The Preface indicates that the book was first published as The Rules of the Nautical Road by the late Captain Raymond F. Farwell of the U.S. Naval Reserve and professor of transportation at the University of Washington. After its first publication in 1941, many statutory and regulatory changes have been made, including the international side. These necessitated the revision of the rules in the book. But Captain Farwell observed in his 1941 edition, “The rules will not be better obeyed until they are better understood.”
Marine Collision Law has for so long been a specialty of judges on the admiralty bench and of a very limited number of admiralty lawyers at the bar. It should rather be a specialty of the mariner on the bridge instead. The current book is thus designed to satisfy seamanship classes such as those at the U.S. Naval Academy and at Naval R.O.T.C., colleges, and serve as a useful handbook for the officers at sea in their professional practice of navigation.
While the rules have evolved and will continue to do so, the principles of collision avoidance remain unchanged. The principles of collision avoidance are identified as: positive avoidance, bias for action, risk management, predictability, and communication. Maritime schools teach effective team communication as one of the pillars of bridge resource management.
The authors state that a rapid evolution in vessel navigation and collision avoidance technology in the 21st century took place. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and U.S. Inland Rules as of 1-December-2019 are presented showing there are no material differences. COLREGS apply to all vessels on the high seas and in all waters connected there. The amendments to the 1980 Inland Navigational Rules Act (INRA) by Congress and U.S. Coast Guard, made INRA closely parallel to the 1972 COLREGS.
Despite the few differences that remain between the Inland Rules and the COLREGS, the current version of the Inland Rules represents a major advance along the path to unification and harmonization. The power delegated to the U.S. Coast Guard to amend the rules provides flexibility to meet changing conditions and prevent the U.S. rules from becoming unduly out of line with international practice. By reducing the confusion engendered by divergent regimes, Congress and the USCG have helped eliminate one of the frequently cited causes of human error.
By 2012, the number of vessels traversing the world’s oceans have increased by 60%. Oceans and waterways are tighter yet must be shared. Accident data show 33% of all collisions occur in the morning between 4 and 8, consistent with accident analyses in other industries. An MIT study concluded that visibility was the single most important factor resulting in collisions. U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, Normal Cockcroft’s studies, and the MIT study conclude that 72% of the collisions developed from head-on situations; while crossing and overtaking situations accounted for 9%.
Whether mariners and the maritime education and training establishment are ready for a paradigm shift that relies on dual action, automated collision avoidance, or a “smart maritime ecosystem” vision that enlarges the vessel control function of shore-side players is an open question. It is too early to tell whether it is realistic to expect that the 150-plus nations now party to the 1972 COLREGS Convention could reach agreement on such a fundamental change.
Several conventions developed under the IMO are of central importance, including the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). These IMO conventions operate within the overall framework of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
After discussing the history of nautical rules, Collision Law is discussed. Collisions and other marine casualties resulting in significant injury, property damage, or environmental harm must be reported to the USCG, which will investigate the causes of the mishap and initiate appropriate remedial action. Response to a collision may include civil or criminal penalties, or suspension of the involved mariners’ professional license.
Rule applicability, definitions, structure, and construction. Vessels on the high seas, territorial seas, and certain inland waters of the U.S. are subject to the 1972 COLREGS. When navigating on waters inside U.S. demarcation lines, vessels are governed by the Inland Rules. While uniformity of the COLREGS and Inland Rules has been greatly advanced, the mariner must observe the differences in requirements according to the location of the vessel. The rules of the road have application within fixed geographical limits, are mandatory, must be obeyed in a timely manner, applied alike to all vessels, understood in the light of court interpretations, and applied consistently with other applicable legal regimes.
Rule of Good Seamanship and the General Prudential Rule. It covers in detail the mariner’s obligation to avoid collision, with prudence and forehandedness, which are achieved not just by following the nautical rules but by applying them with a high doze of good seamanship.
Look-outs, Radar systems, and Watch-standing duties. Look-out is a 24/7 responsibility. Per Rule 5, the look-out function includes radar, including ARPA, AIS, radiotelephone, and, for some vessels, a variety of other electro-optical detection equipment. Court decisions make it clear that a lookout must have no other duties, on which the STCW Code largely agrees with. The lookout must be constantly alert and vigilant, have had a reasonable amount of experience as a seaman, and report all sightings to the officer of the watch. The look-out function deserves the full attention of a qualified, well-rested, and dedicated seaman.
The Safe Speed Rule. Control over the vessel’s speed is an indispensable risk management measure for the master and watch officer. Speed affects both the time available for collision avoidance and the force of impact if collision cannot be avoided. Safe speed requires judgment that is based on a careful consideration of a number of factors, some of which apply only to radar-equipped vessels. Safe speed is inextricably linked to look-out effectiveness and vessel maneuverability. When watchstander reaction time is increased, through stress or multitasking demands, speed must be decreased.
Risk of Collision. The risk of collision rule works hand in hand with the STCW Code provisions for watch-standing and the U.S. Navigation Safety Regulations. Mariners or courts seeking a bright line definition of “risk of collision” in the collision regulations will be disappointed as there is none. They will, upon close inspection, find the method for detecting and assessing risk of collision. Under Rule 5, the radar must be used properly. Radar use under Rule 7 also includes plotting or equivalent systematic observations.
Action to Avoid Collision. Rule 8 prescribes actions to avoid collision in all conditions of visibility, in all three of the approach situations for vessels in sight; Rule 19 for vessels in restricted visibility; Rules 13 and 15 for overtaking and crossing situations, respectively; and Rule 18 for the less maneuverable vessels to make a single action approach where one vessel keeps her course and speed while the other maneuvers to avoid collision. Per Rule 14, applicable to head-on encounters, both vessels are required to alter course to starboard. The collision funnel concept emphasizes taking early action since options narrow as the situation develops.
Responsibilities in Narrow Channels and Fairways. Rule 9 recognizes the increased risk of collision in restricted waters. The risks arise not only from the limited waterway and high traffic density, but also from the potential for hydrodynamic interaction. Rule 9, which applies in all conditions of visibility, seeks to provide lateral separation between vessels by requiring all vessels proceeding along the course of the channel to keep to the starboard side. Passage in restricted waters is a time of increased risk because close-quarters situations cannot always be avoided. Encounters along turns or bends should be avoided.
Responsibilities in Managed Waterways: TSS and VTS. Within the U.S., each VTS operates under a set of rules regarding vessel reporting, movement, and operation. The regulations make it clear they do not displace the applicable rules of the road. One controversial area of development is the extent to which shore-side VTS operators may exert operational control over vessels within the VTS. Presently, the VTS regulations and applicable IMO guidelines make it clear that navigation responsibility remains with the vessel, and the role of the VTS is limited. How long that will remain with the introduction of unmanned vessels, is uncertain.
Responsibilities Based on Vessel Type, Status, or Employment. Rules 12 and 18 apply when vessels are in sight of one another. Rule 12 governs approaches between two sailing vessels. It does not apply if one or both are also operating under power. A fog signal of one prolonged and two short blasts indicates that the vessel sounding it is encumbered, but it does not confer a give-way/stand-on relationship. The prudent mariner will consider the approaching vessel’s status in deciding what risk management actions to take, while recognizing that legal privileges in Rule 18 do not begin until the vessel is visually sighted.
The Head-on Situation. This situation is characterized by a high speed approach, a threat of situational ambiguity and conflicting action, maximum effect of even small changes in course by either vessel in avoiding collision and maximum damage, in case of actual collision. Where neither vessel has the right of way, neither is obligated to hold course and speed. Rather, both have a duty to avoid collision by turning to starboard to effect a safe port-to-port passing. Extreme caution is key from the moment a head-on becomes evident until collision is no longer present.
The Overtaking Situation. The overtaking rule requires the overtaker to keep out of way of the vessel being overtaken. The requirement prevails over any contrary provisions in Rules 4-18. Rule 14 permits the overtaking vessel to pass on either side, subject to the rule applicable in narrow channels that if the leading vessel is keeping to the right per Rule 9(a), good seamanship dictates that she be overtaken on her port side.
The Crossing Situation. Rule 15 is a single action collision avoidance rule based on the theory that one vessel is directed to stand-on, while the give-way vessel maneuvers to keep out of the stand-on vessel’s way. The give-way vessel is directed to avoid crossing ahead of the stand-on vessel. This is accomplished by the give-way vessel making an early and substantial turn to starboard to pass under the stand-on vessel’s stern. If necessary, she must lower speed or stop or reverse. Where collision cannot be avoided by the give-way vessel alone, Rule 17(b) requires the stand-on vessel maneuver to avoid collision.
Responsibilities in Restricted Visibility. Risk management measures are prescribed by the rules of the road, SOLAS, STCW Conventions, U.S. Navigation Safety Regulations, and standards of good seamanship. Vessels operating in under restricted visibility are required to display their lights and sound fog signals. Vessels with weak radar signatures should carry and use radar reflectors or transponders. Sound signals are to be given when visibility decreases to 2 miles or less. A visibility of 5 miles or less is cause for reevaluating safe speed and readying engines for maneuvering.
Lights and Day Shapes. The importance of proper running and riding lights is emphasized by the fact that so many of the COLREGS and Inland Rules relate to them. In collision cases, the courts lavish some of their harshest criticisms on vessels that disregard the Rules on lighting requirements.
Sound and Light Signals. Violations of the sound signal rules constitute statutory fault. Under the Pennsylvania rule, any vessel not equipped with required sound signaling equipment, or found to have omitted a required signal, or sounded a misleading signal, will avoid liability for such fault only if she can prove her violation was not a cause of the collision. U.S. Supreme Court’s reason for its ruling in the Pennsylvania case is worth recalling: “The collision and its terrible toll might have been avoided had the correct signal been given in a timely manner by the bark Mary Troop.”
Conclusion. Farwells Rules of the Nautical Road presents pinpoint snapshots of the rules relating to the potential risks that may spring up in every voyage, buttressed with detailed analysis, and that is an understatement. It is a thorough book. This review is but a glimpse of what you may learn in each of the 17 chapters. The book abounds with elaborations of the important rules through illustration and forewarning of risky scenarios that may take place should the rules be disregarded. The book is written in such a way that a civilian or seafarer would equally understand the concept of avoiding risks, whether on inland waters or out at sea. As such, it would be an invaluable learning material for students in maritime schools and academies who would serve in the merchant fleet and seagoing services; and an irreplaceable reference material for watch-keeping officers and crew to safely navigate their vessels. As the saying goes, “Just prevent one accident –the next one!”