Colregs Rule 10 - has it changed?

[kestrelleda]

Here's a puzzle. For many years Rule 10 has stated [ QUOTE ]
(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes
but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable
at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was looking for an up-to-date version of Colregs with the amendments to include Wing-In-Ground craft. There are many copies on the web but most are out of date. I found a version including the WIG amendments at sailtrainuk.

I was revising the Rules and when I got to Rule 10 I found this [ QUOTE ]
(c) A vessel shall so far as practicable avoid crossing traffic lanes, but if obliged to do so shall
cross as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

[/ QUOTE ]
I checked with the owner of the site who confirms that this is from authoritative sources. I was also referred to a reference on the IMO site which uses the same wording [ QUOTE ]
Rule 10 states that ships crossing traffic lanes are required to do so "as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow." This reduces confusion to other ships as to the crossing vessel's intentions and course and at the same time enables that vessel to cross the lane as quickly as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

The current RYA Yachtmaster notes still state [ QUOTE ]
When crossing [TSS] make sure your <u>heading</u> is at right angles to your ground track

[/ QUOTE ].

If the wording of Rule 10 has changed, the deletion of the phrase 'on a heading' would prima facie alter the existing meaning of the Rule. The natural reading would now be that the ground track, not the heading, should be at right angles to the traffic flow.

What's going on here? Is this all due to some seriously poor proofreading at IMO, or are we all at risk of becoming rogue vessels if stick to the existing interpretation?/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Skyva_2]

Found a link here which refers to WIG and where Rule 10 refers to heading at right angles to traffic flow - dated 2001. Do you have a later version?

Colregs Gdynia

 

[Aeolus]

This is presumably the latest and current since it is the MCGA web site:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-hmcg_rescue/channel_navigation_information_service_(cnis)/cnis,_colregs_and_the_law.htm

 

[JonA]

[]



[/ QUOTE ]

The current RYA Yachtmaster notes still state [ QUOTE ]
When crossing [TSS] make sure your <u>heading</u> is at right angles to your ground track

[/ QUOTE ].

I think this must be the Navy Lark version, as in "Full ahead sideways and mind the bonnet on the rocks". The only way of compling is to drift across sideways.

Jonathan

 

[kestrelleda]

Oops, yes, the words 'the TSS and not' have gone AWOL. The actual wording is [ QUOTE ]
When crossing [TSS] make sure your heading is at right angles to the TSS, not your ground track

[/ QUOTE ]

Come to think of it even that doesn't make sense. It should be [ QUOTE ]
When crossing [TSS] make sure your heading, not your ground track, is at right angles to the TSS,

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[VicS]

That link does not work and i cant work out what is wrong with it, nor can I find the colregs from the mca site map!

 

[kestrelleda]

Yes, I saw that but it's a quote from the Regs not the original so could be drawn form a previous version. Also the most recent ,USCG version of the full rules, which you'd expect to be authoritative, are clearly out of date as they don't include the WIG amendments made in 2001.

 

[kestrelleda]

The last bit ending .htm is hanging off the end of the URL - try this

 

[Marsupial]

confused?

and why not?

the regs were designed so that the direction of travel of a vessel crossing a lane could be interpreted from its navlights so head 90 deg to the TSS it is - however "This report will include details of the offending vessel's course as plotted by the CNIS radar." quoted from the MCA ,gives a hint at what is actualy going on - "They" the MCA are not able to see your heading on radar only your COG - so "THEY" have a "radar assisted" problem that in its self contraviens the regs - a case of big brother getting too clever and treating boats as cars - possibly.

Its hard to see how they could make a case stick unless the rouge vessel was traveling 180deg in the wrong direction, it seems that they will have to relearn the art of seamanship and redraft the regs - what a shame. .

politicians @ ### messing about with stuff they have no hope of understanding! what do we expect?

Incidentally many years ago the interpretation of rule 10 by the Germans was TRACK at 90 deg when the international regs were clearly HEADING 90 deg, and they would not entertain "tidal influence" as reason why it could not be maintained with a slow boat - our skipper was fined, 100 Marks, I think but is was a long time ago.

 

[VicS]

Thanks . That gives a link to the full "regs" HERE

That must be the latest version available and does still refer to a HEADING at right angles.

Originally the regs did just refer to "crossing" at right angles but were changed to read a "heading" at right angles following a test case in the courts. IIRC a prominent yachtsman, it may have been one of the magazine editors, deliberately crossed one of the TSS on a heading at right angles to the traffic flow in order to force a ruling on the matter.


It seems highly likely that someone has inadvertently brought the old version back into view. It would be illogical to return to this version.

 

[Skyva_2]

The USCG version does include:

Definitions:

m) The term "Wing-In-Ground (WIG) craft" means a multimodal craft which, in its main operational mode, flies in close proximity to the surface by utilizing surface-effect action. [Intl]]

The IMO site is more a description of the various changes to Colregs, it would appear the word 'heading' has been missed from the quotation. In fact I can't yet find the IRPCS text on the IMO site, which seems odd. Maybe they want us to buy it.

The Sailtrain site is normally very good, but it seems wrong on this one. Though it does refer to heading in the explanation of Rule 10.

 

[kestrelleda]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems highly likely that someone has inadvertently brought the old version back into view.

[/ QUOTE ] Probably right, but I'm still wondering where these apparently up to date texts are coming from. Unfortunately the IMO site doesn't offer a download of the full text of the Convention, and all quotes on their site from R10 are in the form that omits the 'heading' reference. That could be where the alternate text is coming from in which case the IMO should do something about it.

Does anyone have the IMO 2003 version of Colregs to compare?

The version that originally surprised me is allegedly from the latest version of RYA G2 (Colregs), and from the Seaman's Guide to the Rule of the Road, so if anyone has either of those it would be interesting to check.

 

[kestrelleda]

Curiouser and curiouser - the USCG pdf I downloaded yesterday doesn't contain a paragraph (m) ( I just did a search on it) but when I look at it on line now that version does! Surely they couldn't have updated it specially for us. Perhaps I got it via a different link /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Ships_Cat]

The US Auxiliary Coastguard note the 2003 changes at http://216.18.138.197/navrules/navrules_changes_of_nov_2003.asp but no mention of a change to Rule 10.

John

 

[VicS]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have the IMO 2003 version of Colregs to compare?

[/ QUOTE ]

The version on the mca website , see my link above, incorporates all the amendments up to and including those which came into force in Nov 2003
[ QUOTE ]
This notice incorporates amendments to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea,1972,up to and including those annexed to IMO Resolution A.910(22).In accordance with the
Convention,the latest amendments come into force internationally on 29 November 2003.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would trust that before any versions on Sailing School websites or even from the RYA

 

[kestrelleda]

I agree that the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (on the MCA site), as UK secondary legislation applying Colregs in the UK, is to be preferred to any unofficial source. But the primary source is the IMO Convention text and the form of words the IMO use in summarising Rule 10 still nags at me. I'll probably have to buy a copy of the IMO text if only to satisfy my curiosity /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[powerskipper]

Its designed to give the vessels in the lane as big a silowet or radar bouncing area [ ie ship broadside to the traffic coming]as possible, therefore they have a better chance of seeing you

 

[VicS]

I belive the reason for the rule requiring a heading at right angles to the traffic flow rather than a track at right angles is because that gets you across in the shortest possible time. It may not make a significant difference to a big powerboat but, with a stong tide and lightish winds, it will make a tremendous difference to the time it takes a small sailing vessel to cross. That was the debate back in the early '80s before the rule was changed anyway. The orientation of a small vessel has no fixed relationship with the strength of the returned radar signal

I know you are not pretending to be an expert speller but "silowet" /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif really foxed me for a moment. Copy out 100 times before the end of play time .... silhouette. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Sorry I should not make fun.

 

[Guest]

Re: Colregs Rule 10 - has it changed? Change who to who please

As I read your post - you think that RYA gives to IMO ?


Sorry - IMO is the Authority on this .... QED

 

[kestrelleda]

[ QUOTE ]
they have a better chance of seeing you

[/ QUOTE ] and therefore a better chance of getting you /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

In fact the reason for maintaing a heading (rather than a ground track) at right angles is that it's the quickest way to cross the lane. If you correct for cross tide or leeway you make slower progress.