CASE 54        

Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 19.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction

When a hailing boat observes no response to her hail, adequate notice of intent to tack requires a second, more vigorous hail.

Summary of the Facts
L and W, close-hauled on starboard tack, were approaching the shore, with L a hull length ahead and a length-and-a-half to leeward. L hailed for room to tack, which hail was not heard by W. After waiting for a short interval, during which there was no response from W, L tacked onto port. Then, in spite of bearing away as rapidly as possible with main and jib sheets free, L hit W’s leeward side. L protested W under rule 19, and W protested L under rule 10.

At the hearing, W acknowledged that she was aware of the position of L before she tacked, but neither helmsman nor crew had observed L during the thirty seconds before the collision. Nonetheless, the protest committee dismissed L’s protest and disqualified her on the two grounds that she had hailed for room to tack when not in imminent danger of running aground and that her hailing was not adequate, since she had not hailed a second time after there had been no response to the first hail. L appealed.

Grounds for the appeal were: that the protest committee had improperly substituted its judgment as to the safety of the leeward boat and that when two close-hauled boats were approaching an obstruction, there was an obligation on the part of the windward boat to expect and be prepared for a hail that safe seamanship would tell her was likely to come.

Decision
L’s appeal is dismissed, but the failure of a hailed boat to hear an adequate hail does not relieve her of her obligations under rule 19. On the basis of the facts presented, however, the hail for room to tack in this instance was inadequate. Where a leeward boat, as in this case, receives no response after her hail, a second and more vigorous hail is required to constitute proper notice of her intention to tack.

Furthermore, rule 19.1 provides that after hailing the hailing boat shall give the other boat time to respond. The purpose of that is to provide time for one of the specific responses called for under rules 19.1(a) and (b) (totack or reply ‘You tack’). In either case, the hailing boat must tack after the appropriate response from the hailed boat. Therefore, the leeward boat must not sail into a position, before hailing, where she cannot allow sufficient time for a response.

L was properly disqualified under rule 10. W (later S) did not break rule 15, as she acquired right of way because of L’s actions. Concerning rule 14, the right-of-way boat W (later S) had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision and therefore did not break rule 14. However, it was possible for L (now P) to avoid the collision since she caused it. Her failure to do so means that she broke rule 14 as well as rule 10.

L was properly disqualified under rule 10. W (later S) did not break rule 15, as she acquired right of way because of L’s actions. Concerning rule 14, the right-of-way boat W (later S) had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision and therefore did not break rule 14. However, it was possible for L (now P) to avoid the collision since she caused it. Her failure to do so means that she broke rule 14 as well as rule 10.

USSA 1971/147