Collision Avoidance in International Regulations

Collision Avoidance in International Regulations –
Refer to Blog  – http://www.maritimenz.com

Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Rule 22.15 – Bolton elaborates – “The avoiding of the crossing ahead only applies to a crossing where risk exists. It doesn’t apply at large distances before risk applies or where the compass bearing is changing appreciably. There is no obligation to keep course & speed for a vessel sighted at long range before risk begins. Risk is smaller or greater depending on the size or maneuverability & the rate of approach.
The entire Rule 22 does not mention at any point a particular stage. It’s all a matter of assessment. There’s no point at which these Regulations take effect.
Collision Regulations are about a component of good seamanship & that’s distinguished from sea manners which are customary & mandatory in vessel operation & navigational practices.
It’s what courteous mariners practice widely. It’s a matter of professional courtesy & qualities of good seamanship include forehandedness & prudence. Application of good manners could’ve adjusted the encounter to permit the vessels to pass under more favourable circumstances.
If accompanied by prudent seamanship practices, collision regulations allow for most physical conditions & special circumstances excuse conformance to rules.”
Judge Davis asks –“You’re saying that the situation that you found yourself in was one of special circumstances?”
Bolton confirms – “I say very definitely it has to be brought into the calculations because of the ferry changing to an irregular run. If it wasn’t for that, perhaps we would’ve had no problem whatsoever. So in crossing – ‘If the course which is reasonably to be attributed to either vessel if it would keep her clear of the other, the question therefore always turns on the reasonable inference to be drawn to a vessel’s future course from her position at a particular moment & this greatly depends on the nature of the locality where she is at the moment.’ ‘Situational ambiguity & being a marginal situation’ may not apply & ‘Does the approach represent a risk of collision?’ With vessels too far apart to pose any threat to one another, there’s no risk. Collision regulations permit a stand-on vessel to maneuver before the situation becomes extreme.
M Pigneguy in his pedantic stance of being educator of trainee watchman Phillip Sweetman failed to apply good seamanship or good manners – there was no courteous mariners practice, professional courtesy, forehandedness or prudence. There was certainly no attempt to adjust the encounter to permit Classique to pass under more favourable circumstances.
M Pigneguy seemed entirely devoted to manufacturing a close quarters which he would photograph & have Phillip Sweetman witness for the purpose of a prosecution of not only a recreational boater but Bolton in particular.
In doing so M Pigneguy violated every Maritime Collision Regulation regarding an approach & implicated an unwitting Phillip Sweetman in the process.

Sea manners are customary & mandatory in vessel operation & navigational practices.
Collision Avoidance in International Regulations, 2014-09-20_1947

Collision Avoidance in International Regulations –
Refer to post in Blog – http://www.maritimenz.com

Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge