Aldo:
The new rule 56.2 that you cite was already in the current book as rule 48.2, so there is nothing new here, aside from the extensive renumbering in Part 4.
The Preamble to Part 2 already states, "When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules..."

So yes, while IRPCAS are something that we may occasionally be called upon to make a ruling on, this isn't a new problem, just a re-numbered one.

Regards,

Govt ROW rules are not that big an issue: Channels, Separation Zones, motor v sail, S v P, etc.
Matters not if non-racing boat attends. You are not fixing $ damages, you are determining whether score should be adjusted.

The 2017-2020 Racing Rules of Sailing rule 48.2 (renumbered to rule 56.2 in the 2021-2024 rules) requires a boat, so far as practicable to avoid crossing traffic lanes, but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.
 

To comply with IRPCAS Rule 10 (c) (Traffic separation schemes) a boat would be required to cross any TSS at right angles. That certainly changes the game if racing in the English channel (see map) or any other place where the race course crosses a Traffic Separation Scheme. Several race organizers currently change RRS 48.2. The new Appendix TS https://www.sailing.org/89928.php provides standard language when a race course may cross a TSS.   

Phillip, if ,.... you are determining whether score should be adjusted...., to do that, i have to prove the racing boat was right.
1) how ? call in a hearing, or sort of, the non racing boat? You think will attend ? You think she will submit to my judgement?
2) competence. We Race official have COMPETENCE ( mean: courses, seminars, examinations, appointment etc) on RRS. Not in IRPCAS. One might know those rules, but being COMPETENT is different. I can make an injection, but i am not COMPETENT to go around and make injections. A doctor, yes. Me, not.I have a driving licence, I know road rules, but i'm not COMPETENT in judging  car accidents. Traffic police, possibly, but not me.

Aldo, see RRS 63.6.
Your job is not only to hear the evidence, but to WEIGH* the evidence.
You do not have to PROVE anything.
You have to make a conclusion.
If only one side appears before you, you must weigh the validity, the reasonableness of the story, and the honesty of the one who tells it.
In the U.S., at least, the redress hearing has no bearing on legal damage claims concerning a boat not racing.
Hence, it does not matter if the boat not racing agrees with your conclusion.
Only changes (or no changes) to the finish order should result from the hearing.
.
[*"give weight to" the evidence has always been true, but it is spelled out new in 2021]

The first most significant change in rule 62.1(b) is that to enable redress, a boat that was subject to Part 2 now has to be protested and penalised (or have taken a penalty), before redress can be given to the other boat, that is, that the boat requesting redress (or another boat) needs to protest the other boat and win the protest before redress can be considered.  This throws Case 142 out the window.
 
In the case of a vessel not subject to Part 2, it is only necessary that it be 'determined' to be at fault under the IRPCAS or a government right-of-way rule.  Given that the 2017 rules allow a protest committee considering redress, which does not necessarily include the boat alleged to have broken the rule, to conclude whether a boat broke a rule of Part 2 or failed to keep clear when required to do so under IRPCAS or some other rule or law, I can't see any reason why this should change under the 2021 rules.
 
  So this imposes significantly different standards of procedure on boats subject to Part 2 from other vessels.
 
  Another significant change in rule 62.1(b) is that it is no longer confined to failure to keep clear, but now extends to any instance of 'fault under the IRPCAS or a government right-of-way rule', which would include failure to keep a lookout, failure to proceed at safe speed, failure to make sound signals, failure to display lights, failure to cleave to the correct side of a channel, failure to comply with a TSS requirement and so on and so on.
 
  Aldo posed a number of questions
 
  My wonder: we Judge/Race official we do have to open an hearing based on IRPCAS?
 
 Except where the the SI switch on IRPCAS (Preamble to Part 2), under rule 60, nobody can protest a boat for breaking IRPCAS because IRPCAS are not 'rules' under the Definition Rule, and nobody can protest a vessel that is not a boat at all.  So it may be that the only hearing that it is possible to hold will be a redress hearing.  See discussion above:  this may be quite sufficient to decide the redress issue.
 
 Anybody really think the not racing boat will attend a hearing?
 
 See discussion above.  She might not be given any opportunity to do so.
 
 Suppose she was a sailboat, a member of a club, and was notified of the hearing:  why should she refuse to attend and present her defence?
 
 A written decision of a protest committee, albeit only on redress, may be persuasive to an insurer, or possibly (e.g. in the USA) to a court:  so it would be in her interests to appear.
 
 And accept the decision of a racing jury panel?
 
 She doesn't have to 'accept' the decision:  the decision of a redress hearing will have no legal effect on the boat determined to be at fault
 
 We have to determine who's at fault  based on  IRPCAS rules, but are we qualified for that?
 
 The rules don't require members of a protest committee to be qualified in any way, whether to apply the RRS or the IRPCAS.
 
 Members are supposed to be experienced racing sailors, I think that implies that we should have a working knowledge of IRPCAS:  the law certainly presumes that:  we are sailing on the sea, the law presumes that we know and comply with the IRPCAS.  I suggest that it's very likely that at least some protest committee members will be 'qualified':

·         I understand that in some European jurisdictions, all sailors are required to be licenced by the government:  this qualification, presumably includes IRPCAS;

·         to take my own case, I hold a government licence to operate a vessel which qualifies me to comply with the IRPCAS and government regulations, and I hold an Instructiors Certificate issued by my MNA which certifies that I am competent, among other things to instruct learners in IRPCAS:  many judges have even higer general maritime qualifications than these.

 For redress, i would surely ask for an external proof (i.e. insurance decison) but generally, i'm quite puzzled.
 
 That has never been a requirement and I can't see anything in rule 62 which suggests that this is necessary.

 

There are two significant changes to rule 62.1(b).

The first clarifies that a boat can only be given redress for the actions of another boat if that boat has been penalized or taken the appropriate penalty. (170-18).

The second was required because the requirement to keep clear referred to in RRS 62.1(b) is not applicable under the IRPCAS. No vessel ever has absolute "right of way" over other vessels. For example, two power-driven vessels approaching each other head-to-head, are both deemed to be "give way" and both are required to alter course so as to avoid colliding with the other. The term "keep clear" is not used in the IRPCAS. Therefore, under the 2017-2020 rules you could never give redress undress IRPCAS, even if the vessel not racing was found at fault, because they were not required to “keep clear.” (169-18)

From the intro of the US Coast Guard publication of the IRPCAS:

So they're binding on all vessels flagged to member states of the International Maritime Organization (http://www.imo.org/en/About/Membership/Pages/MemberStates.aspx) outside of the established COLREGS demarcation lines that are found on most nautical charts 

Governments may adopt their own rules for their waters inside the COLREGS lines. US Inland Rules are nearly identical to the International Rules but there are a couple of significant differences. 

Mark,

I do not see what you state. 
The incident may involve  either a boat not "racing" (see definitions and preamble Part 2,  so the "keep clear" do apply) OR a boat navigating under IRPCAS, for which the rule asks "to be determined to be at fault"

Anyway I got to my own solution: a boat asking redress should prove she has no fault, 
If incidend under RRS:  protest, and prove it. 
under IRPCAS, prove it. I wait. Not for long,  though.

Aldo, I don't know about "prove." I expect that the standard for redress is the same as for a protest decision - balance of probabilities. The boat would have to convince a jury that it's more likely than not that she's entitled to redress.

I think the new language in 62.1(b) is intended to recognize that there are potentially two types of boats in the "not racing" category A boat that intends to race or has been racing is still subject to the RRS per the preamble to Part 2. Although she may not be penalized for breaking rules of Part 2, she still breaks them if she fails to keep clear when required by the rules to do so. That finding by a PC provides cause for redress.

A boat that is just out on the water and has no connection to the race is also a boat not racing, not subject to RRS but subject to IRPCAS and/or local government rules. Obviously such a boat can't be penalized by a protest committee, but if the PC finds that the not racing boat violated IRPCAS/government rules that would provide cause for redress.

Aldo,
Under rule 62.1(b) in the 2017-2020 rules. For a protest committee to decide that a boat is entitled to redress requires that they find that injury or physical damage was because of the action "of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear." I don't believe that to be possible under the IRPCAS as the term "keep clear" is not used, so no vessel is required to "keep clear".

Under the IRPCAS no vessel ever has absolute "right of way" over other vessels and no vessel is required to "keep clear". The language of The Racing Rules of Sailing 2017-2020 is not consistent with the language of the IRPCAS. The requirement to keep clear referred to in RRS 62.1(b) is not always applicable under the IRPCAS. (see submission 169-18 https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/16918RacingRulesofSailingRule62.1b-[24352].pdf) 

There are two changes to rule 62.1(b) in the 2021-2024 Racing Rules of Sailing. The first clarifies that a boat can only be given redress for the actions of another boat only if the other boat "took an appropriate penalty or was penalized". (see submission  170-18 https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/17018RacingRulesofSailingRule62.1b-[24353].pdf).

The second was required because the language of the RRS is not consistent with the language of the IRPCAS. The requirement to keep clear referred to in RRS 62.1(b) is not always applicable under the IRPCAS. (see submission 169-18 https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/16918RacingRulesofSailingRule62.1b-[24352].pdf)

Mark, as I think about it the new language still seems problematic, particularly after looking at the submission and a description of the "Pennsylvania Rule". 

Like "keep clear", the word "fault" is also not found in IRPCAS. In an IRPCAS collision dispute, fault is typically determined and/or allocated by a court of law or perhaps by an insurer in a claim for damages, is it not? So I don't think it would be sufficient for a protest committee to grant redress based on a breach of IRPCAS by a non-racing boat, no matter how obvious or blatant. In fact, per the US Sailing Judges Manual:

So even under the new rules a PC will need a documented, legal determination of fault, I expect, in order to grant a claim for redress under 62.1(b). I can see a scenario where a boat might incur minor injury or physical damage that makes her score significantly worse, not want to press a cause of action or file an insurance claim but still desire redress.

Perhaps better wording might be action of "a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear or has violated IRPCAS or a government right-of-way rule." That would enable a PC to make a determination of the IRPCAS situation based on a balance of probabilities standard which seems appropriate for a redress matter, but stay entirely out of the business of determining fault or damages. 

Mark, sorry but still don't getting your point.
The rule (new) refers to two different situations: 
- one boat not "racing" (definition), but still under RRS, i.e. intend to race, or has been racing. Keep clear concept do appy
or
- one boat that has nothing to do with the race, but "determined to be at fault under IRPCAS. No "keep clear" is asked.