minute warning, we were on port tack running along the start line straight at a boat on starboard coming at us. As we were prepared to pass them on our port side, leeward of them, about a boat length away, for whatever reason, they put the tiller hard over to port and, apparently turning to avoid us, put themselves broad side in front of us with no space to react (other than sitting down and holding on).:eek
> Despite us hitting them broad side, mid ship (and bouncing off and hitting them a second time) and despite us being the give way vessel. They were found at fault, pretty much totally, they failed to "stand on" (we maybe should've maneuvered around sooner, but we were both racing, they should've called it if they wanted more room). And that is the one thing Nap Tyme did do correctly, maintained course for give way vessel to navigate around her.


At the moment that the helmsperson put the tiller hard over to port they relinquished their privilege, and they became the burdened vessel.

The stand-on vessel is *OBLIGATED *to maintain course and speed.
The stand-on vessel MAY take action to avoid collision. 
The stand-on vessel MUST take action when it becomes apparent that action by the give-way vessel alone will not avoid a collision.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 8, 2007)

Stumble said:


> Then take solace in the fact he won't loose his ticket because of the actions of the stand on vessel, but because of his own actions. The stand on vessels OBLIGATION is to STAND ON (maintain speed and heading) until such a time that he must act in order to prevent a collision. By that point the ticket was already likely to get yanked.
> 
> COLREG Rule 17
> (a)
> ...


I understand the law and that MV wasn't the only one to screw up but losing your job and lively hood seems stiff for the penalty. Would a bus driver or truck driver lose their license for similar mistake? I do get that the stand on vessel was the MV. If the captain had not blown his horn and not attempted to miss the MV then sure take his ticket. I just think the consequences are too great for this situation.

Greg you say that the MV did exactly what was expected and required for her up to the point that a collision was imminent. From the perspective of the Ferry captain the MV would be expected to have a watch at all times and a 200 + foot ferry on charted route blasting its horn and probably hailing on 16 should be glaringly obvious. You would expect some reaction from the MV. Even a reply on 16 to say I am stand on vessel. You surely would not expect the MV skipper was taking a crap.

I have not studied the chart and I don't know what was to the port of ferry, channel depths in given area or any number of other variables.

Regardless of the law. If I was the MV and the captain lost their ticket I would feel horrible even though I was stand on vessel. Because I was not keeping watch, communicating with ferry and took no actions to prevent collision. As a recreational boater I personally feel an obligation to not interfere with working craft on a schedule. I know that is not the law nor do I think it should be but it seems like common courtesy.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I think the speculation about the skippers license being suspended may not be grounded in any fact. The ship was operational again 30 minutes after this incident, probably with the same skipper.

If authorities felt enforcement action was necessary, I would think a letter or a fine might be less severe tools at their disposal.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Waterrat said:


> I understand the law and that MV wasn't the only one to screw up but losing your job and lively hood seems stiff for the penalty. Would a bus driver or truck driver lose their license for similar mistake? I do get that the stand on vessel was the MV. If the captain had not blown his horn and not attempted to miss the MV then sure take his ticket. I just think the consequences are too great for this situation.
> 
> Greg you say that the MV did exactly what was expected and required for her up to the point that a collision was imminent. From the perspective of the Ferry captain the MV would be expected to have a watch at all times and a 200 + foot ferry on charted route blasting its horn and probably hailing on 16 should be glaringly obvious. You would expect some reaction from the MV. Even a reply on 16 to say I am stand on vessel. You surely would not expect the MV skipper was taking a crap.
> 
> ...


I can't argue that it is draconian, but the reality is that ferry captains like hazmat ship captains are supposed to be some of the best in the business with the best records, and for that they are some of the best paid. Because while it may suck for a 300' cargo ship to run aground, loosing a 300' ferry with 1,000 lives aboard is a catastrophe. Will this guy loose his license, maybe not, but he will almost certainly loose his insurability to operate a ferry, and possibly the ability to be PIC on any vessel.

Always keep in mind probably 3/4 of the crew on board the ferry have the legal license to be the captain, but only one had the trust of the insurance company and operator to do so.

The best way I can visualize this accident is to think of an intersection. East-west lanes have no sign, and north-south has a stop sign. The ferry is like an 18 wheeler hauling toxic waste that failed to come to a complete stop and justrolled they the intersection. While the MY is like a car with a woman looking in the mirror putting on her makeup.

Yes the woman is at fault, because if she was paying attention she would have seen the truck pulling out and been able to slam on the brakes and maybe swerved to avoid the collision. But her failure to do so in no way excuses the truck driver from failing to stop at a stop sign.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

I was at a local boat yard today......Nap Time is almost finished being worked on. Middle'ish part of boat is most damaged. "Buckled" up per say like an accordion.....been seeing the boat their for a few months, just did not realize what boat it was. Its not damaged that bad, but middle part took most of the damage! In the mean time, he was reamed in that he was taking a poop with out someone watching. Along with his insurance is dropped as soon as the boat hits the water. As he was is living aboard, paying non live aboard rate, but wanting a motel room while boat is getting fixed. Not part of a non live aboard policy......Mr Nap Time is milking this for what he can.....but will be paying in more ways than one at the end. 
Ferry captain was also given a ration for not applying the brakes sooner. Yes he did what he was supposed to up to about 30-60 seconds before collision, is when he should have hit reverse etc sooner than he did......

Like a lot of maritime issues, both parties get hit for what is THEIR fault vs auto etc, blaming one person, even if both are to blame! did not hear if the captain was fired, etc. 

Marty


----------

