Seamanship and Special Circumstances

Introduction

A critical aspect of applying COLREGS is the expectation of good judgement and the practices of good seamanship by all concerned. This is covered in Rule 2 (Responsibility) and the importance of Rule 2 is often underestimated since it is short and does not require any particular or specific action. 

The International Collision Regulations are intended for a wide variety of circumstances, conditions, and situations. They apply in the Arctic and the Tropics, in snow, sleet, fog, and sandstorms. The vessels may be ocean liners or small runabouts… or seaplanes. The masters of vessels may be grizzled deep-water sailors or weekend part-timers. The rules must apply in many circumstances that seem in advance to be unlikely or that will be the result of rare events. Thus, the Rules cannot be so specific that they lay down precise responses to everything that may happen on the water.

Thus Rule 2(b) points out that "any special circumstances" need to be considered in applying the rules. It even allows actions "which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger". That goes along with an admonition in Rule 2(a) to apply "the ordinary practice of seamen". Such aspects cannot be described in rule books to cover every eventuality. 

There are certain parts of the COLREGS where the application of Rule 2 seems particularly applicable; see some examples below. These areas usually come up where the COLREGS have left aspects of procedure open to interpretation. 

Some Examples Requiring Judgement and Seamanship

Many rules, other than just Rule 2, rely on good judgement and the common practice of seamanship. There are admonitions in the rules to consider “the prevailing circumstances and conditions”, but without much further elaboration of what those might be. The rules need to be interpreted presuming that all concerned will be practical in how they apply the rules, always considering circumstances and conditions through a lens of good judgement and the practice of responsible seamanship.

Rule 2(b) (Responsibility) says that mariners must not “neglect … any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case”. There is abundant case law that clarifies what the courts have determined to be good seamanship or how some specific circumstances should affect interpreting the rules, when the rules themselves may be silent on interpretation for some legal case before a future court.

Throughout the rules following Rule 2 there are many clauses that will require a mariner to use good judgement, “the ordinary practice of seamen”, and “specific circumstances” to determine how the clauses need to be applied to a case in question. Sometimes mariners will have only seconds to make such assessments. 

Rule 6 (Safe Speed) does not give a limiting number for speed, equivalent to setting the speed limits that are posted on highways. Rule 6 is helpful by giving factors that must be taken into consideration before applying judgement and accounting for prevailing conditions: the state of visibility; the traffic density; the manoeuvrability of your vessel; at night, the presence of background light; the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; and the draught of your vessel. Of course, some authorities -- around a marina or in a harbour -- may set a specific top speed. However, the safe speed for any particular circumstance remains a matter of judgement.

Canadian modifications, Rule 6(c) and (d), add additional considerations to the international rules. The modifications apply to "every vessel passing another vessel or work that includes a dredge, tow, grounded vessel or wreck". Such passing vessels must go slow enough so that they do not interfere with the activity. 

A general interpretation of Rule 6, especially in restricted visibility, is that a vessel should slow down to where the vessel can stop in half the visual range. The idea is that if both vessels can stop in the appropriate distance they will be able to stop before a potential impact. Courts have used this understanding in past cases, usually where a collision has occurred because a vessel has not stopped in time, to determine liability. However, this interpretation of safe speed is not specifically mentioned in the rules. 

Since speed in conditions of restricted visibility should be chosen with even greater caution than when conditions are more benign, Rule 19 (b) (Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility) once more draws attention to choosing a safe speed, with considerable emphasis to choosing a safe speed “adapted to the prevailing circumstances and conditions”. But even for conditions of restricted visibility, the choosing of a specific speed is left to the master (and crew).

Rule 7(a) (Risk of Collision) calls for the “proper use” of radar, without explaining what it means by “proper”. However, it would be difficult for a vessel to claim “proper use” if it could have used radar but was not using it and was then involved in a collision. Furthermore, there are legal precedents that just having a radar switched on is not enough to constitute proper use. The operator must be trained appropriately and familiar with the equipment and be engaged in using it to deal with risks of collision. For SAR vessels it is generally accepted that radar should be used always when on the water, unless there is a technical malfunction. There is also an obligation that the operator of the radar be appropriately trained on its use. If a radar is not working properly, a SAR vessel may be restricted in operations (e.g., daylight, unrestricted visibility only) or may be taken out of service entirely.

Note that Rule 7 does not explain in any detail what “risk” really is. It is certainly related to the probability that some misfortune will occur and we all want that probability to be low. Beyond that, it is left to interpretation within specific circumstances. While the COLREGS do not say so, generally it is best to take actions that will reduce risk rather than to mindlessly proceed with an action that increases risk, even if the increase is inadvertent or unintended.

The COLREGS do not distinguish between risk to a particular vessel (yours) and the overall risk to all vessels concerned. However, it would be inconsistent with good seamanship to reduce the risk to your own vessel through an action that increases the risk to other vessels. So, actions you take should be mindful of how the action affects the risk to others, not just to yourself.

Rule 19 (Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility) specifies that the rule must be used by “vessels not in sight of one another when navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility”. It leaves to the master the determination of how close a vessel can get to an area of restricted visibility before applying Rule 19. 

It is important that a vessel that is not in an area of restricted visibility (but near one) should still consider if it needs to apply Rule 19 -- and also apply Rule 35 (Sound Signals in Restricted Visibility) -- so other vessels that are limited in their visibility (e.g., within a fog bank) will not be surprised when it comes time for them to exit from the area of restricted visibility.

If a vessel (Vessel "A") is aware that it is near a fog bank and it hears one prolonged blast (a Rule 35 signal), the master of Vessel "A" should realize there is probably a vessel (Vessel "B") hidden in the fog bank and the master of Vessel "B" is concerned that there are other vessels around that he cannot see and that cannot see his vessel. So Vessel "A" should use the signals prescribed by Rule 35 so that Vessel "B" is made aware of the presence of Vessel "A". 

Also left to the master’s judgement is how limited the visibility must be before it can be considered “restricted visibility”. Nighttime lighting conditions alone are not enough to invoke Rule 19, but a little bit of fog that might not be an issue in daytime may require conforming to Rule 19 when the illumination has been reduced by nighttime conditions. 

The COLREGS also do not specify that restricted visibility would be caused only by fog, although that would be the commonest source in the local area; it leaves to the master’s judgement when blowing snow, rain squalls, sandstorms, smoke, or other obscurants are so severe as to require implementing Rule 19 and Rule 35.

Many sub-rules under Rule 34 (Manoeuvring and Warning Signals) specify that they are to be used by vessels that are within sight of one another. Several of the sub-rules are to be implemented specifically by power-driven vessels and need not be implemented by other classes of vessels, e.g., sailing vessels. 

When vessels are in restricted visibility, and not within sight of one another, they should not use sub-rules under Rule 34 because they do not apply to them, such as the manoeuvring signals of one, two, or three short blasts. The signals of Rule 34 should not be used when Rule 35 (Sound Signals in Restricted Visibility) is in effect and your vessel can see no other vessel. 

It may seem that the more signals that are used the better... So, why not use the Rule 34 signals in addition to the Rule 35 signals? The main reason is to avoid confusion by a vessel hearing such signals. When a vessel is in restricted visibility (and applying Rule 35) and it hears Rule 34 signals, the master would first assume it represents two vessels (and not his own) that have seen each other, since Rule 34 requires that vessels must be able to see each other to use those signals. If this is the master's belief then he would conclude that the signals should be ignored... they are meant for other vessels. Indeed if the master were to hear a single short blast, what manoeuvre is the other vessel making? OK, it is turning to starboard, but where is that vessel and what was the old course and what is the new course? 

If the master of the vessel hears Rule 34 manoeuvring signals and thinks they just might be meant to alert his own vessel, which is in restricted visibility and cannot see another vessel, he will then be in a quandary: Where is the signaling vessel? What is the other vessel expecting from his vessel? Should he use Rule 34 manoeuvring signals even if he cannot see any other vessel? How should he now manoeuvre? Should he just stop? To avoid such uncertainty, both vessels should comply with Rule 34 (they should not use the Rule 34 signals, but can wait and stand ready to use the manoeuvring signals once two vessels "are in sight of one another") and also comply with Rule 35 (use the Rule 35 signals in restricted visibility and when other vessels cannot be seen). 

Even the usual "warning signal" (five short blasts of Rule 34(d)) should not be used in restricted visibility and when two vessels are not in sight of one another. The main reason is the same as for not using other Rule 34 signals. The master of a vessel that is in restricted visibility, not able to see another vessel, and has heard five short blasts is also in a quandary: Who is signaling? What do they mean? Is there something about his intentions that is not clear to the mystery vessel? Should he do something different? Basically, if he is already following Rule 19 and Rule 35, what more can he do if he has heard the five-short blasts of the warning signal? 

Seaplanes

With the recent collision of a Harbour Air floatplane and a power-boater in Vancouver Harbour, rules about seaplanes deserve some comment. When a seaplane and a power-driven vessel collide, the first rule that comes to mind is Rule 18(e): "A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation." An accident investigation is underway and this rule will certainly be prominent in the analysis. However, it would seem unfair to use this rule in isolation and absolve the power boater of any responsibility. 

Clearly the power boater failed to keep a good lookout (Rule 5) and to maintain a safe speed in the circumstances (Rule 6). Additionally there are local harbour rules in Vancouver that go beyond the COLREGS, designating areas where floatplanes operate and cautioning boaters accordingly. Thus investigators are likely to find that, in addition to the power-driven vessel breaking Rule 5 and Rule 6, Rule 2 on "Responsibility" was also violated, namely "the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case". 

For SAR operations in and around Comox Harbour, our crews should be aware that Harbour Air operates a floatplane service from the Comox Bay Marina; the pilots generally use the area between the breakwater and the dolphin for landing and taking off. Also there are floatplane owners who keep their planes at the Courtenay Airpark and land and takeoff in the estuary southeast of the airpark. Although floatplanes are required by Rule 18 to "keep well clear" of our vessels, the best practice for our vessels is to give any floatplane lots of room; that is, we should all be "prudent mariners". 

Summary

A few examples have shown that judgement must be applied in many applications of the COLREGS. When on the water, good judgement and the traditional practice of seamanship must be used in the context of the conditions. And those conditions may require the consideration of special circumstances. So crews from RCMSAR Station 60 must be vigilant at all times and they must be mindful of Rule 2 as much as they are of the more mechanical and explicit rules.