Colregs Rule 10 - has it changed?

Secondly ....

You are sailing along and know your are approaching traffic lanes where up to 300,000 ton tankers are queitly chugging along .... with 25kt Container ships doing dodgem acts around ....

You with your nice sailboat are going to worry about wording of IMO vs RYA ... 2001 / 2003 etc. ??????

Sorry get real - you present nav lights at right angles to traffic ... (so CG have you on radar track that is not 90 degrees ......... they are not stupid - they can also understand slow speed etc). You negotiate traffic using bold early alterations of course to be obvious to ship etc. ................

What is the problem >>>>>>?????????????????????????

When will people understand that the IRPCS are a guide ............ a simple guide to stop vessels colliding with each other .................. QED.

Lets be honest - if it wasn't for stupidity - we wouldn't need them !!!!!
 
Re: Colregs Rule 10 - has it changed? Change who to who please

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

[/ QUOTE ] Not sure what that means, but the IMO is the source of the regs not the RYA or indeed the MCA.
 
Re: Secondly ....

[ QUOTE ]
IRPCS are a guide

[/ QUOTE ] While I aree with the sentiment of what you are saying they are the International Regluations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. They are not recommendations or a guide like a marine version of the Highway code. They are enforceable regulations.

We do need them so set out rights of way in "collision course" situations etc. and to some extent dictate what action vessels in such situations are to take. Common sense is not sufficient as that would, for example, lead to a scenario in which two vessels in a crossing situation would both alter course to pass behind each other, ie towards each other, turning a "crossing" into an almost inevitable head on collision.
 
Re: Secondly ....

In a traffic lane is definitley not the time to start worrying about interprtetations, which is why it's not a bad idea to get it sorted on land.

The TSS scheme started out with confusion over this which is why I was surprised to see an apparently new version going around that went back to the old rule.

It wouldn't be a great thing if the rule did say we had to crawl across stemming the tide.

You may not get caught by the CG, but if you caused a multi-ship pile-up and your log showed you were being creative with the rules you'd find the subsequent litigation quite interesting - if you survived to take part in it.
 
Guide .....

Yes they are Regulations and all ships / vessels have to follow them. QED ............... Hang on .... all signatory govts are subject to them.

Now take a few moments to read them ................ instead of just what is directly related to your incident / topic ..........you will find they have paragraphs that alter the responsibilty ............ an excellent one is where - the action of give-way vessel alone will not avert collision etc.......

Please I spend working days in this qu*******re .......... I am not about to argue with yotties ..... sorry but blunt. What the hell do average yottie know about marine decisions ..... I see many post MCA pages etc. Pity that background and other relevant matters are often missing ..............

Yes I've had a few beers ......... and I am listening to a Famous Churchill Speech .. describing the Dunkirk evacuation ............ so I have no exuse ................ BAH !!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Re: Guide .....

Well I shouldn't really rise to this, but.... Some yotties may not read the rules. Others may notice potential problems because they have read them in some detail.

They might even have some legal and governmental experience of what happens when rules are unclear or treated as optional. They might even have come across cases where professional seafarers thought they knew it all and didn't, with rather serious consequences.

Not me, though. I just ask daft questions for the hell of it. Hey, what else is there to do on a Saturday night. Oh, Big Brother's on, got to go now. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: Guide .....

[ QUOTE ]
I am not about to argue with yotties ..... sorry but blunt.

[/ QUOTE ] We do not want you to argue with us. We respect your thorough knowledge of some of the topics, including this one, that appear on the forums. We value your expert contribution to the discussions and debates that our poor understanding of these matters generates but we do just ask for a little understanding that we novices require.
 
Re: Guide .....

They are regulations and they are guides. Sitting on fence here. They are certainly not rigorous to cover all situations. Try doing the traffic lane around Anglesey. Never mind the mad currents the lane is actually bent. Not curved, bent. So pointing at 90 to the lane edge you are crossing, while going south, leads you into a total mess. There are other examples, (Singapore). So a lot of common sense is needed as well.

Personally I always like the bit about stand on vessels "When ... collision cannot be avoided ... she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision." I always imagine a huge grey ship blowing the stand on vessel out of the water. According to the regulations it is legal as it is definitely the "best" method to avoid a collision. Though it might not be "best" in other terms.

Common sense is essential: What happens if you approach a boat doing loops? Like the Caribbean cruise ships at night. One minute you are overtaking then the next you are head on and so on.
 
Aplology to all .....

Seriously ..... I was drunk when I posted ... and there's no excuse for my rudeness .....

I honestly apologise.
 
Re: Aplology to all .....

No problem. I thought being in the Baltic while we were having all this glorious weather in the uk was getting to you!
 
I don\'t see what the problem is!

Maybe I'm wrong but I was always taught that when you cross a TSS you drew a line on your chart that was 90* to the TSS and this was your heading, this was so that you showed a 90* aspect to any vessel in the TSS - COG, leway etc were not relevant and you made no allowance for them. Any change in your aspect immediately showed the vessel using the TSS your intentions and by aspect I mean lights as well.

So if I were sailing from England to France/Belgium and entered the SW bound lane I would be showing my RED to any vessel using the SW TSS and although I was technically the stand on vessel if I chose to give way by altering course I would either show my single white or my green to him, either way he would see my intentions - this is not with standing other colregs re vessels using a TSS or restricted in their etc, etc.

Peter.
 
Re: I don\'t see what the problem is!

I agree but thats not what the MCA see on thier RADAR, thats what complicates things. . . .
 
I agree with Boatman and for CG Radar .....

The radar plot - if you show up on it ..... will not only show a plot of you crossing the TSS with drift / leeway etc., but the operator can easily determine that your speed is low ...

Yes it is accepted that your CMG will be at an angle other than 90 to the TSS .... but the whole point of 90 to TSS is to get you across safely ... hopefully in quickest time and also with lights showing clearly to other vessels.
I think .... IMHO ..... that being too hard about whether its shoulb be 90 by heading or 90 by CMG is straining the whole idea of the "essence" of Rule 10 ....... If rule 10 was more specific in how that 90 was determined - then it would be a difficult rule to completely comply. But worded as it is - gives that small amount of "leeway" for the boat to find best way to cross at 90 etc.

Just a thought .... Back in early 70's when the "new" rules replaced the long established old ones (yes of course there have been revisions since then) .... there were a lot of debates / arguments about wording and even the additions. A lot of concern was about "waffly" wording which some was supposedly allowed so as to finally get some countries to ratify the new rules ... There were one or two countries that held out ratifying ........ and that delayed their implementation. The biggest argument was about the Action of Give-way vessel alone and action of stand-on vessel. Another was crossing TSS .....

So you see - even the guys who wrote them and govt's who ratified them had discussions .... so we are not alone !!
 
Re: I agree with Boatman and for CG Radar .....

Just a thought, Wing in ground effect vessels travel at very high speeds, and are not affected by tide, as they they do not contact the surface.

This means the heading will always be the track aswell!
 
Another problem ... is who writes and who has to comply .....

This is my opinion ...

Many rules etc. written for marine are the product of Extra Master Mariners, advisors, legal wits, lawyers and govt dept's. Especially when you get to IRPCS.
Principally written for shipping, smaller craft get sucked in to the quagmire. It is not possible to write rules for all craft and therefore majority rules, with odd additions / revisions as special craft appear.

A yacht crabbing across a TSS will present a strange aspect in lights and form to a ship. That yacht may also slow his "apparent" crossing by crabbing ... actually probably not true as distance over ground travelled is less than the crabbed distance.

I think other Deep-Sea people on here can possibly see where I'm coming from and agree that the view of an Extra Master is somewhat different to a Yacht Skipper. I know for me - they are two completely different worlds with completely different factors affecting them. Even to current effects.

A ship proceeding at 12 - 16kts through channel and TSS will have little set as a result of his course being near in line with current, plus the vector will be small. But a Yacht at 3 - 5kts cutting across the currents will have serious set etc. The EMM who penned the rules doesn't take it into account - his concern really is the ship which should it have problem would be a greater disaster ...

Sorry if above seems bitty or disjointed - difficult thing to put into words clearly ...
 
Maybe they should add a new rule that if a vessel is unable to cross at right angles to the shipping lane it shouldn't be there /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

The road equivalent of no MC under 50 cc's and learners on the motorway..... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
"They" the MCA are not able to see your heading on radar only your COG

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually ARPA allows them to 'see' much more. I am not sure whether they can detect your actual heading which, I presume, would need input of tides, which they may have, but they can certainly 'see' your speed over the ground which would indicate that you were probably a yacht and probably taking the correct action. They would also know your closest point of approach to any other vessel and closing speed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Actually ARPA allows them to 'see' much more. I am not sure whether they can detect your actual heading which, I presume, would need input of tides, which they may have....

[/ QUOTE ]

No 'may' about it. I've visited the ops room at Dover, and they do have information on the tidal streams and can (and do) make an estimate of your heading.

It really surprises me that people are still arguing about this one. Yes, in its original form ("...shall cross as nearly as possible at right angles....") the rule was ambiguous, but it was amended to remove the ambiguity. Rule 10(c) now says:

"A vessel shall so far as possible 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."

The "as nearly as practicable" part is simply a recognition that no helmsman can keep an exact course; there will always be minor deviations, even if measured in thousandths of a degree.

As other people have said, keeping a heading at right angles to the traffic will get you across in the shortest possible time, and will mean that the aspect seen by other shipping gives the least possible uncertainty. Why are we still arguing?
 
Re: I agree with Boatman and for CG Radar .....

[ QUOTE ]
Just a thought, Wing in ground effect vessels travel at very high speeds, and are not affected by tide, as they they do not contact the surface.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right. But they are affected by wind. A 30 knot cross wind will affect the course of a 300 knot WIG vessel by six degrees; slower vessels will be even more affected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top