There is a new WS Q&A about hailing under R 20. As I understand it, if the hail does not include the (now) required words “Room to Tack”, and for radio sailing and App E “ [my sail number] Room to Tack” then the hail is not valid – it is as if the hail was not made. The Q&A says that as R20.1 was not followed, an hailed boat is not required to respond under 20.2.
I have a question about how this relates to a stack of boats and R20.3. Frequently in radio sailing, after starting, a group of boats will quickly approach a shoreline or dock which is an obstruction. If the hail by the leeward boat does not comply with 20.1, but the second or third boat in a stack wants to pass along the hail under 20.3, is that valid if the original hail was invalid?
John
If the hail was invalid here the hailing boat may be penalised if the jude considers she did not need to make a substantial alterations of course, as she was further from the shore.
It is unlikely she will be challenged however, as there is a boat to leeward of her.
This is a safety rule so if a boat hails correctly, you must respond.
This gets muddier as there become more boats, because the rule requires her to give others time to respond (including passing the hail along). With just three boats it's a little clearer, though the reality is that hitting the EXACT right moment might not be quibbled with by a PC/jury.
20.3 also says that the requirements of 20.1 still apply to the hailed boat when making her hail (required words, arm signals if required, etc.) but the conditions (approaching an obstruction and close-hauled) do not. What I find interesting is that the condition about fetching a mark will not apply either. Consider this situation where a mark is also an obstruction:
Blue can hail Yellow for room to tack. Yellow can now hail Green and ask for room to tack even though Green is fetching the mark because the conditions of 20.1 do not apply to Yellow's hail to Green per 20.3. This makes it critical to know if Blue hailed Yellow before Yellow hailed Green. If Blue hails first then Yellow can hail Green. If Yellow hails Green before Blue hails Yellow, then Yellow's hail is invalid as she is not passing along a hail, but making her own and therefore the conditions of 20.1 apply.
If you consider an invalid hail the equivalent of not making any hail at all as the Q&A suggests, if Blue makes an invalid hail to Yellow, then Yellow makes a valid hail to Green and then Green tacks and protests Yellow, should a PC decide that Yellow broke 20.1? I think the answer is yes. It is also the same answer that a PC should come up with if Yellow hails before Blue hails because until Blue hails Yellow cannot fall back on rule 20.3.
Using the logic from the Q&A, it is only a valid hail from Blue that allows Yellow to hail Green. Without Blue, Yellow could not hail Green for room to tack because Green is fetching the mark. If Yellow makes a valid hail then she breaks rule 20.1. If Yellow makes an invalid hail then she doesn't break rule 20.1. The validity of Blue's hail will determine whether Yellow broke a rule or maybe not.
Suppose Blue makes a valid hail to Yellow and Yellow makes an invalid hail and Green tacks and protests Yellow. According to the Q&A, Yellow does not break rule 20.1.
Huh? Try explaining all this to the sailors.
This is the truth table for my situation:
Blue's hail Yellow's hail Blue breaks 20.1 w.r.t Yellow Yellow breaks 20.1 w.r.t. Green
Valid Valid No - rule 20.1 No - rule 20.3 removes fetching condition allowing a hail
Valid Invalid No - rule 20.1 No - Q&A answer 1
Invalid Valid No - Q&A answer 1 Yes - rule 20.1 for Yellow combined with Q&A answer 1 for Blue
Invalid Invalid No - Q&A answer 1 No - Q&A answer 1
All in all, this simply strengthens my personal feelings about rule 20. Situation 2 of the Q&A is exactly what would happen if rule 20 didn't exist. Fortunately, the Q&As are not binding.
Boat's hail Conditions of 20.1 met? Breaks 20.1 w.r..t hailed boat
Valid Yes No - rule 20.1 requirements met
Valid No Yes - rule 20.1 requirements not met
Invalid Yes No - Q&A answer 1
Invalid No No - Q&A answer 1
They are rule breakers because the sentence says “shall not” … no “mays” here.
C'mon everyone, let's use common sense. This is a safety rule. SAFETY. If the hail does not conform with RRS 20.1, respond anyway as per RRS 20.2(b) and protest if you are so aggrieved. QED
@Phil - the problem is that when you protest and it is dismissed because of the Q&A then how do you explain that to the sailors? The only way that the hailing boat breaks a rule is if they make a valid hail and the other conditions are not met. Every other scenario results in no rule being broken.
Unless you are willing to bring rule 2 into play, a good strategy for the leeward boat is to make an early invalid hail for room, get the windward boat to tack away, and then continue on. You can easily claim that your hail was only a warning that you would soon be making a valid hail for room and the windward boat misinterpreted the warning as an actual hail and tacked away on her own. The Q&A says no rules broken and the windward boat has no recourse. On the San Francisco City Front in a flood tide, the race is over for the boat that tacked first. The windward boat's best strategy is to ignore everything that is not a valid hail and to tack when they are damn good and ready or hear a valid hail. Not sure how this makes things safer.
This is in context of ...
So the "hailed for room to tack" in 20.3 is defined clearly in 20.1 as the specific hail 'Room to tack'
However ... I don't think there is a problem here if M uses the magic words.....
The middle boat is either overlapped to windward or clear astern, so it is KC boat to L.
So, in the end, I think M is fine as long as she says the magic words.
This whole thing is a mess and is not made any better by the Q&A.
The consensus seems to be that after Yellow makes an improper hail, and in anticipating a problem, Green or Blue would break R20.3 by hailing the windward boat(s) for room to tack.
To me, this makes the Q&A in conflict with common sense safety.
John
John C states that ..
I disagree. We as sailors are acting all the time based upon the assumption of what other boats may do and when they may do it. It is at the heart of many of our obligations on the water.
Here, if I'm M and I see L heading to the breakwater, it is fully reasonable for me to project that L is going to need room to tack away.
Next, I hear L call for room to tack without using the magic words. Her intension and need is clearly communicated to me. As M, I must not force L into the breakwater as described by 14(c). L is a ROW boat that M and W must keep clear of by either 11 or 12.
That's the theory I'm taking out for a test drive. As M, I can "use the magic words" to W and get "room to tack" for myself.. which will provide L the space she needs and allows me to meet my 14(c) obligations.
I'd argue "YES" to that Q .. but your Q will be rephased in the answer I think. Let's look at def: Room first:
So, when we give a boat room, we also need to give that boat "space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31".
Imagine I am heading to a leeward port-rounded mark, I am outside (O) and owe MR to both M and I. M also owes MR to I. I have to anticipate that these boats are going to round inside of me and I must sail in such a manner that I put my boat in a position such that M can also provide I Mark-room. That's a requirement upon me, through my obligation to provide MR and room, for me to anticipate how a competitor might sail and the space she needs.
Back to the OP, L can't sail through the breakwater. She has communicated to me that she needs to tack out of this situation.
L is an obstruction to both M and W and M will "will soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid it safely".
So ... yes ... the logical corollary of 'not needing to anticipate that a boat will break a rule' is that we are constantly assuming (and projecting) that boats will sail within the rules and sail in a seamanlike way to gauge our rights and obligations and our resulting course and maneuvers.
I'd be making this argument above to support the idea that M does not break any part of rule 20 if she uses the magic words.
Ang - What rule requires one boat anticipate what another boat is going to do? Any notion of that went away in 1997. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The only thing you can "anticipate" is that the right-of-way boat is going to hold her course. You can't assume that she won't speed up or slow down, just that she won't change course. And if she does change course, the obligations are all on her. Consider two boats reaching down the starting line, one on port and one on starboard, heading at each other. At the starting gun, prior to 1997, the starboard boat could change course to come up to close-hauled and the port boat would have to anticipant that she might do that, but the starboard boat was not obligated to do it. The port tack boat was in a quandary as they didn't know how to avoid the starboard boat. The same applies to boats coming together on a beat and and experiencing a wind shift. This was one of the game changes the new rules introduced.
There is no rule that requires boat to round a mark on a proper course or any other course. I'll concede that 18.4 comes close, but once the boat gybes the obligation goes away and she isn't actually required to round the mark, just gybe before sailing beyond her proper course to that point.
Consider this situation. The course after rounding the mark is to go downwind. Blue simply continues to sail close hauled. Yellow cannot bear off, anticipating that Blue will sail anything like a proper course and claim that she is entitled to because she gave Blue mark room.
A keep clear boat breaks a rule if they fail to keep clear, which allows a right-of-way boat to sail her [compass] course. There is no rule in Part 2 Section A that mentions room at all. Giving room in Section B is an obligation on the right-of-way boat. Mark-room is an obligation on the outside boat, regardless of whether they are a right-of-way or keep clear boat. How much room you are obligated to give is a judgement call and, yes, you have to make a judgement as to how much room you will need to give and plan accordingly or risk being found to not have given enough room.
The Q&A says that if L does not make a valid hail that is equivalent to no hail being made. Whether M believes that L is going to need to hail soon or not, until she actually hails validly, M cannot use that as justification for her own hail. If M's hail would be invalid in the absence of L's valid hail then M's hail is invalid because rule 20.3 does not apply as M is not passing on a hail. Those are the words in the rule.
The Q&A just makes a bad rule worse.
I didn't say there was.
What I did say is that part of being in a position to give mark room and to meet our other obligations on the water, a boat is anticipating what other boats will do, were they will be in the future and how much room or space a boat will need. When we anticipate that room/space, we are told that we do not need to anticipate that a boat will break a rule, but logically we need to anticipate what a boat will likely do within the context of the rules.
Think about it .. why call-out the exclusion of not having to anticipate a boat breaking a rule if one never has to anticipate anything?
We now come to M hearing a non-hail that is well understood and an imminent danger and her obligation under 14(c) to not force L into the breakwater. L is ROW v M. M concludes she will soon need to take avoiding action relative to L.
M hails W properly.
M gets protested by W for improper hail.
The PC finds M's hail was valid.
W appeals.
I'd like to read the appeal where the decision is overturned and they DSQ M in this circumstance.