Channel Traffic Separation Zones.

[Daydream believer]

Bingo, that must have been what it was.

So you think you are not going nuts after all
Jury is out on that one :encouragement:

 

[john_morris_uk]

Good stuff, thanks to all.
What I would like to trace is a link to something which I am sure I saw, unless I am going nuts. That is:

That boats crossing the main lines of traffic, in that sector, are requested to not impede ships transiting between the two separation zones

There's no such instruction or rule.

 

[alant]

There's no such instruction or rule.

If "impede" means 'try not to get run down', makes sense though.

 

[john_morris_uk]

If "impede" means 'try not to get run down', makes sense though.

But firstly it doesn’t. And secondly there are no special rules for the passages of water between the separation schemes.

But you knew that anyway....

The rule to avoid collision applies to everyone but I think you knew that too...

 

[alant]

But firstly it doesn’t. And secondly there are no special rules for the passages of water between the separation schemes.

But you knew that anyway....

The rule to avoid collision applies to everyone but I think you knew that too...

So why have you bothered to say so?

 

[john_morris_uk]

So why have you bothered to say so?

So others (who might not have very full knowledge of IRPCS) can see how stupid some remarks are.

 

[LadyInBed]

So others (who might not have very full knowledge of IRPCS) can see how stupid some remarks are.

People and remarks

 

[alant]

So others (who might not have very full knowledge of IRPCS) can see how stupid some remarks are.

IYO of course.
When you get to those mythical Pearly Gates, your boss will sit you in a corner & make you write lines.
"I should have tried harder, not to be so bloody arrogant".

 

[LittleSister]

IYO of course.
When you get to those mythical Pearly Gates, your boss will sit you in a corner & make you write lines.
"I should have tried harder, not to upset forumites by deploying facts".

There, fixed that for you.

 

[doug748]

..... there are no special rules for the passages of water between the separation schemes.

...............

Charts have it as a recommended traffic lane and note below........................... >

HO Definition:RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC LANE PART. Recommended direction of traffic flow is a traffic flow pattern indicating a recommended directional movement of traffic where it is impractical or unnecessary to adopt an established direction of traffic flow. (IHO Dictionary –S-32).A recommended traffic lane part is an area of a recommended direction of traffic control area within which traffic flow is generally along one bearing.

Aye.

 

[john_morris_uk]

...............





Aye.

Indeed. And your point is? There’s nothing in the note except some common sense about how if you must cross the traffic flow, crossing as close to right angles as you can. (Because that’s the quickest way to cross the traffic flow. ) Certainly nothing about not impeding.

Try justifying why you disobeyed IRPCS to the subsequent court of inquiry on the grounds of a note with a recommendation on the chart.

 

[john_morris_uk]

IYO of course.
When you get to those mythical Pearly Gates, your boss will sit you in a corner & make you write lines.
"I should have tried harder, not to be so bloody arrogant".

Not my opinion. And no arrogance in gently pointing out facts. I’m not perfect and never claim to be. I believe that I know one or two things about IRPCS and their practical application in small craft though. All IMHO of course.

I also know that first reaction of being found out for saying something stupid is to attack.

 

[Uricanejack]

Indeed. And your point is? There’s nothing in the note except some common sense about how if you must cross the traffic flow, crossing as close to right angles as you can. (Because that’s the quickest way to cross the traffic flow. ) Certainly nothing about not impeding.

Try justifying why you disobeyed IRPCS to the subsequent court of inquiry on the grounds of a note with a recommendation on the chart.

Or try justifying why you did not

The IRPCS are not carved on stone tablets. The requirements of Good Seamanship always applies. The note, suggests Good Seaman Ship.

Generally, I would agree with your usual recommendation to follow the rules. IMHO, In this particular case, depending upon the actual circumstances and conditions.

Choosing to take early substantive action which is readily apparent to the observer. To not impede traffic transiting this area between TSS. Is a reasonable action to take and is quite justifiable as being in compliance with the the IRPCS.

Bottom line, if your choice of action leads to a close quarters situation. Simply reling on having complied with the IRPCS will fall short of providing a defence.

So take your pick and don’t get into a close quarters situation

 

[laika]

Didn’t this thread actually end at post #10? Or do these threads never really end until someone asserts that their poem about Michael/William/Johnny jay/o’day has more relevance than anything the IMO has come up with?

 

[alant]

Not my opinion. And no arrogance in gently pointing out facts. I’m not perfect and never claim to be. I believe that I know one or two things about IRPCS and their practical application in small craft though. All IMHO of course.

I also know that first reaction of being found out for saying something stupid is to attack.

Ditto.

 

[GHA]

The IRPCS are not carved on stone tablets.

Yes they are, you need absolutely nothing else, everything you'll ever need to know about collision avoidance is in there!

Rule 2 - "The IRPCS are not carved on stone tablets. "

 

[Uricanejack]

Yes they are, you need absolutely nothing else, everything you'll ever need to know about collision avoidance is in there!

Rule 2 - "The IRPCS are not carved on stone tablets. "

You got it

 

[doug748]

Indeed. And your point is?...........

Fairly easy to decode, in the context of this post, you are wrong.

GHA, grasped the question and answered it in post 8. Had you read the whole thread before sounding off you would have fared better. The problem with magisterial pronouncements is that they look a bit daft when they go awry.

I have noticed that more folk seem to be gassing off before reading things properly, sometimes not even the full text of the initial question, so you are not alone.