Frank Boettcher wrote:
OK, I have to ask. What is the rule of "Least Maneuverable"?
....

Truth be known, I don't think I have ever read it. It was explained
to me in a piloting course I took many years ago in the context that
sailing vessels don't automatically have right of way over power
boats.

I have to say I have a *huge* problem with this. I don't mean to say
that I wouldn't give a wide berth to a vessel that has a
maneuverability problem, but the way you're presenting it, we are
supposed to ignore the Colregs, and sort out situations in a way that
would place vessels on some sort of maneuverability continuum.


And it may always be determined after the fact, i.e. in the courts if
there is an incident.

The courts tend to follow a fairly strict interpretation of the rules
- departures are generally frowned upon. It does seem that they've
allowed vessels to go faster than some of the rules might imply, but
there's a lot of politics behind that.


Concept is simple. In the example above, my channel bound boat
tacking to windward in a narrow channel always has the right of way
over a sunfish that is not channel bound, regardless of what tack I'm
on. Because I am " least manueverable" given the narrow amount of
room I have to manuever.

Nope. Not buying it. If you said you were the Sunfish and you
deferred to less maneuverable boats I'd say that's very nice of you, I
often do the same. But to expect others to get out of your way just
isn't right. If I thought I needed other vessels to ignore the rules
and give me a break, I'd turn on the engine. In fact, there are a
number of such situations in my harbor where I used to sail my
Nonsuch, but now power the catamaran. If I wanted to get back into
daysailing rather than longer cruises, I get a more maneuverable boat.


If you are sailing and on intersection with a supertanker that
requires miles to stop or change course, even if not channel bound,
least manueverable is the rule.

Different case entirely. And frankly, a different discussion. If its
physically impossible for the tanker to stop, claiming "right of way"
is just plain stupid. The courts and powers that be have supported
large ship practices that appear at odds the the rules, and that we
have to live with.

However, I don't believe this applies when smaller vessels are
considered. The Colregs do a pretty good job of giving guidance for
most (2 boat) situations


If you are sailing and approaching a barge train of two or three coal
barges heading for the power plant, they will always be considered
"least manueverable" and have right of way.

Again, I'd give them a wide berth, but if they have a maneuverability
problem, all they have to do is turn turn on the RAM lights.


If the sport fisherman is channel bound, and you are not, it is your
obligation to avoid, if on a collusion course that would occur in the
channel.

Here we differ completely.

How would I know what a particular sport fisherman draws? How would
he know the maneuvering ability of Ellen's sailboat? Or my catamaran?
And why is he somehow exempt from Rule 6, which requires a safe
speed? If he's doing thirty knots, he's closing a quarter mile in 30
seconds. In the time, the sailboat might only be able to go a few
hundred feet, much less if it has to tack. No - this doesn't work.

Of course, if this situation falls under Rule 9, the sailboat should
not impede the powerboat - you don't have to invent a new rule for
this. But may be impossible for the sailboat to comply unless the
powerboat slows down.


at least that is the way it was explained to me in the course.

I can believe that an instructor advised that you should give a wide
berth to vessel that appear to be less maneuverable, that's just
common sense and simple courtesy. But to say that concept supersedes
the ColRegs just doesn't fly.