Trapezing and Windward Boat

Originally posted by Brass Originally posted by sargesail Are understood - so you are suggesting that leeward could be in breach of 14 if it doesn’t take the available option of not stretching out? SEE GMLs post second in the thread. L breaks rule 14. No beg-you-pardons. Originally posted by sargesail Which might be the case….but it would be my contention that in most cases 14. a would apply….a crew going out needn’t check that space to windward, and their first apprehension of contact would probably be head on jib r whatever. Nah, don't buy that. L, like everybody else is required to keep a good lookout. Originally posted by sargesail And that there would be few cases where exoneration under 14 b wouldn’t apply That I do buy<g>. Originally posted by sargesail …..in fact notwithstanding US case 65, Don't get your reference. USA Appeal 65 is about one incident or two, which I don't think applies here, and the more relevant Appeal for you is RYA 2003/3. Did you mean US Appeal 45? That's about anticipation, and I don't think that's relevant here either. Originally posted by sargesail would say that damage or injury would not have been caused by soft flesh on windward boat. Yes, but there might be some injury caused by the windward boat on some soft flesh.

You’re not a trapeze crew are you? It’s actually really hard to look into that space behind you!

So I was talking about 16.1 in the post above at 1842. Does L break rule 14 if she brings the boat upright into ty mast of a windward boat above her hull?

If there isn’t some leeway for L why does the word ‘reasonable’ feature in the rule?

I was referring to US65 because of the double incident concept…..my point being that it would be hard for 14b not to apply unless there were something which made it 2 incidents. Sorry for the confusion

Edited by sargesail - 31 Mar 22 at 2:41pm

Originally posted by sargesail Are understood - so you are suggesting that leeward could be in breach of 14 if it doesn’t take the available option of not stretching out?

SEE GMLs post second in the thread.

L breaks rule 14. No beg-you-pardons.

Originally posted by sargesail Which might be the case….but it would be my contention that in most cases 14. a would apply….a crew going out needn’t check that space to windward, and their first apprehension of contact would probably be head on jib r whatever.

Nah, don't buy that. L, like everybody else is required to keep a good lookout.

Originally posted by sargesail And that there would be few cases where exoneration under 14 b wouldn’t apply

That I do buy<g>.

Originally posted by sargesail …..in fact notwithstanding US case 65,

Don't get your reference.


USA Appeal 65 is about one incident or two, which I don't think applies here, and the more relevant Appeal for you is RYA 2003/3.

Did you mean US Appeal 45? That's about anticipation, and I don't think that's relevant here either.

Originally posted by sargesail would say that damage or injury would not have been caused by soft flesh on windward boat.

Yes, but there might be some injury caused by the windward boat on some soft flesh.

Are understood - so you are suggesting that leeward could be in breach of 14 if it doesn’t take the available option of not stretching out?

Which might be the case….but it would be my contention that in most cases 14. a would apply….a crew going out needn’t check that space to windward, and their first apprehension of contact would probably be head on jib r whatever.

And that there would be few cases where exoneration under 14 b wouldn’t apply…..in fact notwithstanding US case 65, I would say that damage or injury would not have been caused by soft flesh on windward boat.

Anyone want to argue that trapeze not going to full stretch is not an action?


Crew going out on trapeze may be a normal act of seamanship, not to be unexpected.

Otherwise Case 73[/QUOTE]

Brass - wondered why you raise going out on the trapeze as an action?

It doesn’t seem to come within the scope of the use of ‘action’ in the definition of Keep clear, nor rules 15 or 16?



Edited by sargesail - 31 Mar 22 at 6:42am

Originally posted by JimC Originally posted by Brass Originally posted by JimC It seems to me that if the crew of Leeward cannot get on the trapeze without making contact then Windward has already broken RRS 11. Referring to the definition of Keep Clear, exactly how do you make that out? The crew is entitled to get out on the wire, yes? And if they get partially out on the wire so they are 1/4 inch short of touching windward then surely the condition "can change course in both directions without immediately making contact" is not met. The alternative would seem to be that the leeward ROW boat is prevented from sailing her course in her desired manner by the windward give way boat, which seems perverse. It would require the ROW boat to change course to leeward in order to have enough space for the crew to get on the wire. Its well established that Give Way does not need to anticipate gear being moved out of its normal position. But in this case the crew is moving into normal position. Does that have implications?

There's no doubt that W does not keep clear.

Contact almost always proves failure to keep clear.

It was the 'already' I was balking at.

In the 1/4 inch example, crew could possibly be in a different plane to the hull of W (and not in amongst her shrouds).

I don't think that the definition of keep clear necessarily works.

I just think that somewhere around the 1/4 inch mark, give or take an inch, L needs to take avoiding action. That gets you there.

Anyone want to argue that trapeze not going to full stretch is not an action?


Crew going out on trapeze may be a normal act of seamanship, not to be unexpected.

Otherwise Case 73