There was an interesting collision at my club recently, which went to protest and came out with a somewhat controversial decision. I believe it was the wrong decision, but would like to know what the experts in the fleet think.

Two boats are approaching each other on a collision course. Both are on starboard, one beating, and one on the run. The leeward one (on the beat) has rights, but realises the windward one is screaming down and has not seen him, so tacks onto port (too late) to try and avoid a collision. The windward boat has still not seen him, so hits him, removing the beating boats port gunwhale and putting a hole in the hull lower down.

In my opinion, the guy on the beat moved to avoid the collision so is still in the right. The other side of the argument is that the bloke tacked in the guy on the run’s water and by the time the collision happened was pretty much on port anyway so is therefore in the wrong. Personally, I don’t see what else the leeward (beating) boat could have done. He saw he wasn’t going to make it ahead, so had to try to avoid the collision. Bearing away wouldn’t have improved matters (in fact, it would have made things worse as it would have resulted in a proper t-boning collision rather than a glancing blow) and tacking was therefore the only option.

The guy on the run won the protest. I think it should have been the other way round. What’s the consensus?

PS. I know at least one of the parties regularly reads and posts on the forum, hence keeping it anonymous for the time being. This is out of interest on my part more than anything else, but should sort it out properly without finger pointing or loss of face and so on.

I would have thought the boat on the run was more at fault, not least because he wasn't watching where he was going, or the crew wasn't doing his job re: keeping a lookout for other boats.  But it is also up to the beating boat to hail the other in time, if he thinks the helm/crew hasn't seen him.  Pair of strong lungs is always good in these instances.

Basically, though, I think both are at fault, and both should have looked ahead to avoid the situation arising in the first place.

I don't think there is a rule in the 2005 - 2008 rule book that requires keeping a lookout for other boats, although it might be sensible and I think used to be in older rules, might be to facilitate single handed long distance racing.

I think the fact that beating boat tacked too late to avoid the collision would put you in a difficult position.

If beating boat hadn't finished their tack, they would have broken Rule 13 I think
13 WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats
until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11
and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same
time, the one on the other’s port side or the one astern shall keep clear.

Note specifically the tacking boat loses the Windward Leeward right (rule 10)

If the beating boat had completed the tack onto port the Rule 10 would have been broken
10 ON OPPOSITE TACKS
When boats are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a
starboard-tack boat.

In all circumstances I think the beating boat would have broken rule 14, as it would appear that the beating boat had time to assess that contact would occur and opportunity to tack earlier to avoid contact, the beating boat left it their action too late. They should have taken action earlier to avoid contact  and protested the running boat.
14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.
However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat
is not keeping clear or giving room, and

Keep clear: One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and when the boats are overlapped (as in this situation) on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat. We really need to know the facts found before we can come to a conclusion. From your description of the event the boat to windward failed to keep clear despite the actions of the leeward boat. We need more information. The dilemma is rule 16.1 When a right of way boat changes course she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.

p.s. Richard, there isn't a requirement for the Leeward boat to hail the Windward boat, although a good idea.

It would appear the Leeward boat has an obligation under Rule 14 as above to ultimately avoid the collision, this makes a degree of sense given the sail plans as the leeward boat would always have better visibility of the evolving situation than the windward.

It may not be a rules requirement but common sense suggests it's got to be a sensible move to do so.

I forgot 16.1, which means the Leeward boat was in trouble even starting the tack, let alone rom head to wind, as by turning in toward the approaching boat would have closed out all opportunity for the Windward boat.

It seems the only correct course of action for Leeward was not to get that close and yell protest.

Yes, thinking about it, tacking onto port brings you closer to the windward boat, not further away.  If he'd kept a better look out, perhaps bearing away sooner, he may have been able to stay on the same tack and pass beneath the windward boat.

Yes, it may well be that the Leward boat was not keeping a proper look out (e.g. looking forward for shifts) and maybe even put the port tack in without looking first?

Both boats failed to avoid a collision and both boats should be disqualified. The windward boat is the give way boat in the first place and should have kept clear but did not!!

Thanks for everyone's thoughts, but does anyone actually know the answer. In these situations in sailing there is a right answer and a wrong one, it's not down to who should have kept a better look out, and they were not both in the wrong. With respect, could some with a good working knowledge of the rules give a definative answer? Cheers.

The protest committee reviewed the facts had a good working knowledge of the rules and called in a rules expert to confirm their decision. So you don't trust them! I know you are not the Leeward boat as they understood the deliberation, so who are you and what the **** is your problem, get over it!

In my opinion, how long exactly was the boat on the beat on Port. Do you the Windward boat already planned to bear behind the starboard boat when the beating boat tacked onto port making avoidance impossible - you don't know do you! The simple fact of the matter is, if you are trying to avoid a collision you do not turn into the oncomming boat, you turn away, as Richard states - thats what International Coll Regs say, and that is what the outcome of the Racing Rules of Sailings convoluted set of rules.

So keep you opinions to your self unless they are based on some facts or better understanding of the rules that the Protest Committee.

p.s. 'in my opinion' remember at the point of impact the running Starboard boat was the Right of way boat, but was denied the time and opportunity to avoid the port boat by the action of the beating boat tacking. 

Have a look at the speed of the running boat (not involved) and think that we had a fully set spinnaker and was in one of the stronger gusts of the days so probably going a lot faster, recorded max at 30 knots, and ask yourself
1. would you have deliberately tried to sneak past the front of this if you were on the beat, or would you have got out the way early?
2. would you have decided to tack onto port right in front of this boat knowing you are having difficulty keeping the boat upright let alone tacking without stalling the boat?

Windward boat, if they'd carried on, you'd have hit them. They were attempting to avoid you. They failed to.

This is meant to be a reasoned, non-heated discussion. We should be able to get a sensible answer with explanations of 'why' and so on from one/some of the top guys. I happen to know that amongst the protest committee there was some confusion at the time and afterwards. Please don't get a bee under your bonnet about this, and don't be abusive. Me thinks he doth protest too much. (pardon the pun)

Why not just shout bloody Loud STARBOARD! The at least even if you tack you can protest them for not giving way.

EXACTLY!!!

Why not get a bee under my bonnet?

An acciodent occured at high speed that caused serious damange and fortunately no personal injury, the rate our shroud took the gunnel off it could have easily decapitated the crew if the had manage to get up to the hiking position, you present half the facts because you were not there, expecting people on the forum to give you an answer that they simply can't. 
The whole accident upset me greatly to the extent that I was mentally unable the complete the next race.

The simple fact is, some less experienced juniors made a very bad judgement call, whether they were in the right or wrong at the time, 1. putting them selves in that position 2. tacking.

I can get personal, because you know who I am by definition, but I don't know who you are or what your agenda is - put up or shut up.

p.s. and if you can't tell still does upset me!

I say a plague on both their houses for pushing things too far, sailing is fast becoming a contact sport and a lawyers benefit.

As I said in my first posting it all depends on the facts found. You can discuss until the cows come home but we need to know the 'facts found' to make a judgement. Even then it is open to debate. That is the beauty of the rules.

"First kill all the lawyers" so said Shakespear how prescient he was.

Just remember there is nothing in the rules about shouting otherwise it would discriminate against dumb sailors!!
 
And some people just ignore your repeated shouts even when you shout their boat name too - having been thumped on the head by a boom because a (non-Merlin) idiot on port refused to avoid our starboard boat and we had to crash tack, early enough in this case.

Others are just so incompetant they panic and do the wrong thing and in all cases more training would be appropriate - not the expensive sort, just a day at the club doing exercises such as speed up, slow down, tack/gybe on the whistle, mark roundings and rules talk.

Avoid collisions is the first rule because it is the most important yet there are few manners left in the sport, it seems to be just me.. me.. me...

Of course shouting doesn't always work, because some sailors are deaf.

I would cheekily add, your crash tack wasn't quiet early enough if you got hit on the head.

By and large, certainly in the Merlins most people seem very well mannered, although there are a few occasions where some think that bumping is 'all part of racing', but this is pretty rare.

Please be clear, the events above were nothing to do with racing manners but a straight forward accident, accidents occurs because of contributory 'errors' (simplified as
1. Windward boat not keeping a good enough watch for beating boats
2. Leeward's avoidance choice
and as stated accidents on the water, on the road or in the work place acn be reduced (but I guess never eliminated) by training and experience.

And eliminating risk....

"Here lies the body of Willian Jay
 Who died maintaining right of way;
 He was right, dead right as he sailed along
 But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong!"

Alan, it's Tim.

As I said from the beginning, I've brought this up as an example because I am not convinced you, in the windward boat, were in the right at the time of collision. I have no problem with being proven entirely wrong on this. As you know, we both do a fair bit of competitive sailing and I think this would be useful for future occasions. The RYA uses past examples of protests as teaching material in literature on their website so a case like this is not unreasonable. What I was after was someone at the top end of our fleet to explain the rules in simple terms. I believe Mike Calvert was regarded a good enough authority on the rules to do some adjudication in Salcombe week. There are plenty of others in a similar position.

This was never intended to be a personal debate, but you are kicking up a fuss that is likely to mean that there is no clarification on the matter. But perhaps that is the intention…

All I’d like to hear is what someone that actually knows which rules are relevant here has to say, rather than opinions, which can be muddled. I think I have given a reasonable account of the facts. Is there anything you’d like to add?

Tim,

I would suggest that in posting this incident on the forum it is difficult to disclose all the material facts and therefore essentially impossible for people to offer a balanced and neutral view.  It does however look like the situation has become somewhat enflamed.

Having had some experience of grief with people at club level I would recommend that you do the following.

1)  Square things with the bloke you had the prang with.  The only acceptable long term outcome for this (i.e. after the boats are fixed and the pride has mended itself) is that you and your mate can go out and race together then have a beer in the bar afterwards.  Just accept the comittees decision and live with it.

2)  Have a DISCREET chat with somebody (perhaps someone on the MROA comittee) when you see them and you can sit down round the table, draw diagrams and basically thrash it all out so that you feel that you really understand the decision.

This is a really bad medium for sorting out disagreements like this!

That's my 10 cents!

Jon

Jon,

I was not the other party, just a by stander! I used this as a case example, hence the original anonymity and it was after all just a question; I regard sailing as a good game with intricacies that can make interesting discussion. That’s all!

Cheers, Tim

Thanks Tim for identifying yourself. 
For the benefit of the Forum there was not grievance between the parties involved before or after the protest hearing which was more a formality due to serious damage and to understand what happened although not even impacting liability as that was prior discussed and agreed how the repairs would be funded by the parties. Given the gentlemanly conduct of the parties hence my grievance by an annoymous thrird party poster raising a dead issue.

The finding of the protest committee seemed logical to me, rule 16.1 I think, but for the benefit of the forum if people want to discuss why that may not have applied then I'm happy to hear the debate, preferably on a not personal level.

I did some maths on the train without a calculator, but I think despite maybe some inaccuracies in estimation, ignore the rules for the time being - assume an accident is predicted by the beating boat - why it is very dangerous to tack into a running boat,and the correct response is to bear away (infact that also applies to beating boats crossing on a collision course).

Assume running boat is at 10 knots and beating is at 4 knots, then assuming the beating boat allows 4 seconds to complete his tack, then the two boats are about 22 metres apart if on a tee bone course - that is a long way to judge speed and distance, but that is the point where the beating boat needs to make his decision. 

The timing below applies at slower speeds too, assuming the relative proportions are the same.

If tacking immediately, he will just miss the running boat, however if he delays his decision or misjudges by just 0.5 seconds he will hit the running boat at and impact speed of close to 14 knots.

If at the critical '4 seconds to impact point' he decides to bear away 20 degrees, he will increase the distance bewteen boats and hence delay the 'crossing' by approximately 1 second, which assuming no gain in speed the beating boat would be around 2.2 m further forward, so the impact would go from tee-bone to glancing behind the rudder, if infact the beating boat gained speed to 5 knots by bearing away the crossing point would be 3.2 meters further back i.e. the runnning boat would pass behind.

Even if the bear away was not enough to avoid the collision the collision impact speed would be reduced to 4 knots, and a harder bear away would reduce the risk and impact speed further and increase the time that running boat had to react.

So inconclusion, I am glad that the rule 16.1 seems to bear out the logic that you shouldn't do things that cause a problem even if you are right of way boat. I would be upset with the rules if they vindicated tacking into the path of a running boat as I think that would be making the sport more dangerous.

By the sounds of things the boys were further across your bow than I'd realised and I’m not sure we know enough about the where’s and when’s to know at which stage the tack becomes a bad idea, though I suspect it would be when the leeward boat’s bow crosses the windward boat's bow. 

The only bit that seems odd is that by trying to take evasive action, you can actually move yourself from having rights to the point where you’re in the wrong, but I suppose that’s the way it goes and as people have suggested previously, worrying about these things further in advance makes life a hell of a lot easier all round!

I think that there are a couple of issues at stake here,  Firstly it was windy and the sailing was on the river.  This means that all kinds of extra conditions are placed upon the running boat such as its proper course (which may be changing), the running by the lee which we all know is part of the fun and games of river sailing and that for the beating boat a couple of light chaps are likely to be reaching around a bit rather than a simple close hauled course.  This further doesn't take into account the fact that both boats may have been (legitimately) on different shifts at the same time.

I for one didn't see the incident in its entirity and am not really in a position to comment, however I do agree that it is an interesting incident for the rules geeks.  It may well be worth reading the call book to see if a similar incident has been described before, and if not then can I suggest the boat which lost the protest appeal to the RYA. There is no come back from that process (although he may indeed be reinstated at the cost of the winning boat), it costs around 10 pounds, and there would be a definitive answer for all the many times similar incidents happen on the river.

It's an interesting one and the answer is not clear-cut hence the posting and discussion.  The easy bits are that in the initial situation the running boat is windward boat and must keep clear of the beating boat.  The difficulty all hinges on the tack onto port.  If this tack was an attempted evasive manoevre just before impact then the running boat cannot have been keeping clear as there was a collision.  If there was a significant interval between the tack and the collision then one can infer that the windward boat now has rights and the now port-tack boat has now the obligation of keeping clear.  Nevertheless the running boat still has an obligation of avoiding a collision causing damage.  The conditions were not easy even for very experienced sailors that day and the boat that tacked was sailed by light juniors, albeit pretty experienced by the standards of their peers.  I would look at (in hindsight) the action of the running boat to see if there was at any time a change of course or speed to suggest that it was taking the appropriate action to keep clear of the starboard tack close-hauled boat.  If there was no such indication then the movements of the close-hauled boat in the couple of seconds prior to the collision are not in my view relevant.  The relative speeds are such that action needs to be taken by the running boat at least 4 boat-lengths away and this action needs to be clear to the right-of-way boat.  You can't alter course quickly on the run in those conditions without capsizing, but as the avoiding action is luffing up, not gybing or bearing away, it should be possible.  If the running boat had attempted to bear away slightly to avoid collision and then was thrown by the tack of the close-hauled boat and unable to suddenly change to go the other way, that's a different matter.  Alan knows if he saw the other boat in time and what he did to avoid collision.  If he feels bad about it then probably he didn't see it in time and didn't luff to avoid it.  Now that is just an accident - it happens, and no-one was injured, the gunwhale will be stuck back on.

For my money the key thing here is that in lively conditions "keep clear" is a long way AND allows for minor handling errors.  The last major pile-up I was nearly in was at the leeward mark at Salcombe in April when David Lee's lovely sycamore gunwhale was T-boned.  I somehow steered through the carnage completely unscathed but I have no idea how.  I think the boats should have been keeping a minimum of several feet between them and not trying for late overlaps when we were all planing in to a mark at over 10kts, but hey, it's competitive out there.

This situation happens quite often on the river, though not necessarily in a gale of wind.

I think the answer lies in the intent of the beating boat.  

The beating boat has right of way on starboard, if he/she is tacking to avoid a collision then she should be in the right.

Did the running boat make any attempt to avoid the collision?

Tim,

I don't think you really understood my maths, I need to clarify it, whish I could draw a diagram.

For them to hit me on my port and their port sides they would have to have been about 2 boat lengths below my bow and 5 boat lenghts ahead of me when they started their tack, which would explain why I didn't see a thing as they would be blanketed by the main/jib/spin.

Not across my bow, as if they were across my bow to any extent I would have immediately bore away and if I didn't miss them we would have collided starboard to starboard.

Interesting debate although the important issue here, albeit not bearing witness to the incident, was that no one was seriously hurt.

Irrespective of right or wrong doing, you can fix a boat!

We made no attempt to avoid the collision as the the first we 'conciously' saw the boat was when it hit our port side. To my comment 'where the hell did that come from'. I rounded up immediately to try and avoid further contact.

Did I subconciously see a starboard boat and assess it was going to pass me, hence not see it, or were we not keeping a good look out below, I'm not sure, but if I had clocked it sooner I would have avoided it sooner, that I am sure of.

Alan F it's clearly rattled you, these things do happen hope you can get over it for your own sake.

to :), what is the beating boat just tacked without looking, because they just got a massive header as hppens on the river, but after the event claim they were avoiding a collision. I'm not saying that is what happened, but there is no evidence that it didn't.

Do you  support the concept that a sail boat has the right to tack in front a a speed boat, power gives way to sail? I think the poem above summed that up.

):-  I am just amazed that people think the right thing to do is to steer into danger. It did rattle me, but what rattles me more is that no one seems to understand the principals.

But never mind. 

I'll get over it, because at least I'll get my own space on the water at Parkstone this week end as everyone avoids me knowing that even if I am the give way boat if the don't get out of my way .....

Alan, do you mind if I ask you a question about this?

Jon

Of course, go ahead

Were you aware of the leeward boat and were you on course to avoid it?  OK, it may have been close and the other boat may not have 

I've been in close squeaks before - I slipped through on port with about a foot to spare from a starboard tacker once.  The starboard tacker started screaming "Starboad Starboard" when I was all but through the gap and, had I not been in one of my more collected states of mind, might have done something silly like throw the tiller over or whatever.

The point is that whilst I was the the give way boat, as were you, I was perfectly in control of the situation, I'd made the correct judgement and all anybody needed to do was keep their nerve and everything was OK.

People need to use the rules not only to know how they should act in a given situation but also, in order to predict how other people will act.  If the boat you pranged was on Starboard and to leeward, he could only be expected to continue as such.  How were you to predict that he would put himself in the give way position?

All interested parties should read RYA appeal 1986/1 which decribes a situation very like that mentioned above. In that case the initial give way boat was disqualified apon appeal for not making its intentions apparent early enough.see also ISAF appeal case 99.
In addition ISAF appeal case 92 does not exonerate a give way boat if it is out of control

this sounds like an awesome pub debate! 

looks like the boys tried their best to aviod the situation with the mentality of " we aren't going to cross him sh*t lets tack!!!!" and unfortunatly the running boat didn't see the beating boat and didn't alter it's course thus leading to a collision. i would rule in the beating boats favour. 

look on the bright side alan you've never t-boned the fuel barge in salcomber with 3 sails up planing and nobody around you!!!  he he still makes me laugh thinking about that!

Jon,

didn't see them, didn't alter course, didn't do anything except sail fast - bang

Ben,

I agree with your theory if we were not going so fast. The basic maths I did before indicates that the would have at least been 70 feet away when they thought 'oh sh*t, lets tack, but I never saw them so I don't know, the distance involved alone makes me wonder what really happened, we are not talking about the bow of a boat half a boat lenght way as it would have been in light winds.

Alan,

Having read your earlier reply to me, I think I had originally understood where the beating boat was positioned relative to you after all, and from that point of view it would have been very tricky to see the leeward boat coming along. I also agree that if they'd seen you earlier and bearing in mind you were coming down fast and oblivious to them, bearing off well in advance would have avoided the crash. You would then have to have done turns though!

Something I did not realise was that there was some question as to whether it was a tack to avoid or a tack for a wind shift and obviously that is important (and actually could be the only relevant question here). Either way, from where they got hit it looks like the tack had been completed, so they were not actually approaching you. If it was a tack to avoid you they were not therefore hindering any efforts to keep clear. That is specifically what rule 16.1 is on about (and where the query came from). If it was a tack on a shift, then it is port and starboard and they were in the wrong.

Anyway, it appears that this is a very grey area and I know you’re not the sort of bloke who’d hit someone unless it was unavoidable, particularly in that sparkly new boat of yours!

Absolutely Tim, in a sparkley new boat or not, hitting people isn't fast and isn't clever, especially when you are third in a race and the other boat is a quarter of a mile behind.

I have great respect for the youngsters who did really well in hard conditions and hope they are not put off oe jot (I don't think they have been, much shaking of hands by a very grown up team occurred before the protest decision).

I think the 16.1 decision came from the evidence given by the leeward boat that they had started their tack but had not completed it, as stated before I don't know as I didn't see anything until the collision. But to be honest I can't remember the decision, was it 16.1 or something else?

If you are on port, running then you will be give way boat in most situation. GOLDEN RULE if you are in this situation 'keep yor eyes peeled.'

Was on starboard running, still need to keep ones eyes peeled for leeward boats!

Meant to say 'if you are on port or running' sorry for missing the 'or'.