Thanks, @Scott T-Bird , no intention to offend at all, I enjoy a good discussion and respect your view. I always learn something here.Fair enough!
Collision today
- Thread starter DAVA390
- Start date
This thread has provided a substantial amount of information for reflection.
It reminded me of a situation I faced about two weeks ago crossing Ambrose Channel. Had I not changed course, I would have been in a similar but gravely different position with a very large container ship heading inbound to NY Harbor at about 18 kts.
We had a solid 10 minutes to prepare and admittedly at first, had it not been for my AIS blinking red, I would not have thought we were on a collision course. At about 7 min out, I radioed the captain of the ship and indicated I planned to pass them to their stern. They thanked me and we proceeded without incident.
Technically while I was under both sail and motor, I would have appeared to be under sail and the stand-on vessel to the container ship. However common sense prevailed long before collision. Had the ship not radioed me back (which happens frequently in the Ambrose Channel) or had my motor not been running I still would have ensured the following events to have occurred at about 5 minutes out: (1) start engine, (2) make clear turn to starboard to ensure my bow was pointed at the stern of the oncoming ship (or perhaps several degrees beyond the stern).
Maybe its me but I think we all make too much out of the sail vs. power portion of this issue. We all have a first duty to avoid collision.
I understand that 30 kts is different than 18 kts and I also understand the sailboat probably did not have their engine on. However I am really struggling with the fact that (1) the captain of the fishing vessel missed two huge sails and (2) that the helmsmen of the sailboat did not think to start the engine and point to the stern of the powerboat ensuring there would be no collision.
Thank god nobody was seriously hurt.
Not being a ColRegs expert, I'm curious whether the steps I took in Ambrose would be considered consistent with the rules had the vessel not called me back to confirm our crossing plan?
PS: To the dude who brought New Jersey into this … you betta watch it pal … you messin with the wrong State!!
It reminded me of a situation I faced about two weeks ago crossing Ambrose Channel. Had I not changed course, I would have been in a similar but gravely different position with a very large container ship heading inbound to NY Harbor at about 18 kts.
We had a solid 10 minutes to prepare and admittedly at first, had it not been for my AIS blinking red, I would not have thought we were on a collision course. At about 7 min out, I radioed the captain of the ship and indicated I planned to pass them to their stern. They thanked me and we proceeded without incident.
Technically while I was under both sail and motor, I would have appeared to be under sail and the stand-on vessel to the container ship. However common sense prevailed long before collision. Had the ship not radioed me back (which happens frequently in the Ambrose Channel) or had my motor not been running I still would have ensured the following events to have occurred at about 5 minutes out: (1) start engine, (2) make clear turn to starboard to ensure my bow was pointed at the stern of the oncoming ship (or perhaps several degrees beyond the stern).
Maybe its me but I think we all make too much out of the sail vs. power portion of this issue. We all have a first duty to avoid collision.
I understand that 30 kts is different than 18 kts and I also understand the sailboat probably did not have their engine on. However I am really struggling with the fact that (1) the captain of the fishing vessel missed two huge sails and (2) that the helmsmen of the sailboat did not think to start the engine and point to the stern of the powerboat ensuring there would be no collision.
Thank god nobody was seriously hurt.
Not being a ColRegs expert, I'm curious whether the steps I took in Ambrose would be considered consistent with the rules had the vessel not called me back to confirm our crossing plan?
PS: To the dude who brought New Jersey into this … you betta watch it pal … you messin with the wrong State!!
I think you did the right thing, turning to starboard; I take it you would have collided your starboard bow to his port bow? I also assume your change of course was significant, such that it was clear what you intended. Good job!
Technically speaking, my starboard bow would have been decimated by his port bulb (along with my starboard amidships, starboard stern … yadda yadda … but yes, my turn was between 50-70 degrees to starboard and I confirmed that his stern was off my port bow at all times thus ensuring there was no way we could collide. In addition, its good measure not to get too close due to the suction effect off those big boys' sterns. By running my engine I temporarily overpowered my sails (we had about 4-5 kts of wind) and while ugly sailing it was safe (especially with confirmation from the bridge of the container ship).
This thread won't die. So, in the Sprit...For you budding experts: THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PennsylvaniaRule.aspx
Pennsylvania Rule Definition:
An rule of maritime law that if a ship is in some violation of a navigation statute at the time of a collision, she is presumed to be at fault.
The rule of maritime law and liability was first stated and derived its name from the 1873 United States Supreme Court case, The Pennsylvania, in which the court wrote:
"But when ... a ship at the time of collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, it is no more than a reasonable presumption that the fault, if not the sole cause, was at least a contributory cause of the disaster. In such a case the burden rests upon the ship of showing not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been. Such a rule is necessary to enforce obedience to the mandate of the statute..."
In Dover Barge, Justice Chin offered this summary of the law:
"The Pennsylvania Rule, in other words, shifts to defendants the burden of disproving causation.
"The Pennsylvania Rule originally applied only to cases involving collisions between ships, but has been extended to apply to any statutory violator who is a party to a maritime accident. Because the Pennsylvania Rule places a heavy burden on defendants, it is limited to the violation of a statute intended to prevent the catastrophe which actually transpired. The Pennsylvania Rule will not create a presumption that the violation caused an injury unless common sense or the realities of admiralty prompt that conclusion.
"Three elements must exist for the Pennsylvania Rule to apply: (1) proof by a preponderance of the evidence of a violation of a statute or regulation that imposes a mandatory duty; (2) the statute or regulation must involve marine safety or navigation; and (3) the injury suffered must be of a nature that the statute or regulation was intended to prevent.
"Failure to post a look-out when the conditions require one has been found to warrant invocation of the Pennsylvania Rule."
The presumption is rebuttable. In Wills v. Amerada Hess, Justice Sotomayor did not apply the Pennsylvania Rule because it could not agree with the suggestion that the ship's failure to hang cautionary lights, even though required by law, was the cause of the collision, adding:
"By shifting the burden of proof to establish causation, the Pennsylvania Rule creates a drastic and unusual presumption - albeit a rebuttable one - against the shipowner who has violated his or her legal duties. Nevertheless, such a presumption is appropriate in cases where, in light of wide experience in maritime navigation, the logical probability is that the fault of the ship is the cause of the disaster.
"Collision cases, such as the case that gave the Rule its moniker, most clearly illustrate this principle. Because a collision is rare in which there is not at least some arguable reason for regarding both vessels at fault, it is logical to attribute fault to a ship that at the time of a collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions. Thus, under the Rule, proof that a maritime safety rule was violated creates a presumption that the violation led to the collision, such that the complaining party is relieved of its obligation to show causation, unless the derelict shipowner can prove that the violation was not the cause of the collision....
"[A]pplication of the Pennsylvania Rule has not been limited to cases involving collisions (and has been applied) in the context of allision (and) in the context of ship stranding.
"Nevertheless, we have been cautious not to extend the Rule's application in ways that would unmoor it from its animating principles."
In Evergreen, Justice Hamilton wrote:
"There is no dispute that the Pennsylvania Rule equally applies to allisions such as occurred in this case. Moreover, although the rule speaks of a statutory violation, it is equally applicable to violations of federal regulations. Notably, the Pennsylvania Rule does not establish fault; rather, it shifts the burden of proof on the element of causation to the party who violated the statutory rule or regulation at issue to prove that such violation could not reasonably be held to have been the cause of the collision or allision."
REFERENCES:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PennsylvaniaRule.aspx
Pennsylvania Rule Definition:
An rule of maritime law that if a ship is in some violation of a navigation statute at the time of a collision, she is presumed to be at fault.
The rule of maritime law and liability was first stated and derived its name from the 1873 United States Supreme Court case, The Pennsylvania, in which the court wrote:
"But when ... a ship at the time of collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, it is no more than a reasonable presumption that the fault, if not the sole cause, was at least a contributory cause of the disaster. In such a case the burden rests upon the ship of showing not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been. Such a rule is necessary to enforce obedience to the mandate of the statute..."
In Dover Barge, Justice Chin offered this summary of the law:
"The Pennsylvania Rule, in other words, shifts to defendants the burden of disproving causation.
"The Pennsylvania Rule originally applied only to cases involving collisions between ships, but has been extended to apply to any statutory violator who is a party to a maritime accident. Because the Pennsylvania Rule places a heavy burden on defendants, it is limited to the violation of a statute intended to prevent the catastrophe which actually transpired. The Pennsylvania Rule will not create a presumption that the violation caused an injury unless common sense or the realities of admiralty prompt that conclusion.
"Three elements must exist for the Pennsylvania Rule to apply: (1) proof by a preponderance of the evidence of a violation of a statute or regulation that imposes a mandatory duty; (2) the statute or regulation must involve marine safety or navigation; and (3) the injury suffered must be of a nature that the statute or regulation was intended to prevent.
"Failure to post a look-out when the conditions require one has been found to warrant invocation of the Pennsylvania Rule."
The presumption is rebuttable. In Wills v. Amerada Hess, Justice Sotomayor did not apply the Pennsylvania Rule because it could not agree with the suggestion that the ship's failure to hang cautionary lights, even though required by law, was the cause of the collision, adding:
"By shifting the burden of proof to establish causation, the Pennsylvania Rule creates a drastic and unusual presumption - albeit a rebuttable one - against the shipowner who has violated his or her legal duties. Nevertheless, such a presumption is appropriate in cases where, in light of wide experience in maritime navigation, the logical probability is that the fault of the ship is the cause of the disaster.
"Collision cases, such as the case that gave the Rule its moniker, most clearly illustrate this principle. Because a collision is rare in which there is not at least some arguable reason for regarding both vessels at fault, it is logical to attribute fault to a ship that at the time of a collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions. Thus, under the Rule, proof that a maritime safety rule was violated creates a presumption that the violation led to the collision, such that the complaining party is relieved of its obligation to show causation, unless the derelict shipowner can prove that the violation was not the cause of the collision....
"[A]pplication of the Pennsylvania Rule has not been limited to cases involving collisions (and has been applied) in the context of allision (and) in the context of ship stranding.
"Nevertheless, we have been cautious not to extend the Rule's application in ways that would unmoor it from its animating principles."
In Evergreen, Justice Hamilton wrote:
"There is no dispute that the Pennsylvania Rule equally applies to allisions such as occurred in this case. Moreover, although the rule speaks of a statutory violation, it is equally applicable to violations of federal regulations. Notably, the Pennsylvania Rule does not establish fault; rather, it shifts the burden of proof on the element of causation to the party who violated the statutory rule or regulation at issue to prove that such violation could not reasonably be held to have been the cause of the collision or allision."
REFERENCES:
- Dover Barge Company v. Tug "Crow", 642 F. Supp. 2d 266 (United States District Court, New York, 2009)
- Evergreen Intern., SA v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 531 F. 3d 302 (United States Court of Appeals, 2008)
- The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1873)
- Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32 (United States Court of Appeals, 2004)
Further, on the Apportionment of Damages in Maritime Law (US) - "Applying The Rule of Reliable Transfer"
[JViss, and other, look at actions taken in extremis on page 1244-1245. P.S. By the way, turning a J105 into a powerboat coming at you at 30 knots is nice to discuss in theory... :^)))]
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwi_gJbA-oHdAhWRmlkKHd7sCEUQFjACegQICBAC&url=http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2306&context=wlulr&usg=AOvVaw0qqVI2SFH33SSY_yRcPglp&httpsredir=1&article=2306&context=wlulr
IF YOU THINK THIS SCHOLARLY ARTICLE MAKES THINGS CLEAR...!!!
[JViss, and other, look at actions taken in extremis on page 1244-1245. P.S. By the way, turning a J105 into a powerboat coming at you at 30 knots is nice to discuss in theory... :^)))]
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwi_gJbA-oHdAhWRmlkKHd7sCEUQFjACegQICBAC&url=http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2306&context=wlulr&usg=AOvVaw0qqVI2SFH33SSY_yRcPglp&httpsredir=1&article=2306&context=wlulr
IF YOU THINK THIS SCHOLARLY ARTICLE MAKES THINGS CLEAR...!!!
Last edited:
The speed difference is one factor, but also consider that (1) you can see a container ship many more miles before a small fishing boat, giving you much more time to react, and (2) there are comparatively few container ships around, and they usually don't change course for recreational boats, whereas on a day of sailing I might cross a few dozen boats that size, most of which are just "noise" that turn a few hundred feet away. Not to say that they should be ignored, but they don't necessarily inspire the same reaction as the container ships.
Reading these items makes me wonder how anyone can predict much about outcomes EVEN if you had video recordings with sound of an collision.
Big ship in a channel. You have to stay out of his way, he is restricted in his ability to maneuver and you aren't. In this case you were the burdened vessel.
Maybe its just me or maybe I've just been lucky … but I sail in Lower NY Bay and Sandy Hook Bay … arguably one of the most congested sailing areas in the country. The key is always in the ignition, SLOW is always running through my mind (Starboard, Leeward, Overtaken, Whoa (avoid collision at all costs)). I grew up as a power boater and in between sailboats had a 41 foot Motor Yacht. The Motor Yacht lost its steering as we entered Newport Harbor and I almost t-boned a sailboat had it not been for my slamming both engines into hard reverse. So maybe its just that I've been on all sides of this issue at one time or another. That said, I routinely have to deal with power boats coming at me in congested waters and my sense of vulnerability is such that perhaps I may be a bit quicker to switch from "Stand On" to "Get the hell out of the way safely". I was taught to yield and go behind faster/bigger boats early on …
Don't get me wrong … I'm not blaming the Sailboat … clearly the powerboat in this example was in the wrong … but there was at least 45-90 seconds where the sailboat's helmsperson made critical decisions and as I've run through this scenario in my mind my left hand goes to my key, I pull the wheel hard to the right, the throttle goes full to swing the stern and get the nose on the stern of the powerboat as fast as I can. Since all boats under power turn from the stern, this would have minimal impact on forward momentum.
Here is what I'm not doing if I'm trying to hail a powerboat coming straight at me at 30 kts … I'm not tacking and I'm not sailing if I only have 4kts-5kts of wind … cuz to do that is the equivalent of lying down in the middle of the Garden State Parkway and wondering why the damn cars keep running over me.
Monterey,
I like the way you think. I don't entirely agree, there was crew onboard and actions can be taken while trying to hail, however, by the time you've surmised the powerboat doesn't see you and isn't going to give way, How much effective action do you think can be taken? When you see a powerboat cruising on a plane at about a mile out heading towards you, when do you get concerned that he isn't going to give way? He's two to three minutes out with plenty of seaway. Modern GPS navigation means he is not concerned with maintaining his plotted navigation heading to reach his destination. He can take action any time. It would be reasonable to assume he will not feel the need to change his coarse so early. I don't know why he wouldn't adjust his coarse as soon as he could tell he might possibly come close, but he has all the time and room to maneuver until he doesn't. Whether the sailboat had her engine on or not, he couldn't know, just like the sailboat captain can't imagine the powerboat captain doesn't know there is a sailboat dead ahead on a clear calm day in a large open bay. At what point, not in retrospect, but in real practice, should a stand-on vessel, maneuver to avoid collision in circumstances similar to this one?
-Will (Dragonfly)
At what point, not in retrospect, but in real practice, should a stand-on vessel, maneuver to avoid collision in circumstances similar to this one?
The excellent question that we all have to answer in such situations.
IF you know that the powerboat is not going to change course, or isn't changing course, then the answer for me (in retrospect) would be BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT SO THAT WHATEVER ACTION YOU TAKE WILL ALLOW YOU TO AVOID A COLLISION. The key here (in retrospect) is that you have believe that the idiot coming at you won't adjust course. If you're being prudent (and in retrospect, after a collision actually occurred), then that would be YOU TURN BEFORE YOUR LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR UNILATERAL ABILITY TO AVOID COLLISION.
Now if the other idiot turns into you, LET NO GOOD DEED GO UNPUNISHED (to some extent). That's why the Rules of the Road say you turn so that you have have a port-to-port crossing (unless you clearly get out the way better with a starboard to starboard crossing).
The Rules of the Road also call for horn alerts, remember: one or two toots, responded to by one-, two-, or three- toots. There is "sound collision" of four or five blasts of the horn. (How many of us actually have a horn at the helm and use it? Whether a powerboat would hear it is another question in the case of person powered little horn. But those are "Rules of the Road" too...)
So the answer, to Will's very good question is: You act before you need to depend on the other guy to avoid a collision, if you can.
The excellent question that we all have to answer in such situations.
IF you know that the powerboat is not going to change course, or isn't changing course, then the answer for me (in retrospect) would be BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT SO THAT WHATEVER ACTION YOU TAKE WILL ALLOW YOU TO AVOID A COLLISION. The key here (in retrospect) is that you have believe that the idiot coming at you won't adjust course. If you're being prudent (and in retrospect, after a collision actually occurred), then that would be YOU TURN BEFORE YOUR LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR UNILATERAL ABILITY TO AVOID COLLISION.
Now if the other idiot turns into you, LET NO GOOD DEED GO UNPUNISHED (to some extent). That's why the Rules of the Road say you turn so that you have have a port-to-port crossing (unless you clearly get out the way better with a starboard to starboard crossing).
The Rules of the Road also call for horn alerts, remember: one or two toots, responded to by one-, two-, or three- toots. There is "sound collision" of four or five blasts of the horn. (How many of us actually have a horn at the helm and use it? Whether a powerboat would hear it is another question in the case of person powered little horn. But those are "Rules of the Road" too...)
So the answer, to Will's very good question is: You act before you need to depend on the other guy to avoid a collision, if you can.
At about a mile I'm really watching the guy. At 3/4 mile I hail him on 16. Main engine start. At 1/2 mile I sound the collision horn signal and begin evasive maneuvers ( "at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle"); I prefer to get my pointy end pointed more towards him, hoping for a glancing blow if we hit, and to avoid him climbing into my cockpit. If I can turn 180º and run from his projected path I will.
I have done this several times, by the way. The strong assumption is that the powerboat is on autopilot and the skipper is just not watching. And while we hope that if he wakes up he will turn to starboard, I've had guys wake up and turn to port, towards me!
Last edited:
Two Scenarios,
(1) Crossing at 90 degree angles (the way this mess apparently ended up): Assuming that the power boat is traveling at 30 knots he is 2 minutes out at 1 NM, 1 minute out at .5 NM, and .25 NM out at 30 seconds … I start a gentle turn to starboard (maybe 10 degrees) at 2 minutes out, bring it harder at 1 minute out (maybe 20-30 degrees), and sharp to his stern at 30 seconds … since we are in a crossing situation, even at 2 minutes out its a fairly gentle turn that will bring me behind him. More drastic action is reserved in case he does turn to port and close the angle. Mindset … treat him like a lighthouse in the proverbial battleship v. lighthouse joke or for a better analogy treat him like one of the big boys who can't adjust course due to navigational restrictions.
(2) Approaching head on (the way this mess may have started): At 1NM turn 10 degrees to starboard to show my port quarter … At .5NM turn 20 degrees to starboard, At .25 turn 60 degrees to starboard. Note that if this is the case there is no way for the powerboat to collide with my starboard side and drastic action is reserved if he continually keeps turning to close the angle.
One of the epiphanies that I had in my normal response is that technically I am not in compliance with ColRegs if I break the "Stand On" too soon, which is why I was curious about the Ambrose Channel example earlier. The more I've thought about it, if the bias, even in "Stand On" is to increase the CPA and TCPA by seeking to pass to the stern of the vessel in a crossing or accentuate the port to port meeting intent it seems to meet the reasonableness test.
When I first saw the picture it was an absolute slam dunk for me that the powerboat was in the wrong and I was shocked to see the comments on the power boat discussion group where the perception was otherwise. But now, having worked through the news reports, time, and vectors … I'm more inclined to think the court is going to find substantial fault on both sides (70-30 - 60/40 Power/Sail). If the sailboat did indeed tack 90 degrees to port in 4kt-5kts of wind to come directly in the path of the powerboat the sailboat skipper is going to have a bit of a rough go of it.
Of course the picture doesn't show whether there were any other navigational impediments (rocks, other boats, etc.) but it sounds like they were in open water from the accounts.