There was a collision on our lake this summer between two jet skis. Not fatal, but one girl nearly lost her leg. As busy as the lake gets in summer, and all the yahoos that have boats, I'm surprised it isn't more common. None have ever heard of seamanship or Rules of the Road. You especially have to watch our for those pulling tubes, as they are whipping back and forth trying to throw off the rider and seldom watch where they are going.
Collision today
- Thread starter DAVA390
- Start date
That was my first thought. Then I read everything they posted. Since the head boat hit from the starboard side, the sailboat would have been the give way vessel if the sailboat had his motor running & was therefore considered to be a motor vessel at the time. That was the only valid "if" that I saw. Even if he was motoring, the J-boat may have been constrained by draft (6.5'), which would also make the J-boat stand on, even under motor.
Even if the sailboat was judged to be the give way vessel by virtue of some very narrow set of details, the head boat captain is probably still going to get nailed to a cross for failing to keep a proper lookout (while doing 30 knots).
Geeze, I see radar on the head boat too. I'm pretty sure that if radar is installed, it is required to be in use while the vessel is underway. If the captain only used to to find birds while fishing & had it off during the trip home, that is going to be another problem for him.
If your J105 boat had just been t boned, and you had a fishing boat propped up in you with your boom broken, would you turn your auxiliary on to give you some charging assistance and manouvability? Notwithstanding that, who said their engine was on? The picture doesn't say engine on to me.
jssailem
SBO Weather and Forecasting Forum Jim & John
- Oct 22, 2014
- 22,329
Reading between the lines of Winch's account, nobody on the power boat seemed to be paying any attention, including the Captain. If he was as dazed as Winch says, I'd say it's a good bet that he was as shocked as his passengers that he never saw the boat.
It isn't clear if the sailboat captain took evasive action. I've never had a fast moving power boat aimed directly for my side at close range, so I really don't know how feasible it is to get out of the way. The first article says they tried to get attention on the radio, so they must have seen him coming for some distance. For all we know, the sailboat might have been doing something else (aside from calling on the radio) to avoid the hit, but wasn't able to succeed.
A baseball player usually tries to get out of the way of a pitch coming right at his shoulder, but that doesn't always prevent him from getting hit.
It isn't clear if the sailboat captain took evasive action. I've never had a fast moving power boat aimed directly for my side at close range, so I really don't know how feasible it is to get out of the way. The first article says they tried to get attention on the radio, so they must have seen him coming for some distance. For all we know, the sailboat might have been doing something else (aside from calling on the radio) to avoid the hit, but wasn't able to succeed.
A baseball player usually tries to get out of the way of a pitch coming right at his shoulder, but that doesn't always prevent him from getting hit.
In this case, I don't think so! That's like blaming a mass shooting victim for being there.
I've had many cases of powerboats coming at me, fast. I try to size up what they are doing; hail them on 16; use the horn. If all of these fail, I turn towards them and hope for a glancing blow, rather than be T-boned, or run over from behind.
Many, many power boaters set the autopilot and get distracted by other things.
If you're on a sailboat and someone's coming at you at 30kt., you might as well be standing still. The powerboat is making 50' per second, you are moving 10' per second. Clearly, it's all up to the powerboat to avoid the collision.
Many, many power boaters set the autopilot and get distracted by other things.
If you're on a sailboat and someone's coming at you at 30kt., you might as well be standing still. The powerboat is making 50' per second, you are moving 10' per second. Clearly, it's all up to the powerboat to avoid the collision.
There are distinctions between USCG INLAND and INTERNATIONAL Rules
The phrase "appropriate to the situation". Seems applicable. At night may be viewed differently, even in clear weather. If you run over a row boat at night might be viewed differently than a nice sunny afternoon.
Anyway, the USCG will take the preponderance of evidence and make a finding. Any bets how that will go? I think the J105 will likely have a lot more to be thankful about, than failure to get out of the way. Of course, if the captain of the sailboat testifies, " I saw him coming and was worried he might hit me; but I figured I had the right of way.....", then things might get more dicey.
Excerpt from USCG Inland rules:
–INLAND– Steering and Sailing Rules RULE 8 Action to Avoid Collision (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship. (b) Any alteration of course or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course or speed should be avoided. (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 tim....
However interesting that reply may be, it has nothing to do with the question I asked. The poster said "if radar is installed, it is required to be in use while the vessel is underway." I asked "is that really so?"
I don't think it is so that if radar is installed it must be used while underway. But in case I'm wrong, I'd like to know!
Use of radar was not relevant to the charter fishing boat’s ability to identify and avoid the sailboat.
Yeah, no. There is no requirement that radar must be on. Access to working radar only eliminates the weak moan by the boat’s captain that he didn’t see the vessel he hits. In this case it was a clear day with miles of visibility. You don’t need radar in that situation to be a competent operator.
Radar? JViss, and others.
My reading of the distinction between the Inland and International is that the language on radar is different.
The USCG "answers t o frequently asked questions states:
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_11
" 11. 33 CFR 164.35), however, Rule 7 states that proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational. In other words, whoever has one must use it. The Navigation Rules are not meant to discourage the use of any device, rather they expect prudent mariners to avail themselves of all available means appropriate...as to make full appraisal of the situation (Rule 5), e.g. the use of radar. At issue is whether the use of radar is appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and that is a determination made by the Master; and, ultimately decided by a trier of fact."
"Should you be in a collision how would a judge/jury rule on your contention that the use of radar was impracticable (due to electrical drain, crew shortages, etc.)? Also, if a collision does occur, then there was obviously a risk of collision beforehand. Could the determination of that risk have been made sooner with the use of radar? It is difficult to answer such questions because the circumstances of each case are different."
"More importantly, remember that Rule 7 specifies that assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information."
P.S. I don't think the issue of radar will be relevant to the case of Levitation v. Hunter, or the USCG 's hearing examiner or ALJ. Fortunately it won't be a personal injury lawsuit or a manslaughter case.
My reading of the distinction between the Inland and International is that the language on radar is different.
The USCG "answers t o frequently asked questions states:
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_11
" 11. 33 CFR 164.35), however, Rule 7 states that proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational. In other words, whoever has one must use it. The Navigation Rules are not meant to discourage the use of any device, rather they expect prudent mariners to avail themselves of all available means appropriate...as to make full appraisal of the situation (Rule 5), e.g. the use of radar. At issue is whether the use of radar is appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and that is a determination made by the Master; and, ultimately decided by a trier of fact."
"Should you be in a collision how would a judge/jury rule on your contention that the use of radar was impracticable (due to electrical drain, crew shortages, etc.)? Also, if a collision does occur, then there was obviously a risk of collision beforehand. Could the determination of that risk have been made sooner with the use of radar? It is difficult to answer such questions because the circumstances of each case are different."
"More importantly, remember that Rule 7 specifies that assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information."
P.S. I don't think the issue of radar will be relevant to the case of Levitation v. Hunter, or the USCG 's hearing examiner or ALJ. Fortunately it won't be a personal injury lawsuit or a manslaughter case.
Last edited:
I just found that. First, the word "radar" does not appear in rule 8. Rule 6 deals with Safe Speed, and mentions radar as "additionally" factors to be taken into account. Rule 7 states "every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists" and "proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, ...." It never says that if fitted it must be "on," that appears to be up to the master.
Surely, if visibility was an issue when that collision occurred, use of radar might be an issue. But given the unlimited visibility conditions and that the sailboat attempted to hail the powerboat, I don't think radar use will be an issue, except perhaps to throw the book at the powerboat captain.
Looks like the most relevant rule is 7.a and 7.b:
(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.
(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational,
including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and
radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.
I don't know if there are any rulings on the interpretation of the rule, but I'd say on a day with unlimited visibility use of radar isn't "appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions".
(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.
(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational,
including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and
radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.
I don't know if there are any rulings on the interpretation of the rule, but I'd say on a day with unlimited visibility use of radar isn't "appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions".
Can you supply a reference to the rule that states this? Could be different for a paid passenger gig and a recreational vessel, no?