Page 112 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

Serendip said in her appeal that 'we believed, in hearing applied only when a boat had failed to 'keep
accordance with the sailing instructions that we had to clear of commercial shipping as required by the Colregs
round the yellow buoy after a change of course had been and by-laws.' A power-driven vessel such as Red Eagle
signalled.' Nothing in the sailing instructions required her was normally required by IRPCAS Rule 18 (a)(iv) to
to round a yellow buoy. As rule 90.2(c) makes clear, keep out of the way of a sailing vessel, in which case
nothing said at a briefing can change the sailing IRPCAS Rule 17(a)(i) required NJOS, as the stand-on
instructions, nor can it explicitly or implicitly change the vessel, to keep her course and speed. NJOS would have
meaning of a race signal in the Racing Rules of Sailing failed to comply with this when she had tacked out into
the channel.
The decision to disqualify White Knuckles 1 is reversed.
Although she was present at the hearing, she was never However, if Red Eagle was a vessel to whom the
a party to the hearing, as defined, as she was explicitly narrow channel or fairway provisions of the IRPCAS or
excluded from Serendip's protest, and was not protested the local Byelaws applied, then NJOS was required not
by the protest committee. As stated in rule 64.1, only a to obstruct or impede her, which was tantamount to
party to a protest hearing can be penalized. Although requiring NJOS to ‘keep clear’ of Red Eagle, and so the
she did not appeal against her disqualification, the RYA DNE without a hearing and its endorsement by the jury
is empowered by rule 71.2 to reverse the protest would have been proper.
committee’s decision. She is reinstated to her finishing The RYA referred this question back to the protest
position
committee, deciding as follows once an answer was
Serendip v Firestorm and others, Royal Western YC of England provided.
RYA 2004/2 DECISION
IRPCAS rule 9(b) NJOS’s appeal is dismissed.
IRPCAS rule 17(a)(i) NJOS was required by the preamble to Part 2 of the
IRPCAS rule 18 (a)(iv) Racing Rules of Sailing to accord Red Eagle her rights

When a boat that is racing meets a large powered vessel under the International Regulations for the Prevention
in a fairway or narrow channel, she is to presume and of Collisions at Sea (the IRPCAS - also known as the
act on the basis that the vessel can safely navigate only 'Colregs').
within the channel, and therefore has right of way. However, Red Eagle might be considered to have right
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS of way over NJOS. IRPCAS rule 9(b) says that a sailing
NJOS had tacked briefly into the fairway of vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which
Southampton Water. She tacked back, but not before the can safely navigate only within a narrow passage or
captain of Red Eagle, an approaching car ferry, realising fairway, and regulation 10(1) of the Southampton
there to be a risk of collision, decided to go full astern, Harbour Byelaws 2003 which applied to the area of the
and reported the matter to the club. An independent incident requires a small vessel such as NJOS, not being
enquiry (that was not a protest) followed, and based on confined to the fairway, not to make use of the fairway
its findings, the race committee disqualified NJOS so as to obstruct other vessels which can navigate only
without a hearing, acting under a sailing instruction that within the fairway. If Red Eagle was restricted to the
stated: fairway, then in effect she had right of way, and NJOS
had impeded or obstructed her.
Boats shall keep clear of commercial shipping as
required by the Colregs and by-laws. Any boat that However, if the narrow channel or fairway provisions of
contravenes this sailing instruction may be penalized or the IRPCAS or the Byelaws did not apply to Red Eagle,
disqualified from one or more races or from the series then it was the powered Red Eagle that was required to
by the race committee without a hearing. A keep clear of the sailing vessel NJOS. (The term 'keep
disqualification under this sailing instruction may be clear' is not to be found in the IRPCAS, where the term
non-excludable. This affects RRS 63.1. 'keep out of the way of' is used instead, in this case in
IRPCAS rule 18(a)(iv). The RYA judges these terms to
The decision was upheld by a hearing (that too was not be synonymous.) If Red Eagle was the vessel required
a protest) requested as provided in the sailing to keep clear, then NJOS was not, and so the provisions
instructions by NJOS, before a protest committee. of the sailing instruction were not applicable to her.
Neither the enquiry nor the subsequent hearing found as
a fact whether it was NJOS or Red Eagle which had While NJOS may indeed have broken IRPCAS rule
right of way, noting that Red Eagle’s draft was found on 17(a)(i) by failing, as a right-of-way vessel, to hold her
investigation to be sufficiently shallow to allow her to course and speed, she could be penalized for that only
sail outside the fairway, even though her operational as a result of a protest, and there was never any protest
practice was to stay within the fairway. complying with Rule 61.1(b), 61.2 and 61.3 against her.
Even if she had been protested, the penalty (assuming
NJOS was scored DNE by the race committee, and that rule 2 was not also infringed) could only be DSQ,
appealed. and not DNE if the sailing instruction did not apply.
The RYA decided that the question of which vessel held In its reply to the question from the RYA, the protest
right of way was material to whether NJOS had been committee pointed out that a vessel restricted to a
properly penalized. The power of the race committee narrow channel was not required to display any signal
under the sailing instructions to disqualify without a to this effect, and that it followed that a sailing vessel
112