Forums

Forum Guidelines

Note: These forums are not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
The Racing Rules of Sailing
1880 Posts
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
178 Posts
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures
112 Posts
Race Committee & Race Management
84 Posts
Rules 2 and 69
49 Posts
Match and Team Racing Rules
47 Posts
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes
62 Posts
Share Your SI/NOR Language
49 Posts
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions)
179 Posts
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel
50 Posts

Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 John Allan Australia 5K
2 Stephen Lomnes United States 3.4K
3 Justin Scott United States 2.2K
4 Jolene George Australia 2K
5 Charlie Watson United Kingdom 1K

Powered by WIND

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • "Surrounded by Navigable Water"
    Angelo  First, it's always been a question in my mind to the extent that NOR/SI can refine/define a term not in Definitions. 

    I think it's quite OK for NOR/SI to refine, limit or expand the meaning of an ordinary English word or phrase, as long as we don't do violence to the language by trying to define black as white.

    A simple example is when the SI describe the 'racing area', as required by RRS J2.2(10).

    We can also use the language of 'deem to mean' or 'taken to mean'.

    I think saying that a designated area it taken to be 'not navigable water':
    • If the area does or may contain shallows or dangers, or maybe is subject to dangerous funneling wind gusts, is absolutely OK,
    • If the area certainly does not contain any shallows or dangers, is almost getting to saying black is white, but may be just permissible where the aim is to control and make consistent the way in which some rule (like Section C Preamble) works.

    I think that Beau's example here

     In our local area (San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento & San Joaquin River deltas) there are numerous exclusion areas around various areas. I used to define these as "Not Navigable". If you sail into some of those, an armed patrol boat will stop you and may arrest you. Pretty clear that this is a legitimate use of the term Not Navigable, as it is closed by US Government order. 

    Isn't too good.  I think there's a difference between 'not navigable' and 'closed to navigation'.
    Today 22:37
  • Autonomous Race Marks and Collision Regulations
    Folks, please, when considering IRPCAS, look carefully at the Definitions in Rule 3.  Just like the RRS, IRPCAS rely on Definitions, but in IRPCAS, defined terms are not distinguished in the text by italics or bolding, and many of the defined terms are phrases that look like simple phrases having their ordinary english meaning , when the definition is quite precise and restrictive.

    Also, by the nature of IRPCAS, the Steering and Sailing Rules with respect to vessels not under command, restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, constrained by their draught and so on, are independent of the Lights and Shapes Rules with respect to those vessels, in much the same way as RRS 17 is independent of RRS 11.

    For example a vessel that meets the criteria of Rule 3(f) as being not under command, does not cease to be not under command because she is not displaying the lights or shapes required by Rule 27(a).

    Another vessel that did not keep out of the way of a vessel not under command, but not displaying the required lights or shapes would nevertheless be in breach of Rule 18, although her blameworthiness would be reduced by the failure to display the required lights or shapes.

    Matters under IRPCAS nearly always result in shared blame and apportioned damages.

    There's an evolving mass of information about the obligations of and with respect to unmanned vessels, this FAQ from the IMo may give you some ideas:  https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/autonomous-shipping.aspx

    In response to Charlie's OP questions

     A vessel sailing in an area well known for running Championships encountered an autonomous race mark under way, with no attending Mark Supervisor obvious nearby.

    The mark bot:
    • is a vessel,
    • is a power driven vessel,
    • is NOT a vessel not under command

     What regulations would apply between a vessel sailing and the autonomous race mark under way using engine(s)?

    IRPCAS Rules 13, 16, 17, 18(a), Rule 34(d).

    Is the Race Mark "Under Command" by someone however distant they maybe? Or would the Race Mark be considered "Not under Command" as there is no one onboard able to take any action and be aware of the situation? 

    The mark bot does not meet the requirements of the definition of vessel not under command.  It is NOT not under command.  A sailing vessel is NOT required to keep out of the way of the mark bot unless overtaking.


    Should any Flags, Lights and Sound Signals be made when vessels not racing may encounter an autonomous race mark.

    Five short blasts if in doubt as required by Rule 34(d)
    Today 22:24
  • How to keep boats out of a dangerous area without giving them rights under Rule 18, 19 or 20?
    Think this one deserves its own thead to get folks opinions. Standby. 
    Today 14:46
  • Starting Wisdom
    You have made me realize that I spend too much time practicing starts, and not enough time practicing finishes.
    Today 05:08
  • NSC Protest by a Boat Requirement to Inform the Protestee
    There may be several reasonable opportunities before finishing when boats cross each other on different legs.

    Yes John, I agree. I meant there may be no reasonable opportunity on some courses and so there seemed to be some suggestion that the protest needed to be raised before the NSC boat crossed the finishing line and I was merely trying to say that couldn't always be possible. 
    Yesterday 06:33
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more