Rules of the Road Ruling Needed

[Trawler_traveler]

Totally irrelevant, but ...

The Florida bridge tender who made me laugh at almost every opening was the one who'd ask:

Q: What's the name of your boat ... and don't give me that alphabet stuff.

A: My Boat

Q: How do you spell that

A: Mike Yankee Bravo ...

Q: I told you not to do the alphabet stuff !

A: Ah, ok M Y B O A T

Q: Ok, M I V O T E ?

A: No, M Y etc.

a few rounds until she had whatever spelling was close enough

It was funny at the time and still makes me laugh. I'm easily amused I guess.


-Sven

 

[Brooksie]

The downbound power boat has right of way, if the current was from your stern, you have right of way, and up current is the give way vessel.

Indeed.
A good many sailors think they have the right of way in all situations even when they are "powerboats" (bridge tenders too)

 

[Porgy]

Stand on vessel down bound with current applies to Great Lakes and Western Rivers unless specific waters are otherwise named. It’s a matter of courtesy and prudent elsewhere but not the rule. Inland rule 9(a)(ii). Is there somewhere else that the CG specifies bridges for this rule to be applicable?

 

[psneeld]

The downbound power boat has right of way, if the current was from your stern, you have right of way, and up current is the give way vessel.

As far as I and others here know as mentioned and referenced in many other posts... there is no downbound in this area...


Only a courtesy to give way to vessels with a fair current.

 

[Porgy]

Rule for C&D canal...

There are all kinds of local rules all over the place... unfortunately researching them all sometimes is so difficult, hit or miss is the only way I come across them.

It’s all in the Coast Pilots. Sometimes, like CCC I was just looking at and for which you also referenced, they cite another regulation to look up but it wasn’t difficult.

 

[psneeld]

It’s all in the Coast Pilots. Sometimes, like CCC I was just looking at and for which you also referenced, they cite another regulation to look up but it wasn’t difficult.

What I meant by difficult is I have not found a way to "computer search" or even manually look (really sort) for these types of local regulations easily.


You are correct that many are referenced on charts (and this is the one place electronic raster charts hurt (navigation notes) as scrolling to the end of a chart often jumps you on to anther if that is the way you have it set up for nav. They are easily found in Coast Pilots. Assuming ALL of them are in there.


So yes to all navigators if you really care...you have to be following along in pubs in addition to charts to stay on top of many, many regulations that I know many experienced recreational boaters have no clue about.

 

[Andiamo2018]

Never had that experience at the Mare Island bridge.

https://www.cityofvallejo.net/city_...ntenance_division/mare_island_causeway_bridge

That bridge operator has been GREAT! Helpful, polite and a good sense of humor. I communicated with him several times as I was bringing a sailboat without a rudder up to the Napa Valley Marina.

After a short conversation his last comment "you know I can only make the bridge go up and down, not side to side"

 

[amapola]

We would have made an announcement on 9 that we did not need the bridge open and our intention to pass through. If there was a problem, the bridge and/or sailboat could respond.

 

[pattormey]

You did nothing incorrectly

I teach the course for OUPV licenses and Master licenses.

Based on the information you provided:
- there is only one required for recreational vessels to watch a VHF channel and that is, if equipped and operable, shall monitor Ch 16. There are no special rules for the ICW or bridges. 9 and 13 are used to call a bridge depending on State, but they don’t own the water and have no specific authority other than opening the bridge.

- the right of way rules for power vessels is well documented for head on passing. There is nothing about bridges in the Rules for right of way. Narrow channel rules covered in rule 9 would only have come into play if that vessel were crossing the channel and impeding your travel due to your need to remain in the navigable channel. You would have had the right of way.

- lastly, unless a state or federal posted no wake zone, there was nothing for him to say other than your wake caused some level of property damage or threat to personal safety, so that was not a valid statement either.

Since there was no collision with the vessel and no allision with the bridge, the rules were likely followed pretty darn well!

If this is too long just ignore... but I'd like some advice.

Let me describe the situation. South Florida, northbound on the ICW approaching a drawbridge with a 35' height and 90' width, big bridge. I'm operating a 52' MY and require 21' clearance so I don't need an opening. I'm in a slow zone with a mild current at my stern. I'm going only fast enough to maintain control of the boat, which is slightly above idle speed. I'm monitoring Ch 16 only. I see on the other side of the bridge a roughly 30' monohull sailboat with no sails and under power about 100 yds north of the bridge, facing west, which was into the wind and broadside to the bridge, but in a wide area. He was fine where he was. When I'm about 75 yds south of the bridge, heading north, it begins to open, presumably for the sailboat. However the sailboat does not begin to turn south and remains facing west until the bridge is fully opened. Seeing that, I continue north, hugging the right (east) side of the channel which would allow ample room for both of us to pass and as I am clearing the bridge he turns and begins south from about 100 yds away. We pass port to port about 75 yds north of the bridge and then the bridgetender hails me on 16 and tells me that this is a no wake zone, that I should be monitoring Ch 9 (the bridgetender channel in Florida) and that the sailboat has the right-of way. I reply that the sailboat had not even begun his approach when I passed under the bridge and that I had done nothing wrong. He advised that the USCG monitors this channel and that I could take it up with them. I followed this up with a phone call to the bridgetender when I was back in port. He maintained he was right, that I'm required to monitor Ch 9 when in the ICW and that once the sailboat received an opening they had the right-of-way.

So, my questions are:

1) Am I required to monitor Ch9 in the ICW in Florida. I understand that I hail the bridgetender on 9 but I did not need an opening.

2) I know that a sailboat under power is a powerboat but does a boat actually get special privilege because they have an opening? There was more than enough width for us to both pass safely under the bridge. I'm a good operator and in spite of having the current astern I was way over to my side, leaving more than 2/3 of the width for the sailboat.

3) Lastly, I was operating at the minimum speed required to maintain control of the boat, passing under a bridge. Regardless of the wake I left, which was minimal was I wrong? There were no marinas or docks near the bridge.

Thoughts? Opinions? Advice?

I want to be a good operator, and I believe I am. I received my 50 ton USCG License and ran Dive Charter boats here for about 5 years in the late 80's, early 90's and have had a boat in this area ever since. I'm not a novice but I'm beginning to wonder if I was in the right or in the wrong. I honestly wouldn't do anything differently, other than possibly monitoring Ch 9 when I approached the bridge, and that's a maybe.

 

[psneeld]

Hmmmm...there are places that have state rules stating no wake when passing through bridge spans...not sure a lack of a sign will get you a free pass.

Also...my guess is waterways with a right of way rule for downbound vessels applies through bridges as well.... no direct reference to it....but most captains I have discussed it with would assume so.

Plus.... a vessel less than 20 meters shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can navigate safely only within a narrow channel or fairway. I think that is in addition to crossing the channel vessels.


And finally...seems like nobody ever references rule 2 except me...it's VERY important.

 

[pattormey]

Rules

Just so there isn’t a misunderstanding of The rule associated with vessels downbound on a current. This is ONLY applicable on the Western Rivers, not under every bridge we navigate.

Having said that, it is Good Seamanship to yield to a vessel coming through a bridge which has current on its stern. This vessel can be impeded by the current while running under a bridge or through a narrow passage. The up current vessel holding in place is just a courtesy as well as shows he/she is a good captain.

 

[psneeld]

Just to be clear....downbound right of way is recognized for....Western rivers , Great Lakes and any place else where the secretary or authority deems.... such as canals like the Cape Cod and C & D. There may be more...just haven't com across them yet.


But rule 2 (the rule that discusses the rule in general and good seamanship) could also be construed that a large power vessel with twins and lots of horsepower might give way to the sailboat that needs the bridge opening which all parties should try and expedite.... even with a small current from astern..... and that's why having a radio and using it definitely falls under rule 2 here.


The reason I press rules issues is there is much confusion and most don't read the book, so ensuring correct and full info in these threads I feel is useful.

 

[rslifkin]

But rule 2 (the rule that discusses the rule in general and good seamanship) could also be construed that a large power vessel with twins and lots of horsepower might give way to the sailboat that needs the bridge opening which all parties should try and expedite.... even with a small current from astern..... and that's why having a radio and using it definitely falls under rule 2 here.


The reason I press rules issues is there is much confusion and most don't read the book, so ensuring correct and full info in these threads I feel is useful.

Isn't that basically the general idea of the colregs? More maneuverable vessel yields to less maneuverable.

 

[psneeld]

Isn't that basically the general idea of the colregs? More maneuverable vessel yields to less maneuverable.

Rule 2 says there is more to vessel handling and rules than from rule 3 and beyond. So just maneuverability isn't king.


So some things are debatable as far as what could/should be done. Many situations are black and white but not all.


I think that what happened was no big deal either way, as was mentioned, no collision or allision....but I also feel had the Hatt been on channel 9 and coordinated....staying further back and seeing what the sailboat was up to might have helped...and the tender might not have said anything....


To close to call without being there...and knowing what scenario B might have unfolded.

 

[Capt Dan]

There is a bridge entering Gloucester harbor and a local rule that the boats entering the harbor go first and the boats exiting the harbor go after. I am not sure who's authority created the rule or who would administer discipline for violating it, but everyone seems to understand it and act appropriately.

Perhaps there was a similar local rule that the OP was unaware of ??

It seems like a "Please monitor Ch 9" sign would do everyone some good at this bridge.

I’ve been in that Gloucester Bridge and I was southbound entering the harbor with the current pushing me. There was a lobster boat heading North hauling a string of traps, not just one trap, but a string. He was right in the draw hauling and the bridge tender was screaming at me to “Bring It!”.
It was terrifying in a single screw motorsailor. And I have a LOT of years underway, including 25 years of commercial sail with no engine as well as 15 years Capt of commercial tugs.
IMHO the bridge tender was WAY out of line.
We have an old saying in Maine that the most powerful man in a town is the dump keeper. If you can’t dump your trash, you are in a heap of you know what. I’d say bridge tenders are the second most important. Maybe that’s why some are so surely. The know the dump keeper is one ahead of them!

 

[Peter B]

 

[BruceK]

Right on! And, no one, absolutely no one, should attempt to negotiate an opening bridge without a team of maritime legal advisors on board. To do otherwise, a man(or woman or any other genus of human) would be but a fool to self and a burden unto others.

 

[Bryant]

Rules of the road

The will be an over generalization but it has been my experience that a lot of bridge tenders will go to great lengths to increase their feelings of self worth and importance. They make you wait when there is no traffic, they act difficult when there is no need, and will never miss an opportunity to belittle someone.

Their sole purpose in life is to open a bridge, and when you give them the chance to do their job, they act like you are asking for an audience with the pope.

You can all jump on me for stereotyping people and you will be 100% correct. I know I am doing it. I know its wrong. I know my best self would not make such judgements. I am not that enlightened yet. There are still a few occupations that if I met you at a party and you said "Hi....I'm a ( insert job title here )" I would just walk away. Bridge tender tops that list.

Yep.

 

[FF]

MY guess is the bridge fellow saw your speed , not your wake , ant thought you "had" to be going at wake making speed.

Sounds like he needs a year off for re education.

 

[pattormey]

Let the beatings continue

In the spirit of continuing to comment on this thread, yes, the poster should definitely be tri watching 16 and 9 / 13 as a good captain transiting the ICW. Had their been a collision, this would have been taken into consideration.

In review of the Coast Pilot for this Région, I did not find any rules for these bridges specific to the are as another poster suggested after searching on bridge and bridge regulations.

However, 33 CFR 117.1 begins all of the regulations that the drawbridge operator is obliged to adhere to. None of these gives the operator any authority to dictate the Rules of Navigation.

(

Rule 2 says there is more to vessel handling and rules than from rule 3 and beyond. So just maneuverability isn't king.


So some things are debatable as far as what could/should be done. Many situations are black and white but not all.


I think that what happened was no big deal either way, as was mentioned, no collision or allision....but I also feel had the Hatt been on channel 9 and coordinated....staying further back and seeing what the sailboat was up to might have helped...and the tender might not have said anything....


To close to call without being there...and knowing what scenario B might have unfolded.

 

[chivyw]

Right of way.

Seems to me that if the current is behind you then you have the right of way.
The bridge tender does not direct traffic, give heights but should encourage communication between vessels. You probably should have monntored the channels.

Let me describe the situation. South Florida, northbound on the ICW approaching a drawbridge with a 35' height and 90' width, big bridge. I'm operating a 52' MY and require 21' clearance so I don't need an opening. I'm in a slow zone with a mild current at my stern. I'm going only fast enough to maintain control of the boat, which is slightly above idle speed. I'm monitoring Ch 16 only. I see on the other side of the bridge a roughly 30' monohull sailboat with no sails and under power about 100 yds north of the bridge, facing west, which was into the wind and broadside to the bridge, but in a wide area. He was fine where he was. When I'm about 75 yds south of the bridge, heading north, it begins to open, presumably for the sailboat. However the sailboat does not begin to turn south and remains facing west until the bridge is fully opened. Seeing that, I continue north, hugging the right (east) side of the channel which would allow ample room for both of us to pass and as I am clearing the bridge he turns and begins south from about 100 yds away. We pass port to port about 75 yds north of the bridge and then the bridgetender hails me on 16 and tells me that this is a no wake zone, that I should be monitoring Ch 9 (the bridgetender channel in Florida) and that the sailboat has the right-of way. I reply that the sailboat had not even begun his approach when I passed under the bridge and that I had done nothing wrong. He advised that the USCG monitors this channel and that I could take it up with them. I followed this up with a phone call to the bridgetender when I was back in port. He maintained he was right, that I'm required to monitor Ch 9 when in the ICW and that once the sailboat received an opening they had the right-of-way.

So, my questions are:

1) Am I required to monitor Ch9 in the ICW in Florida. I understand that I hail the bridgetender on 9 but I did not need an opening.

2) I know that a sailboat under power is a powerboat but does a boat actually get special privilege because they have an opening? There was more than enough width for us to both pass safely under the bridge. I'm a good operator and in spite of having the current astern I was way over to my side, leaving more than 2/3 of the width for the sailboat.

3) Lastly, I was operating at the minimum speed required to maintain control of the boat, passing under a bridge. Regardless of the wake I left, which was minimal was I wrong? There were no marinas or docks near the bridge.

Thoughts? Opinions? Advice?

I want to be a good operator, and I believe I am. I received my 50 ton USCG License and ran Dive Charter boats here for about 5 years in the late 80's, early 90's and have had a boat in this area ever since. I'm not a novice but I'm beginning to wonder if I was in the right or in the wrong. I honestly wouldn't do anything differently, other than possibly monitoring Ch 9 when I approached the bridge, and that's a maybe.[/QUOTE]

 

[Art]

I am a cordial driver... regarding all forms of vehicles I command.

Do my best to obey and practice applicable rules and laws regarding each location, vehicle type I'm driving and type of other proximity vehicle on hand... as well as situations onsite and per each truly affected vehicle at hand.

My intent is to best as possible avoid collision [and/or other forms of harm] just before, during and just after each instance to which I am the captain of any type vehicle - boats much included!

In order to maintain calm self-composure during any situation: One important item I learned is to not let it get under my skin when any others [those involved in the situation] try to overstep their bounds of authority [verbally or otherwise]. Matter of fact... it amuses me and I often get a chuckle from their silly attempts to be important by trying to improperly/inappropriately attempt to take control. In other words... I don't at all bother to get into a pissing match with anyone. I let their rants slide off my back as I chuckle at their feeling of need for importance and I pleasantly/correctly carry on with my duties as captain.

Primary intent of my being cordial to others during situations is to make sure that the vehicle and passengers for which I am acting captain come through each situation unaffected/unscathed. My vessel/passengers being unscathed usually contributes to the other captains charges remaining in good condition too... no matter how pissy they may be during the situation.

Age old nautical rhyme:

There lies the body of one Michael O'Day

He died defending his right of way

Mike was right... dead right... as he sailed along

But, he's just as dead as if he were wrong!

In other words, as the end result - Regarding what ever moves I may make as captain during any situation: Vehicle and passengers for which I am acting captain must [and need to] come through each situation unaffected/unscathed.

 

[PNK]

Rules of the Road Ruling?

I am probably too late, since I have been somewhat off the grid for several weeks, but had a similar experience and wanted to share a possible solution.
A few years ago I helped a friend bring his 42' sloop up from the Jupiter area to Long Island,, and while we sailed offshore when the weather was favorable, we had to use the ICW for many days. When we were motoring, we believed that we had to be bound by powerboat rules, and acted accordingly, but didn't trust everyone else to follow those rules, or even to know them in some cases.
This was especially true while waiting for bridges to open, but also when going under fixed bridges, which we could just make with our 63' mast.
In addition to hailing bridge operators if we needed an opening, we got in the habit of hailing nearby boats, which we could identify either visually or via AIS, identifying ourselves, and letting them know we were going to transit the bridge to their starboard, or port, depending on direction and current. We did the same if we were being overtaken by a faster boat, or overtaking someone, which didn't happen much.
It may have been over-cautious, but we wanted to be sure that others knew we were there, rather than trust that they were keeping a good watch.
Doesn't resolve your question about the bridge operator, since you didn't need to request an opening, but it might have helped in dealing with the sailboat involved.
I had not heard the "no wake" rule the operator told you, but it doesn't seem logical, or safe, to force boats to lose rudder control in strong currents.
Did you ever hear further from any officials about this situation?

 

[psneeld]

Most boats creating wakes in strong currents are trying to get somewhere at more than a knot or two and loss of rudder control isn't an issue.


Going with a strong current, you only have to exceed the current more than you would with no current to retain control.


But going with the current and staying in control, makes a boat seem like it is going to fast.... despite there really isn't much wake.