Choosing an intership Channel when called on 16....
- Thread starter Shearwater
- Start date
theoldsalt
Well-Known Member
If everyone obeyed ColRegs then I agree the use of the VHF radio would be unneccesary however at least 50% of skippers where I sail seem to either ignore the regs or are ignorant of them (I don't claim to know them all but I try). So the radio may be a last resort.
On the other hand if a skipper ignores the regs. then he/she would probably ignore the radio and many small craft ("day-trippers") don't carry a radio !
On the other hand if a skipper ignores the regs. then he/she would probably ignore the radio and many small craft ("day-trippers") don't carry a radio !
Birdseye
Well-Known Member
Dont know whetherr its a change but it is what I have to teach candidates for the licence, according to ofcom and the rya.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
I am not sure if you are rubbishing the rt proceedure, or my post. If the former, then we are in agreement. If the latter, then take a look at the RYA booklet VHF Radio (G22) page 21 and perhaps you will understand what I mean.
Otter
Well-Known Member
Yes, as explained on your radio course
(Dedicated ship-to-ship channels are 06, 08, 72 and 77, plus some others have it as a permitted second purpose (where not being used for their main one of "port ops" or whatever).)
Pete
Ta
funk-an-bord.de
Active Member
In Germany one SRC examination question is: Which channesl are international dedicated for sailing boats ... - 72 and 77.
But the praxis in Germany is to use 69 and 72.
Even when 69 is used by Cuxhaven port in the Elbe aproach and some other coast stations.
I am interested in list with definitions made by the ITU, RR etc. - as you mentioned - with the second purpose. On shortwave there are such lists, but on VHF I have never seen.
Thanks, Wilhelm
ShinyShoe
Well-Known Member
ShinyShoe
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid I wasn't rubbishing the RT procedure.
I don't have G22 handy only G26/02.
For non-DSC contact I understand the currently suggested contact method is:
Ship A Ship A Ship A, this is Ship B Ship B Ship B, on 1-6 Go Channel 7-2, over.
ship a can then respond on 16:
Ship B this is Ship A, 7-2 over.
Both stations tune to 72 and carry on contact.
Or if Ship B doesn't want to go 72 he responds on 16...
Ship B this is Ship A, negative Go 0-8 over.
I would then expect...
A this is B, going 0-8, over.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
So how does Ship A know that ship B has heard him on 16?
prv
Well-Known Member
This is what Ofcom (the UK radio authority) has to say about marine VHF channels: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/publication/ra_info/ra264/ra264.htm
This is the bit about channels with a secondary purpose:
"The chart overleaf" (I guess this was originally a paper document) is the table of channels at the bottom of the page, and they're referring to any that have a tick in the "intership" column.
Pete
ShinyShoe
Well-Known Member
Ah... There is a potential infinite loop there if you make the protocol...
A this is B, 7-2 over
B this is A, 7-2 over
A this is B, going 7-2 over
Does b then reply? If so how does he know he was heard this time.
Instead if you follow the protocol both move to 72 and B calls A and then gets a reply. If he gets no reply he returns to 16 once he's satisfied he's not going to be contacted and tries again.
If B never hears the reply from A he will probably stay on 16 and try again in a while. Meanwhile A has moved to 72 but doesn't get a contact so he knows something went wrong. If I was A I'd break protocol after 'a minute' and call B on 72 in this situation. If I get no reply I know its all gone wrong and I'd move back to 16 and consider direct contact or just waiting on 16 depending what I thought they might be calling for...
DSC is far better at all of this yet it seems grossly under used... So guess its rarely an issue.
funk-an-bord.de
Active Member
Thanks,
the reference [2] helped me to find a ITU document for my SRC training at SRC training,
I hope its up to date:
http://www.itu.int/md/dologin_md.asp?id=R00-CM-CIR-0019!!PDF-E
It shows 4 groups: ship-ship, duplex telecommunication and single/dual frequency usage.
G12
Well-Known Member
Oh really? I see professional mariners using VHF regularly for that purpose as I work aboard a vessel that spends a great portion of her time restricted in her ability to manoeuvre. Obviously the IRPCS are there to be followed but the VHF is an available aid and can be very handy.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
absolutely.
it is routinely used. The rules were written pre VHF to guard against ambiguity. There is now none and it has become the norm - and rightly so.
ShinyShoe
Well-Known Member
The only time I've ever heard it used for collision avoidance its been commercial vessels calling each other to ask daft questions like which side the should pass. ALWAYS followed by a very clear and robust response that either followed the the col regs like Red to Red or just Follow the Coll Regs.
Read any MAIB report where a vessel identified a collision risk and failed to act and you will see a chain of events almost always confused by VHF. The Coll Regs are simple. The stand on vessel stands on until he needs to take avoiding action then takes clear and definative avoiding action. Whenever I am stand on I am already planning for when and at what point that action needs to be... Yes there may be times I could avoid doing that by VHF contact. But if it goes wrong there will be entry who will point their finger and say VHF should not be used for collision avoidance. Can't think of a single incident where a stand on vessel made a cleat and decisive deviation to avoid a collision, in adequate time, and still got hit..
It may be common practice to use VHF for collision avoidance. Doesnt make it right.
Read any MAIB report where a vessel identified a collision risk and failed to act and you will see a chain of events almost always confused by VHF. The Coll Regs are simple. The stand on vessel stands on until he needs to take avoiding action then takes clear and definative avoiding action. Whenever I am stand on I am already planning for when and at what point that action needs to be... Yes there may be times I could avoid doing that by VHF contact. But if it goes wrong there will be entry who will point their finger and say VHF should not be used for collision avoidance. Can't think of a single incident where a stand on vessel made a cleat and decisive deviation to avoid a collision, in adequate time, and still got hit..
It may be common practice to use VHF for collision avoidance. Doesnt make it right.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
No, The way it has been taught for years gave 3 transmissions on 16, which makes sure that both parties know that they can hear each other. This new idea of 2 transmissions does not. You correctly said it yourself - 'Don't leave 16 till you acknowledge the call' - but 2 transmissions does not do this. Chasing each other over 2 different channels in the way you describe is the farce that can be avoided, and was my original point.
prv
Well-Known Member
Not round here.
On Ch12 I regularly hear commercial vessels calling each other to arrange a green-to-green pass, announce that they will be going "east of the greens" (ie, outside the buoyed channel), offer to wait for another to pass, or ask which way another will be turning at the end of the channel.
Pete
SailingVet
Active Member
Same at Harwich, green to green agreed over The radio = collision avoidance using VHF. Not really a "daft" question in confined waters with two major channels joining at a T.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
I fundamentally disagree with you. It makes complete sense.
For example, and this is a real example, I was being overtaken by a tanker. CPA according to AIS was 80m.
Possible reasons for this:
He hasn't seen me
He has seen me and intends to turn
He has seen me and is waiting to see what I do, as many small boats behave unpredictably.
My options without VHF:
Conform to colregs (hold course and speed)
Turn to increase CPA (though if he is about to turn my chance of success is 50:50)
What I did:
Call him, by name, stated the CPA was 80m on my equipment, stated that I was stand on vessel and intended to stand on, and asked his intentions.
He said he would turn to starboard, which he did.
On what planet was not using the VHF a better solution?
Last edited:
GHA
Well-Known Member
The MCA agrees with you.
Most of the time, though, it's a bad idea and can make things worse.