Please help with ROW question

[matthewmiller01]

This is the way out of the inlet where my marina is to the main channel. As you can see, we have to go under a bridge. Not all of he openings are navigable (depth). In fact, only one of them has markings indicating where the boats are designated to transit through. There is one or two openings that actually could be used. My issue is with fishing boats. They often fish there. The bridge is past the no-wake zone.

I am considerate, I think, and I try not to swamp anybody. But I do not pass through at no-wake speed. I will not risk my passengers and my boat out of courtesy. So I go through at the slowest speed at which I am comfortable. The problem is that when I am plowing, I put out a very large wake. If I could go through truly on plane, the wake would be smaller, but again, too much risk to do it on plane (speed).

I know that I am legally responsible for damage from my wake, but I want to know what the law states about thissituation. Any advice or commentary about what the law says would be greatly appreciated.

 

[1956olds]

What do the other big boats do when the situation occurs?

 

[northern]

Where we boat it is common for boats in tight areas where ther are currents to anounce Security 3X, state size of boat, say what way you are going. If people can not figure out what is up and take apropriate action. Once going to Alaska a large ship announced he was in a narrow channel going 22 knots and making large wake and marinors should take apropriate action. Seems to work people move.

 

[src]

This is essentially the same issue raised in the "fishing in the channel" question raised earlier. The law says you yield to unpowered or anchored vessels, period. You are also responsible for the effects of your wake. Even if you don't swamp the boat, you could knock a fisherman down such that they are injured.

In my mind, however, there is an obligation upon the person choosing to stop in the channel (or right next to it). Much like a person stopping their car in the middle of the road - there needs to be a better reason than "I felt like it".

But in the end, it's all on the boat under way to act responsibly, no matter how aggravating the fool in the jon-boat is. I ran into this situation several times yesterday. Quite a few people were fishing in the main channel of the James River. Fortunately, the channel is wide enough that I felt reasonably safe moving to the other side and passing on plane, but I knew I was going to rock their boats pretty well. On the other hand, my marina is up the Appomattox river, which gets very narrow. I always slow to no-wake speed for the fishermen there. It's a totally different situation in the narrows than it is on bigger water.

As for the specific situation you have to deal with passing under that bridge, I suspect I would handle it pretty much the way you do. Pass at the safest speed (for both you and them) that you can manage.

 

[src]

Where we boat it is common for boats in tight areas where ther are currents to anounce Security 3X, state size of boat, say what way you are going. If people can not figure out what is up and take apropriate action. Once going to Alaska a large ship announced he was in a narrow channel going 22 knots and making large wake and marinors should take apropriate action. Seems to work people move.

Note that he's boating an inland waterway, and it's likely that about 95% of the boats out there are running without a radio, approaching 100% for the small fishing boats he's dealing with.

 

[CSR_Admin]

Looks like a pretty big bridge to me. You should be able to idle through there on one engine if you had to. Why do you have to go at a speed which leaves a big wake? Those fishing boats hidden behind bridge fenders are annoying, but you are responsible for your wake.

 

[Dsybok]

I guess I don't understand why you can't idle under this bridge at idle, on both engines you would not make any wake at all. Is the current sufficiently strong that you need to power through? Or are you concerned about getting through the channel quickly due to traffic?

Don't forget the basics, you should sound 1 long blast as you approach the bridge to warn unseen traffic of your approach.

 

[Capt. Rusty Higgins]

I always go under or through bridges and all other obstructions, at idle speed. Regardless of the posted speed, if I can not see on the backside of a fender, I am slowing down.

Capt. R

 

[Gary Hill]

I always go under or through bridges and all other obstructions, at idle speed. Regardless of the posted speed, if I can not see on the backside of a fender, I am slowing down.

Capt. R

+1 on Rusty's comment. I would also like to comment on the fishing boats. Some of them don't make the best choices of fishing spots (I.e., the other post today). However, in most cases, they have just as much right to be there as anyone else. If there is a possibility of my wake doing any harm I must slow down.

My 2 Cents

 

[mistercomputerman]

I am under the impression that speed under a bridge is a local thing and that some states have rules that say you have to transit all their bridges at no wake speed.

 

[fwebster]

I am not aware of a special nav rule that governs transiting under a bridge, however, there is Rule # 2 of the Navigation Rules make it your responsibility to operate your vessel in such a manner that you do not "neglect any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen or by the special circumstances of the case". Rule # 2 also addresses all dangers of navigation and special circumstances and allows you to depart from the NAV rules to avoid immediate danger. In other words, Rule 2 addresses all situations where you may put others in danger and makes it your responsibility to avoid such situations.

I think that bridge is on the Tennessee river which is navigable , so the NAV rules do apply.

In actual practice, you never know when an 80 year old guy has his grandkids out in a jon boat fishing behind a bridge piling or fender out of sight until you pass them. Then it is too late to keep from swamping them. Go under bridges at idle.....,it isn't worth the risk.

 

[Trucky]

I agree with the above points about your responsibilities as captain of the vessel underway but... are there not some responsibilities of those who anchor, fish or otherwise park in the navigable portions of the bridge?

From Tennessee Boating Laws:

It is illegal to:

1. Operate any vessel in such a way that it will interfere unnecessarily with the safe navigation of other vessels.
2. Anchor a vessel in the traveled portion of the river or channel that will prevent or interfere with any other vessel passing through the same are.

 

[matthewmiller01]

What do the other big boats do when the situation occurs?

99% of the boats go through at speed of some sort. Most don't go through wide open, but I have seen almost no one go through at no-wake speed.

This is essentially the same issue raised in the "fishing in the channel" question raised earlier.

That is what sparked my question about my specific situation.

Note that he's boating an inland waterway, and it's likely that about 95% of the boats out there are running without a radio, approaching 100% for the small fishing boats he's dealing with.

That is very true - for the fishing boats. Pleasure boats usually do have them.

Looks like a pretty big bridge to me. You should be able to idle through there on one engine if you had to. Why do you have to go at a speed which leaves a big wake? Those fishing boats hidden behind bridge fenders are annoying, but you are responsible for your wake.

The fishing boats aren't hidden. They are in sight (for me, at least). And I am going through at probably 5-10 mph. (Sorry, I use mph since I'm not on the ocean.).

I guess I don't understand why you can't idle under this bridge at idle, on both engines you would not make any wake at all. Is the current sufficiently strong that you need to power through? Or are you concerned about getting through the channel quickly due to traffic?

Don't forget the basics, you should sound 1 long blast as you approach the bridge to warn unseen traffic of your approach.

There is no current to speak of, but there are two marinas up from it - mine (which is very big) and another farther up that is about half the size as mine. There is a LOT of traffic in and out. So that is part of it. The other is my comfort level. I do not feel comfortable going through at no-wake speed due to the response time to steering changes. As I said, I will not risk my passengers and boat because they want to fish at the base of the bridge supports. I am worried about hitting one of the supports. Maybe I am more worried than I need to be, but that is what I am worried about.

I am under the impression that speed under a bridge is a local thing and that some states have rules that say you have to transit all their bridges at no wake speed.

There are no special speed limits for transiting under bridges here that I am aware of.

I am not aware of a special nav rule that governs transiting under a bridge, however, there is Rule # 2 of the Navigation Rules make it your responsibility to operate your vessel in such a manner that you do not "neglect any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen or by the special circumstances of the case". Rule # 2 also addresses all dangers of navigation and special circumstances and allows you to depart from the NAV rules to avoid immediate danger. In other words, Rule 2 addresses all situations where you may put others in danger and makes it your responsibility to avoid such situations.

I think that bridge is on the Tennessee river which is navigable , so the NAV rules do apply.

In actual practice, you never know when an 80 year old guy has his grandkids out in a jon boat fishing behind a bridge piling or fender out of sight until you pass them. Then it is too late to keep from swamping them. Go under bridges at idle.....,it isn't worth the risk.

That is how I see it - that I am avoiding danger by going above no-wake speed. Again, maybe that is where I am wrong, but I feel that way. And yes, it is on the TN River.

I agree with the above points about your responsibilities as captain of the vessel underway but... are there not some responsibilities of those who anchor, fish or otherwise park in the navigable portions of the bridge?

From Tennessee Boating Laws:

It is illegal to:

1. Operate any vessel in such a way that it will interfere unnecessarily with the safe navigation of other vessels.
2. Anchor a vessel in the traveled portion of the river or channel that will prevent or interfere with any other vessel passing through the same are.

That is the crux of my question/issue. I truly am trying not to be a d1ck, but I want to stay safe and legal.

I appreciate all of the comments. Please keep them coming. I can always learn more.

 

[mwph]

Very interesting thread. As I read, and reread, through it I can't help but think that a very wide range of circumstances are being discussed as if every situation needs to be dealt with identically. Narrow marked marina entrance channels and 1/2 mile wide marked channels on the main river may fall under some of the same rules and guidelines, but the room for "error" is vastly different. Common sense and courtesy may not override law but should always come into play.

First and foremost is of course the safety of your vessel & it's passengers. I feel that as Captain, you need to determine the best course of action. I will always error on the side of caution but sometimes a jackass in a narrow marked channel is just that. And if a 25' boat at idle speed rocks the 14' Jon boat a little too much that that's just too bad. I will not risk my boat because the fisherman,(usually ignoring me) wants to fish the shallows & was there first.

The marked channel, regardless of size is marked for a reason and it's not to let people where the fish might be.

 

[1956olds]

On the saginaw river most all bridges are no wake,I can travel at 5.7-6.3 mph and hardly make a 1 foot wave,probably less with no difficulty controling my boat even when another is passing and fishing boats are near pilings or fenders.Perhaps you should be the example to others who run at speed and cause larger wakes for the other boaters near the bridge.

 

[rcknecht]

From your picture of the bridge, and if if was more people fishing near it, I would slow down. Boating a relaxation, not confortation, when in doubt go slow...

 

[mwph]

AND for what it's worth... From what I can see in the picture, under no circumstances would my boat be traveling any faster than "sipping speed" while approaching or going under that bridge, weather other boats were in sight or not. Is my depth perceptIon bad? How big is the actual opening that you pass through?

 

[1990-270-da-lover]

Another issue I see with transiting bridge crossings at speed is visibility of boaters approaching from the other side. Depending on the approach angle it may be nearly impossible to see another vessel approaching the bridge because of the placement of the supports, and if there is more than one navigable span it can be very hard to tell which span the other vessel is planning on using. That said I always approach from a safe distance at no wake speed just to be able to adjust to the approaching vessels and make a safe transition. If there are boats fishing amongst the supports hopefully I can adjust my heading and use an alternate span if possible or just stop and let the approaching traffic transit before I get too close to cause an unsafe condition for any of the vessels.

 

[Woody]

My issue is with fishing boats. They often fish there.
I am considerate, I think, and I try not to swamp anybody. But I do not pass through at no-wake speed. I will not risk my passengers and my boat out of courtesy. So I go through at the slowest speed at which I am comfortable. The problem is that when I am plowing, I put out a very large wake.

There is no current to speak of, but there are two marinas up from it - mine (which is very big) and another farther up that is about half the size as mine. There is a LOT of traffic in and out. So that is part of it. The other is my comfort level. I do not feel comfortable going through at no-wake speed due to the response time to steering changes. As I said, I will not risk my passengers and boat because they want to fish at the base of the bridge supports. I am worried about hitting one of the supports. Maybe I am more worried than I need to be, but that is what I am worried about.
I appreciate all of the comments. Please keep them coming. I can always learn more.

Only going by that pic the spans look pretty wide and visibility pretty good for what it is. Being that we have similar boats I question that you're only comfortable steering at a speed that throws out "a very large wake". If you must go a little faster, the wake would be minimal up to around 1,200rpm. I'm finding it hard to understand your worry about steering response time. How do you operate around marinas? You must be able to steer well...I doubt your are laying out a roller while going down marina fairways.

 

[IanBat]

Only going by that pic the spans look pretty wide and visibility pretty good for what it is. Being that we have similar boats I question that you're only comfortable steering at a speed that throws out "a very large wake". If you must go a little faster, the wake would be minimal up to around 1,200rpm. I'm finding it hard to understand your worry about steering response time. How do you operate around marinas? You must be able to steer well...I doubt your are laying out a roller while going down marina fairways.

+1. In Sydney Harbour on the weekend, we spent 2 nights anchored up in a small bay near the fish markets, we weny in and out of the bay sveral times to take people for a tour of the festivities. The bay is 4 Knots, with my IO's thats one motor engaged. To nter exit the bay, you have to pass through the remains of an old bridge that used to open, it is now permanently left open, there is now also only one channel open, I am presuming due to the fact the timber is slowly falling of the bridge and that channel is now blocked. It would be possible for two boats to go through the channel, however with the wind blowing directly across it and tide flow etc, no-one that I met as I approached it was going to attempt that, and one of us. generally the furthest out would yield.

With the Maritime Berths right next to the bridge, no one was going over the limit.

And with steering, I pretty well approach it the same as I do around the marina, if i need a quick move, use the sticks.