Mr. K. S. Harrison

Chief Counsel

LCDR N. B. Binns, USCG, Editor T. A. DeNardo, Assistant Editor

DIST. (SDL NO. 77)

A: a aa b c(2); remainder (1)

B: n(35); c(16); e(5); f(4); h(3); g(2); remainder (1)

C: a b (less Quonset Pt.) c d e f g im ou (1)

D: i(5); a b c d e f g h klqr (1)

E: o(New London only) (1)

F: p(13)

List 141M

List 111

DEPOSITED BY THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

By Donald F. Miley

Editors Note: The following article by Captain Miley on Rules of the Road is presented as a matter of general interest. The views expressed by Captain Miley are his own and do not necessarily represent the official view of the U.S. Coast Guard.

WHEN TWO VESSELS are approaching each other so as to risk collision, the Rules of the Road forbid any alteration of course to the left, except when overtaking or-in the case of a burdened vessel-to avoid crossing ahead. Common violations of this rule, says the author, have resulted in many maritime catastrophies in clear weather as well as in fog.

Some time ago I was on the wing of the bridge with my Third Officer who was new to the 7,218-ton freighter F. E. Weyerhaeuser. He had a vessel dead ahead showing green only and headed to pass close aboard to starboard. This officer said to me, "Well, I guess I had better haul to the left a bit."

"What for?" I asked.

"To give her a little more room." "And what are you going to do if he hauls to his right?"

"I don't believe he would do that from where he is," the Third replied.

Promptly, as if on cue, the approaching vessel made a major course change to her right.

Under the International Rules, when two power-driven vessels are approaching each other so as to involve risk of collision, a turn to the left is allowed only in the following two situations: a burdened crossing vessel may swing to her left to avoid crossing ahead, and, a vessel may alter course to the left when overtaking.

In inland waters of the United States the privilege is permitted only when a vessel is overtaking. Under the Pilot Rules, a burdened crossing vessel is to avoid crossing ahead "by directing her course to starboard so as to cross the stern of the other steam vessel. . . ."

The Rules consistently hold against any alteration of course to the left. A common disregard of this precept has resulted in catastrophic consequences in clear weather as well as in fog.

Any experienced bridge watch officer has frequently met the fellow who, though he would be well clear to starboard, suddenly remembers he has read something regarding porting the helm and showing red, and so he alters course abruptly and radically to his

right. But always give me this fellow in favor of the one who, in a meeting situation, skims close down your starboard side. I am unable to understand this maneuver, but it is prevalent enough to vie with the Rule itself.

This latter is a very trying situation even though the weather be clear. The following discussion pertains to this situation and its resolution.

Ship "A" is a northbound vessel on a course of 357° true. Ship "B" is southbound on a course of 180° true.

The Watch Officer of Ship "A" sees both sidelights of the other ship 3° relative on his starboard bow. He knows, if he is in international waters, that his own vessel is crossing,' he cannot cross ahead, and the other vessel must hold her course and speed. Vessel "A" should promptly alter course to her right.

Relative to inland waters of the United States, the court has been more lenient in their interpretation of the "end on" Rule. The above vessels would be meeting under the Amolco decision; however, "A's" ob

ligation to alter course to her right remains.

An alteration to the right seems easy enough, yet why, oh why, does a ship in "A's" situation so frequently hold on, or haul to her left? If she would simply change course promptly in accord with the Rule as soon as she recognizes the situation, everything would be easy for everyone. If she fails to do so, a problem is created for Ship "B."

Under International Rules, Ship "B" is obliged to hold her course and speed and, as long as "A" shows only green, they should leave each other clear to starboard. But, as the range closes, and as the palpitation potential climbs, "B" frequently alters course to her left "to give her a little more room." If Ship "A" should act simultaneously, altering to her right in accord with the Rule, the ships would be exactly in the ambiguous relationship that the Rules attempt to eradicate.

On the inland waters of the United States, if Ship "A" fails to alter her course to the right, "B" has a more complex problem. However, the only legal course open to her, in the opinion of this writer, is for her to alter course to her right as soon as she realizes that Ship "A" is coming too fine down her starboard side. The problems and their resolution follow.

First: Does the Watch Officer in Ship "A" consider himself crossing or meeting?

may

What the Watch Officer in Ship "A" thinks, or what his opposite number in Ship "B" may think he thinks, alters the situation not one bit. The court has determined this a meeting situation in a number of decisions, and a meeting situation it remains, irrespective of what anyone think. The problem should be approached as it exists. An assumption that the other fellow might violate the Rule as you see it in a particular circumstance is extremely dangerous, as witness two collisions where, in the first, the OOD of a Destroyer Escort in a narrow channel surmised that a meeting ship "was about to alter course and pass down the starboard side of his vessel," and, in the other, the pilot of one vessel "thought the (other vessel) was going to pass on the left."

Second: If "A" continues to show her green, may "B" haul to her own right against that light?

In inland waters of the United States, in this meeting situation, "B" not only may alter her course to the right against the green light, but she must.

Third: If both vessels hold their courses while they close and then "A" should suddenly haul to her right,

should "B" respond with a similar alteration to her own right?

If both ships hold their courses while they close, "B" must evaluate the situation as a crossing one. If she subsequently swings to her right in answer to a similar alteration by "A", and a collision ensues, she will be faced with the irreconcilable facts in her attempt to defend her action. She will be obliged to establish why, if she considered the vessels to be meeting, she held on so long before altering course as required by the "end on" Rule, or why, if she considered the situation a crossing one, she subsequently altered course in violation of her "privilege" under the crossing Rule.

Fourth: If "A" holds on, or alters course to her left, can "B" also alter to her own left?

She cannot, except at her own peril. The meeting Rule only exempts from its requirements "two vessels which must, if both keep on their respective courses, pass clear of each other." The court has held there to be "sufficient risk of collision to invoke the rule not only when two vessels are heading so as to pass through the same point, but when their courses will take them near enough to each other so that an unexpected and unwarranted change of course by either vessel might bring about a collision with the other." Thus, if a watch officer feels he need haul to the left, the other vessel is not passing clear as required by the Rule. He stands self-convicted when he has "to give her a little more room."

To sum up, a vessel in international waters seeing the green light of another vessel ahead whose range lights indicate a heading close down the starboard side, must hold her course and speed, the situation is crossing. She must bank on the other ship clearing her. In inland waters of the United States, in the same situation she must haul to her right, as the situation is a meeting one. She should take this action immediately and unmistakably as soon as the situation becomes clear.

Nowhere do the Rules ratify a change of course to the left in meeting or crossing. Almost all the officers I have sailed with, however,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Formerly Master of the SS F. E. Weyerhaeuser, Donald F. Miley is presently Master of the George S. Long of the Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. During World War II, he served with the U.S. Merchant Marine and is now a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve.

make an alteration of course to the left when a ship is coming close down their starboard side; the reason is always the same, "I wanted to give her a little more room." They take this action though they are totally unable to justify it, even though many of them can quote the Rules.

In a collision between the Marine Leopard and the Howard Olsen on the California coast, the Second Officer of the Howard Olsen hauled left "to allow more passing room" and his ship was sliced in half. This happened in perfectly clear weather.

Many other clear weather collisions can be cited demonstrating the tragedy of this lefthandedness-senseless tragedy. The following information is incidentally available aboard the ship, and many more examples could be cited upon careful examination of the record.

On 16 December 1949, the Swedish MV Ekefors, inbound toward the Quarantine Anchorage in New York Harbor, passed Craven Shoal Buoy and hauled to her left to pass outward bound traffic starboard to starboard. The reason for this maneuver was so that she wouldn't have to round to into the flood tide at the anchorage. The cost was about $110,000. She tangled with the Seatrain Texas when she proposed a two-blast passing where port-to-port was clearly indicated.

On the night of 27 June 1950, I was entering New York Harbor. As our vessel passed through the Narrows, bright lights and a bustle of activity could be seen ahead on Gowanus Flats. As we entered Bay Ridge Channel, we saw the SS Excalibur, down by the head, with a gaping hole in her side, apparently grounded on the flats. How did she come there? Via the same route, the starboard-tostarboard passage attempt. She had rounded buoy 24 and, in a clearly meeting situation with the inbound Danish MV Colombia, proposed a twoblast passing.

On 16 February 1951, the SS Eranthia and the SS Elizabeth tore about $450,000 worth of skin off each other on Miah Maull Range in the Delaware River where, in this restricted channel, the Elizabeth proposed a starboard-to-starboard passage.

Again on Miah Maull Range at the junction of Cross Ledge Range, an inward bound U.S. Navy destroyer escort, as mentioned earlier, sounded a two-blast signal to an outward bound vessel on the "Officer of the Deck's surmise that (the other ship) was about to (italics supplied) alter course and pass down the starboard side of his vessel." Imagine the fear that clutched suddenly at the down