Navigation Channel Markers

[JimInPB]

OK, I'll try this one more time.
Recreational fishing status gives that vessel zero priorities on the water. It is not open to interpretation, assumptions or any other questions. If you don't believe me call the coast guard.
A downrigger is operated from the stern quarter of a vessel; it just won't work anywhere else. If you'd ever fished with one you would know this. Downrigger fishing is very slow, as I mentioned. If a boat has two (or more) downriggers working it may not be able to turn radically, but it can stop at any time, or just pull up the riggers; many are electric and come up with the flick of a switch, automatically fairly quickly. Furthermore, as downriggers are down there, one would not often fish with them in skinny or congested waters, so most likely any encounter would happen in deeper, open water where the recreational fishing vessel would still be the burdened vessel.
I have operated sportfishing vessels in SE Alaska, Tutukaka, NZ, SF Bay area and offshore, Cairns, Australia and Florida, both coasts and the Keys, just to name a few of the places, professionally. It would be pretty damn irresponsible for me to be operating any of these vessels, especially with passengers aboard, without knowing the legalities of the job. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
I have had only one profession over the last 5 decades and am not a retired stockbroker or lawyer who decided to become a Caribbean charter boat skipper later in life. I'm not guessing or supposing when I say that recreational fishing vessels have no more priority on the water than any other comparable motor vessel; that is how it is.
That's it. I have no more to say and I'm tired of repeating myself.

Well, I guess you didn't read my whole post. Probably about 3/4 of the way down, I agreed with you that the stand on status was not because of the fishing status of the vessel in the cases that I cited. It was for another reason that I listed. Lets cross that one off the list.

You may find it surprising that I actually do know how to use a downrigger. I have one hanging off of one of my boats right now. Two ways that I have seen them rigged, that are not the standard configuration, are as follows - I have seen one rigged off of a pilot house & I have seen 4 rigged off of a single boat, with 2 in the stern corners & 2 at midship. The midship riggers were run deeper & with heavier weights to cover a greater section of the column.

Thank you for the insight that you provided.

Sorry to have tired your fingers with so much repetitive typing.

Have a good night,
Jim

 

[Bill Roosa]

I'm of the opinion that I should try and avoid all potential collision situations by keeping a look out and adjusting course early (and in such a fashion as to make my intentions clear to the other boat). I've always considered the "well, I have stand on status and he must give way" attitude to be unhelpful to all concerned. If you see a boat is CBCD make a small adjustment in your course or speed as early as possible to change that situation and avoid them.

 

[justsomeguy]

Bang-head

Ayup.

 

[BobbyFunn]

Rule 7 - Risk of Collision

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar [edit] forum information.

 

[pateco]

I think this is what all of us are worried about.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=756151404588612

 

[Chris Patterson]

Dayum!

 

[justsomeguy]

Amazing.

 

[uncledom]

OMG! That is a bad day. Hopefully they were all ok and the idiot was summarily shot.

 

[Roland5048]

OMG! That is a bad day. Hopefully they were all ok and the idiot was summarily shot.

Keel hauled would be more appropriate.

 

[Hayden Watson]

I heard on the news that no one was injured and that the Yachty was on his cell phone.

 

[MitchM]

Looks like that is rule 9c.

A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.

On the flip side of that. Fwc says any and all public navigable waters are legal for fishing.

fishing while being stopped dead w/o engine in a fair way (which is a public navigable water way) is not legal. our U S C G on lake erie shoo them out of the fair ways all the time.

 

[JimInPB]

I think this is what all of us are worried about.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=756151404588612

Obviously Stand On.

(stand on the bow & jump quickly)

 

[SFS]

Can't help but wonder what 5 short blasts on the (hopefully readily at hand) air-powered horn might have done at 200 yards range. He was moving fast, though, so all bets are off. I'll second the vote for keel hauling.

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

My worst nightmare is the distracted powerboater on autopilot.... Or going too fast in fog, thinking he can pick up everything on radar.

 

[Hayden Watson]

I think this is what all of us are worried about.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=756151404588612

So who is "stand on" and who is "give way" and why?

 

[dlochner]

So who is "stand on" and who is "give way" and why?

There is not enough info in the video to make that determination, however, it appears that the power boat was not maintaining a proper watch and did not take action to avoid a collision. Those are 2 critical requirements in ColRegs.

 

[Will Gilmore]

The Power boat was stand on because it was obviously unmanned.
However, due to the powerboat's speed, the fishing boat was restricted in maneuverability.

I would say the right of way is not as big an issue as the powerboat commander's failure to maintain control of his vessel.
He became a hazard to navigation as well as a danger to others.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

So who is "stand on" and who is "give way" and why?

A vessel being overtaken is the stand-on vessel. A vessel who runs down another stationary vessel is also at fault, especially if the vessel underway is not a "burdened" vessel (e.g. unable to stop and/or restricted in ability to maneuver due to size/draft/narrow channel etc.)
So, if these guys were fishing in a narrow ship channel and they don't move out of the way of a 500 ft. container ship they'd be at fault. If they were run down by a maneuverable pleasure boat that could reasonably be expected to have the ability to avoid them, they would not. The small fishing boat is not "restricted in ability to maneuver" in that situation.
OTOH, if they had broken down and were unable to move, and had called a Pan-Pan before getting run down by a large ship, then I'm not sure how a court would rule. Or, what if they hadn't called a Pan-Pan? Probably, either way more factors would need to be considered and it would be a complicated case.

 

[Captain Larry-DH]

The Power boat was stand on because it was obviously unmanned.
However, due to the powerboat's speed, the fishing boat was restricted in maneuverability.

snip

-Will (Dragonfly)

I disagree with both conclusions:
Power boat underway was not the stand-on, and we don't know if it was unmanned. He's 100% at fault because: 1) failure to keep proper lookout, 2) had he seen the stationary fishing boat he would have had adequate time/maneuverability/room to avoid running down the other.
I feel badly for everyone involved. Not just the injured parties, but also the dumb-ass who wasn't keeping watch and probably never intended to do any harm to anyone (and now he's guilty and going to lose a big lawsuit, too).

 

[Stu Jackson]

I would be disheartened to have some of the respondents on a jury. Is there anything in the video that indicates that the small boat was in a channel? Is the fast moving powerboat a 500 foot containership? Ws the powerboat unmanned? The article said no, there were two folks on board: the skipper sitting down and his son or son-in-law IIRC - somebody else at least. If not, why bring these things up at all?