Choosing an intership Channel when called on 16....

Pye_End said:
One of the recent RYA teaching book has this in - ie 'suggest channel...' when calling. However it goes on to say that the called party still has control over channels in the normal way. This led to some confusion on my DSC refresher a year or so back, to the point where the the instructor suggested we ignored the 'suggest channel..' part of the book, and rightly so in my view.
Click to expand...

If calling a shore station. They have to have control as limited channels. There may even be ships or yachts with old kit with limited channels.

Pye_End said:
I forget the context of the discussion at the time, but it seems rather daft to teach that the station called controls the working channel, and then to teach virtually the opposite.

In practice, it also means that the station called does not have confirmation that his reply has been received, so one party may move whilst the other is still on 16 - presumably the reasoning behind the correct rt procedure.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Don't leave 16 till you acknowledge the call.
Billjratt said:
I quite often do it. The last time I just chose 06 as I knew there were people on 77 (my preferred channel in the middle of the SWR band) but then I was very close to the ship in question and knew I was not going to be overcalled by a distant station (but may have blitzed them as I forgot to reduce power - slapped wrist)
Shouldn't we be using 13 in a colregs negotiation anyway?
Click to expand...
No. Vhf has no role to play in collision avoidance.

Earlier this year I called a ship for the first (and so far only) time while crossing the Channel lanes. No response on 16, so I tried 13 and got an immediate answer (he had indeed seen me, his CPA by radar matched mine by AIS, and we agreed we were both happy for me to cross under his bow at that distance). So the "bridge to bridge safety of navigation" designation does indeed work.

However, when I hear ships questioning each others' intentions, they usually seem to follow the standard procedure of calling on 16 and then moving to a working channel (nominated by the recipient :) ).

Pete
Click to expand...
You had him on AIS so you know his MMSI but DSC call?
 
ShinyShoe said:
You had him on AIS so you know his MMSI but DSC call?
Click to expand...

What can I say? I've certainly used DSC via AIS to call other vessels on several occasions (not for collision avoidance), so it's not like I don't know how. But I guess on that occasion the desire to speak to him, and to keep my eyes on him, overrode the thought of looking inwards and pressing buttons.

Pete
 
We had a similar experience in the channelling a ship, East going part of the Dover TSS.
Called via DSC - call acknowledged, VHF channel changed but no voice response from the ship.
Called on 16 - no voice response but immediate change of heading by ship to increase CPA.
Slightly unnerving.
 
ShinyShoe said:
No. Vhf has no role to play in collision avoidance.
Click to expand...

Really? Most of the VHF traffic we encountered from Cadiz Radio recently (Gib Straits) was specifically about collision avoidance. In fact we heard them calling vessels saying "according to our instruments you are entering a collision risk situation" on more than one occasion. Not those exact words but the meaning was the same.
 
concentrik said:
Really? Most of the VHF traffic we encountered from Cadiz Radio recently (Gib Straits) was specifically about collision avoidance. In fact we heard them calling vessels saying "according to our instruments you are entering a collision risk situation" on more than one occasion. Not those exact words but the meaning was the same.
Click to expand...

In a collision situation I think it would be foolish to eschew any available means of communication for reasons of theoretical propriety. Of course it is well known that some ships have talked themselves into a collision with VHF (there was a case in the North Sea recently) but then ships have got themselves into collisions with other means of communication. The collision between HMS Victoria and HMS Camperdown was a signal flag assisted collision. Sensible use of available resources seems more sensible than fainting away at the thought of a VHF call.
 
concentrik said:
Really? Most of the VHF traffic we encountered from Cadiz Radio recently (Gib Straits) was specifically about collision avoidance. In fact we heard them calling vessels saying "according to our instruments you are entering a collision risk situation" on more than one occasion. Not those exact words but the meaning was the same.
Click to expand...
The mca don't like use of vhf for collision avoidance and prefer you stuck to the colregs.
Google mgn 167
 
GHA said:
The mca don't like use of vhf for collision avoidance and prefer you stuck to the colregs.
Google mgn 167
Click to expand...

I did. It starts with a summary:

Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the
provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings
can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem.​

My emphasis, their words.
 
GHA said:
If Cadiz had to call about collision risk then the boats weren't complying with the colregs.
Click to expand...

The IRPCS work very well indeed for systems of two vessels. They do not necessarily work as well in more complicated systems - and, of course, they don't say much about what to do in fog except "try to to hit anyone".
 
JumbleDuck said:
The IRPCS work very well indeed for systems of two vessels. They do not necessarily work as well in more complicated systems - and, of course, they don't say much about what to do in fog except "try to to hit anyone".
Click to expand...

Unless at war, surely that should be ' try NOT to hit anyone ' though I can think of a few exceptions ! :)
 
As for VHF and Colregs, I'd be happy to use the radio unless I got put through to a call centre in India...

In the late 1980's we found ourselves crossing the Channel in the middle of a NATO exercise, and a German frigate seemed very interested in us, approaching at high speed then very slow,- ( sprint then drift sonar sub-hunting technique )

Launching a helicopter which dropped smoke flares; I then realised they were sub - hunting, and sure enough the depthsounder reading - mid Channel - went 60 fathoms, 60, 20, 20, 60, some sneaky type had obviously heard our diesel noise ( this was in a Carter 30 ) and was hiding under us to launch a simulated ' attack ' on the fleet !

My crew was experienced and tried calling the German frigate bearing down on us, but due to radio silence or simple bad manners she didn't reply.

I've wondered what the sub' skipper thought, as he must have detected our depthsounder; subs trail aerials whice detect radio messages but not light signals - I'd guess occasonal yotties aren't part of the training !
 
Last edited:
prv said:
True - but does that rule out following the Colregs and additionally communicating to reduce concern and doubt?

Pete
Click to expand...
The mca's take seems to be that there are many examples of vhf making things worse and most of the time it's best to just stick with just the colregs.
That seems directed to the big boys, no mention of yachts.
I used to have a link to a shipping company memo telling it's staff to keep off vhf for collision avoidance where possible, which might explain an occasional lack of reply.
 
IMO, anyone 'insisting' that VHF is NOT to be used for collision avoidance is being way beyond pedantic. Sure, stick to colregs when possible, but its NOT always possible or practical. In 34 years of sailing, my VHF has saved my vessel from serious harm at least 3 times, and probably saved my life on one of those!!!!
 
Dougal said:
IMO, anyone 'insisting' that VHF is NOT to be used for collision avoidance is being way beyond pedantic. Sure, stick to colregs when possible, but its NOT always possible or practical. In 34 years of sailing, my VHF has saved my vessel from serious harm at least 3 times, and probably saved my life on one of those!!!!
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is insisting vhf shouldn't be used, but outside of very unusual situations it shouldn't be needed and can make things worse, the colregs are enough.


MGN 167 (M + F)
Code: 
Dangers in the Use of VHF Radio in Collision
Avoidance
Note to Ship owners, Masters, Skippers, Officers and Pilots of Merchant Ships, Yachts and Fishing
Vessels
This note supersedes Marine Guidance Note MGN 27 (M+F)
Summary
● Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the
provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings
can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem. 

1. There have been a significant number of
collisions where subsequent investigation has
found that at some stage before impact, one or
both parties were using VHF radio in an
attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF
radio in these circumstances is not always
helpful and may even prove to be dangerous.
 
2. Uncertainties can arise over the identification
of vessels and the interpretation of messages
received. At night, in restricted visibility or
when there are more than two vessels in the
vicinity, the need for positive identification is
essential but this can rarely be guaranteed.
Even where positive identification has been
achieved there is still the possibility of a
misunderstanding due to language difficulties
however fluent the parties concerned might be
in the language being used. An imprecise or
ambiguously expressed message could have
serious consequences. 

3. Valuable time can be wasted whilst mariners
on vessels approaching each other try to make
contact on VHF radio instead of complying
with the Collision Regulations. There is the
further danger that even if contact and
identification is achieved and no difficulties
over the language of communication or
message content arise, a course of action might
still be chosen that does not comply with the
Collision Regulations. This may lead to the
collision it was intended to prevent. 

4. In 1995, the judge in a collision case said "It is
very probable that the use of VHF radio for
conversation between these ships was a
contributory cause of this collision, if only
because it distracted the officers on watch
from paying careful attention to their radar. I
must repeat, in the hope that it will achieve
some publicity, what I have said on previous
occasions, that any attempt to use VHF to
agree the manner of passing is fraught with
the danger of misunderstanding. Marine
Superintendents would be well advised to
prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct
their officers to comply with the Collision
Regulations." 2
An executive agency of the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions

5. Although the practice of using VHF radio as a
collision avoidance aid may be resorted to on
occasion, especially in pilotage waters, the
risks described in this Note should be clearly
understood and the Collision Regulations
complied with. 
Navigation Safety Branch
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Spring Place
105 Commercial Road
Southampton
SO15 1EG
 
Lazy Kipper said:
Is there a list of intership channels we can nominate?
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top