Maltese Falcon in a bit of a prang

"this looks like it happened quite a distance off shore, with enough water. I dont' think CBD applies here, and i don't see the CBD day shape on MF. And doens't CBD only apply to POWER vessels?

RAM? that only applies due to "the nature of her work"... ex.. divers, dregding, etc... Racing doesn't qualify a vessel for RAM. come on now, you can't race if you're not able to maneuver!! if the skipper of a sailing vessel gets on the start line but can't maneuver very well, he has no business racing!"

The caption reads that this happened near Treasure Island which I believe is inside San Francisco Bay, and they were entertaining guests (not racing). Although the picture isn't close enough to tell for sure I do believe I see a can on the forward mast, but even if that isn't it one may still be hung that's not seen. Depending on depths in that area they may well be CBD and is certainly RAM due to her size. My reading of the rules doesn't appear to exempt sailing or recreational vessels although I suppose that will keep the lawyers earning their keep as well as MF's possible being the give way vessel, but I don't know if she is in the main channel which would then make her stand on.

"Depending on depths in that area they may well be CBD and is certainly RAM due to her size."

RAM is work related... the rules are clear: "due to the nature of her work" look it up in the ROR. I dont' think being underway under sail qualifies.

That is an abiguous phrase which is why the lawyers will have a field day. Does the ROR spell out exactly what is and is not considered "work" specifically excluding certain activities? We could certainly argue that point until the cows came home, but I'll leave that to the suits.

Looking at the whole sequence this was totally avoidable from the "Stand-By" boat. No matter who had the right of way.

They skipper of "Stand-By" if he can deemed to even be called that... was more than likely in an argument over if toilet paper should go over or under....

He was lucky he and his crew did not get killed proving his navigational rules point, what an idiot.

I thought the Maltese Falcon was unable to come to the U.S. due to tax reasons. Something change?

This may change everything:

According to an eyewitness who prefers to remain anonymous: "Everything was cool, the Maltese was sailing well, and the sloop was sailing well, and then shortly before the collision, the sloop appeared to change course. I can't be sure, but it looked like the sloop may have tacked onto the collision course."

If so, the stupid scale has seemingly infinite heights..... more charitable to put it down as a failed suicide attempt.

Actually wouldn't both vessels bare some degree of fault? Both captains failed to take prior action to avoid what became an immanent collision situation

ROR Rule #17

(a) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

As far as Rule #3 on R.A.M. and C.B.D. It's pretty well stated what constitutes both situations.

(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall include but not be limited to:

A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigational mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
A vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
A vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
A vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
A vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
A vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

(h) The term "vessel constrained by her draft" means a power-driven vessel which because of her draft in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but basically running a "charter cruise" for guests to participate in a fund raising charity regatta doesn't constitute a R.A.M. situation.

Shouldn't all captains keep reminding themselves of rule #2?

ROR #2

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

I will say this though.... I wouldn't put say a 62' up against any size boat just because I might have the right of way according to the rules. There's just too much to risk or lose.... other than my temper and a few choice words.

As some pointed out though the "suits" will have a field day. I'd love to read the Coast Guard report though. Some "suit" will be waving it high during litigation.... Ouch! I'd say there's surely no winner in this situation.

Start

thanks for quoting the actual text, i dind't think there woudl even be a discussion about defining RAM or CBD on this forum!

as to the other boat tacking before the collision, this is all speculation... It depends on how far apart they were. the anonymous report is too vague, this will be up to the investigators.

but as i and others have mentioned from post 1... BOTH skippers are at fault, no matter what. The only question is to what degree? 50/50, 30/70, etc...

Totally concur with Pascal as to all parties sharing fault. As for RAM the term "vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver" shall include but not be limited to: is where the lawyers come in. In general though I do agree with that fact that they should not be considered RAM. This is California though. At least all parties seem to be OK and that's the important thing. The rest is for the insurance cos. & lawyers. I just hope the experience doesn't sour MF on returning to our waters. She is such a beautiful sight.

Mr Perkins story was that they were sailing the same course with a gap of 200 feet or so, when the smaller boat made a tack and messed it up, maybe MF took the wind..? Anyway, it appear as MF had a Pilot onboard and they had no chance to avoid being hit by the smaller boat.

Maybe dirty air from the Falcon could have played a little part...

I'm curious why the smaller boat apparently didn't drop sail and stand by after the collision even as the CG approached them.