Dangerously unintelligible VHF exchanges

[mjcoon]

Thanks. I have read the colregs, more than once, and, when I encounter a situation where I have a doubt, I do try to refer back. But the reality is colregs are complicated, unwieldy and off putting and, as a result, ignored by many boaters. At least here in the Aegean, many boaters don't even seem to be aware there are rules for passing, crossing and overtaking. This has become much worse in the last few years with an influx of many new and younger boaters. I don't know the solution.

I was told in a Turkey flotilla briefing many years ago that there is one over-riding rule: Turks have right of way!

 

[penfold]

What does a Turk do if they meet another Turk and how do they tell?

 

[Irish Rover]

What does a Turk do if they meet another Turk and how do they tell?

I think the advice @mjcoon got was basically not to expect boaters in Türkiye to obey the rules. He'd get the same advice if he was hiring a car. But it's not just in Türkiye. I find the same thing in Greece. Guys know where they're headed, they expect you to know as well and to stay out of their way. It's probably more from ignorance of the rules than anything else.

 

[NormanS]

I call ships on the vhf too, mostly in specific cases like crossings at very tight angles: typical cases a green/red right astern becoming more and more intense while remaining green+red, or similarly vessels proceedings from around the bow, when even AIS CPA jumps uncomfortably port/stb/port/stb... I ask if they have seen me, and if they want me to maneuver, typical answer being "yes we have seen you, keep your speed and course" so everyone is happy.

I'm sure that's fine if there are only two vessels in the vicinity. If there are more than two, there is a distinct danger of mistaken identity. You think that the ship is speaking to you, but they're actually speaking to another boat. VHF assisted collision.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Given a reasonable grasp of the rules, you have the nub of the matter for most of these conundrums - At what point does a collision course become a risk of collision?

I think the rules are drafted very well as they have to cope with a huge range of possible situations and in the most difficult cases it will frequently be a matter of judgement - seamanship.

I almost never use VHF. This is my technique in a typical situation, I have posted this before, so apologies:




"I'm not keen on using radio either. Use it early and you are in danger of inflaming an innocent situation, use it later and you are wasting valuable time, esp if singlehanded.

Assuming AIS, I don't mind getting within .5 mile CPA of a ship that has altered for me, it's reasonable to assume he is not going to change course again and is on the ball.

For others I use a patent 15minute - 10 minute collision rule. For example in a 90deg crossing situation for a ship doing twice the speed of your sailing boat (say 12kts vs 6kts)...

At 15minutes to collision you are starting to pick up the bow wave of the ship. He my have been visible for 6 or 8 miles and his AIS may have told you he has not altered for you.
He is just over 3 miles away.
(You need to be prepared for a 90deg change of course at this point, which may mean starting the engine)
At 10 minutes to collision he is about 2 miles away and looming large. At this point (in practice a couple of minutes before) I alter onto the reciprocal of the ships course.

After change of course you watch him like a hawk for the next minute........this is the danger period when the watch officer may wake up and do something daft, soon you are passing fast and the danger is soon past as well. After the dodgy minute, even a dozy or drunk watchkeeper opening another bottle should not react, he would see you passing clear at 1 mile CPA."


.

.

The oniy bit that doesn’t quite make sense to me is ‘turn onto a reciprocal course’. For example: If you’d originally been stand on vessel in a crossing situation turning to port to be on a reciprocal course is the last thing I’d do. (And it’s explicitly discouraged in IRPCS). One or twice I’ve had to turn to starboard and watched as they steamed by effectively overtaking us.

 

[mjcoon]

I'm sure that's fine if there are only two vessels in the vicinity. If there are more than two, there is a distinct danger of mistaken identity. You think that the ship is speaking to you, but they're actually speaking to another boat. VHF assisted collision.

Call your boat "Spartacus"?

 

[john_morris_uk]

Regarding Turkish & Greek waters. I’ve been in a warship where the bridge team and captain have been driven to distraction by the utter inability of local vessels (ferries etc) to comply with IRPCS.

 

[doug748]

The oniy bit that doesn’t quite make sense to me is ‘turn onto a reciprocal course’. For example: If you’d originally been stand on vessel in a crossing situation turning to port to be on a reciprocal course is the last thing I’d do. (And it’s explicitly discouraged in IRPCS). One or twice I’ve had to turn to starboard and watched as they steamed by effectively overtaking us.

It's a good point. The reason I'd it is because I want to safely pass the stern of the non compliant ship as soon as possible. With a c20mph closing speed the time slot when any random action on his part can endanger me is quite short.
If he stands on he has either: not seen me (most probable) or he does not care. Either way I prefer not to be forward of his bow even if he is overtaking at a safe distance.

I agree that every case is different though. If I was hard on a strong wind and had to start the engine and head into it, I would probably bear away to starboard.

.

 

[john_morris_uk]

It's a good point. The reason I'd it is because I want to safely pass the stern of the non compliant ship as soon as possible. With a c20mph closing speed the time slot when any random action on his part can endanger me is quite short.
If he stands on he has either: not seen me (most probable) or he does not care. Either way I prefer not to be forward of his bow even if he is overtaking at a safe distance.

I agree that every case is different though. If I was hard on a strong wind and had to start the engine and head into it, I would probably bear away to starboard.

.

There’s a reason turning to port is explicitly discouraged. Turning to starboard is MUCH safer. It might seem attractive to ‘pass behind his stern’ but if he sees you at the last minute his automatic reaction WILL be to turn to starboard and suddenly you’re in a heap of trouble. Turning to starboard decreases the speed at which you’re approaching him and usually solves the problem as his bearing will start to change immediately. It’s also what he expects you to do.

 

[doug748]

There’s a reason turning to port is explicitly discouraged. Turning to starboard is MUCH safer. It might seem attractive to ‘pass behind his stern’ but if he sees you at the last minute his automatic reaction WILL be to turn to starboard and suddenly you’re in a heap of trouble. Turning to starboard decreases the speed at which you’re approaching him and usually solves the problem as his bearing will start to change immediately. It’s also what he expects you to do.

Perhaps so, but under the rules I have only one obligation and that is to avoid him. I prefer his stern for the reasons already mentioned. Using this method you do have to use discretion, with fishing boats for example.

.

 

[Roberto]

I'm sure that's fine if there are only two vessels in the vicinity. If there are more than two, there is a distinct danger of mistaken identity. You think that the ship is speaking to you, but they're actually speaking to another boat. VHF assisted collision.

A DSC individual call removes all risk, one (more) important advantage of an integrated ais/vhf radio: just choose target MMSI + a free working channel and call. Also, communications aboard a ship being probably recorded, any words like "collision course" during an individual dsc comm are a lot more likely to provoke a reaction instead of a general ch16 call lost in the ether.

 

[Roberto]

I posted this on another thread yesterday
" I came across a report about a similar incident in the North Sea in 2012 where a Bahamas ship the Baltic Ace sank after a collision. The other vessel was Cypriot registered and the Cypriot inquiry concluded "the most probable cause of the accident is the failure of the officers on watch to understand each other's intentions".
Most of my boating is done around the Eastern Aegean which is not an area where we generally see heavy commercial traffic. This year I spent a good few weeks in the Western Aegean including the Saronic Gulf where there is very heavy traffic. Some of the ship to ship VHF communications amazed and appalled me in equal measure. Some of it was just unintelligible gibberish. It was clear many of the officers involved hardly spoke English and understood considerably less. They could announce in broken, heavily accented English what they intended to do but were totally lost if the other ships response was more than a word or two.
I wonder how many accidents happen because of "the failure of the officers on watch to understand each other's intentions".

Another case: French Atlantic coast, French coastal station and German sailboat both speaking in English. The MRCC advised not to sail in a specific danger area (IIRC Gironde estuary), the German boat did not understand or understood the opposite, sailed into the estuary and the boat got lost.

As a non native English speaker, the two IMO SMCP words I like the most are "Say Again"

 

[john_morris_uk]

Perhaps so, but under the rules I have only one obligation and that is to avoid him. I prefer his stern for the reasons already mentioned. Using this method you do have to use discretion, with fishing boats for example.

.

Under the rules you are actually directed to avoid turning to port.

Of course you’re the skipper and you can choose to turn to port but your actions will bite you in the posterior one of these days. Turning to starboard is actually safer. Turning to starboard some more and even reversing your course is the next option.

There’s a reason why sailors are sometimes called WAFI’s by ship’s watchkeeping officers.

 

[doug748]

Under the rules you are actually directed to avoid turning to port.

Of course you’re the skipper and you can choose to turn to port but your actions will bite you in the posterior one of these days. Turning to starboard is actually safer. Turning to starboard some more and even reversing your course is the next option.

There’s a reason why sailors are sometimes called WAFI’s by ship’s watchkeeping officers.

Yes, like many things that are oft repeated, it can be inspected in a different light.

Rule 14 the head on situation comes as close as it can to mandating turning right, saying vessels "shall alter her course to starboard". Which is all good as we sail "on the right". However ships and boats regularly pass starboard to starboard under special circumstances and this is accommodated under the flexible word should.

In Rule 17 turning starboard is only favoured for power boats then only "if the circumstances of the case admit"

Rule 19 in poor visibility under radar


In the example I gave, turning left has advantages and risks, as does turning right. Turning right means sailing parallel to the rogue ship's course for an extended time, if the dozy helm suddenly sees you and alters to starboard (as suggested) you risk being run down. It takes you a relatively long way off your track.

The disadvantage of turning left is that you are closing much quicker which is why I drew attention to it. But recall you are not sailing towards the ship but on a reciprocal 1 mile from his track. Turing right gives no special advantages in terms of relative bearing, in fact, in turning left, within five minutes you could well be bearing 45% from the bridge and the trouble is passing. You are soon back on course.

IRPCS don't mandate hard rules for they would be unworkable in real, complex situations at sea. In practice I take every case as it comes but heavy shipping sometimes means you have to confront rogue ships at fairly close quarters. The officers will not be "expecting" my actions or calling me a "WAFI" because they are either ignoring the rules, don't know them or are unaware of my existence.

.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Yes, like many things that are oft repeated, it can be inspected in a different light.

Rule 14 the head on situation comes as close as it can to mandating turning right, saying vessels "shall alter her course to starboard". Which is all good as we sail "on the right". However ships and boats regularly pass starboard to starboard under special circumstances and this is accommodated under the flexible word should.

In Rule 17 turning starboard is only favoured for power boats then only "if the circumstances of the case admit"

Rule 19 in poor visibility under radar


In the example I gave, turning left has advantages and risks, as does turning right. Turning right means sailing parallel to the rogue ship's course for an extended time, if the dozy helm suddenly sees you and alters to starboard (as suggested) you risk being run down. It takes you a relatively long way off your track.

The disadvantage of turning left is that you are closing much quicker which is why I drew attention to it. But recall you are not sailing towards the ship but on a reciprocal 1 mile from his track. Turing right gives no special advantages in terms of relative bearing, in fact, in turning left, within five minutes you could well be bearing 45% from the bridge and the trouble is passing. You are soon back on course.

IRPCS don't mandate hard rules for they would be unworkable in real, complex situations at sea. In practice I take every case as it comes but heavy shipping sometimes means you have to confront rogue ships at fairly close quarters. The officers will not be "expecting" my actions or calling me a "WAFI" because they are either ignoring the rules, don't know them or are unaware of my existence.

.

I think you have bought into the oft repeated myth of ships ignoring or being unaware of IRPCS. You mentioned in an earlier post about how a ship might simply ignore you as though they would happily run you down. Of course there are plenty of tales circulating about ships with no one in sight on the bridge but such cases are (in reality) vanishingly rare. Bridge watchkeepers lose their livelihood and hard won certification if they start running yachts down and they simply don’t do it unless something has gone drastically wrong.

99.999% of ships DO know the rules and certainly DON’T ignore them.

AIS and a decent radar reflector are your friends. Not only will the ship see you better but you will see how ships invariably alter course in compliance with IRPCS.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Yes, like many things that are oft repeated, it can be inspected in a different light.

Rule 14 the head on situation comes as close as it can to mandating turning right, saying vessels "shall alter her course to starboard". Which is all good as we sail "on the right". However ships and boats regularly pass starboard to starboard under special circumstances and this is accommodated under the flexible word should.

In Rule 17 turning starboard is only favoured for power boats then only "if the circumstances of the case admit"

Rule 19 in poor visibility under radar


In the example I gave, turning left has advantages and risks, as does turning right. Turning right means sailing parallel to the rogue ship's course for an extended time, if the dozy helm suddenly sees you and alters to starboard (as suggested) you risk being run down. It takes you a relatively long way off your track.

The disadvantage of turning left is that you are closing much quicker which is why I drew attention to it. But recall you are not sailing towards the ship but on a reciprocal 1 mile from his track. Turing right gives no special advantages in terms of relative bearing, in fact, in turning left, within five minutes you could well be bearing 45% from the bridge and the trouble is passing. You are soon back on course.

IRPCS don't mandate hard rules for they would be unworkable in real, complex situations at sea. In practice I take every case as it comes but heavy shipping sometimes means you have to confront rogue ships at fairly close quarters. The officers will not be "expecting" my actions or calling me a "WAFI" because they are either ignoring the rules, don't know them or are unaware of my existence.

.

And to answer your claim that the rules don’t mandate which way you should normally turn when faced with a vessel on your port side (as we were discussing)
Rule 17 (c) (c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

However if you’re sailing and on port tack you could bear away and allow the ship who appears not to be complying to steam past you. If you’re on starboard tack you can heave to until he’s steamed past you.

As you can tell, I’m a strong believer in NOT turning to port towards the ship.

 

[doug748]

And to answer your claim that the rules don’t mandate which way you should normally turn when faced with a vessel on your port side (as we were discussing)
Rule 17 (c) (c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

Very true, though it's not mandatory. And excludes boats under sail.

 

[NormanS]

I think you have bought into the oft repeated myth of ships ignoring or being unaware of IRPCS. You mentioned in an earlier post about how a ship might simply ignore you as though they would happily run you down. Of course there are plenty of tales circulating about ships with no one in sight on the bridge but such cases are (in reality) vanishingly rare. Bridge watchkeepers lose their livelihood and hard won certification if they start running yachts down and they simply don’t do it unless something has gone drastically wrong.

99.999% of ships DO know the rules and certainly DON’T ignore them.

AIS and a decent radar reflector are your friends. Not only will the ship see you better but you will see how ships invariably alter course in compliance with IRPCS.

I'm never very confident about a ship seeing me. There have been several cases around where I sail, where ships didn't see the shore, until they hit it.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I'm never very confident about a ship seeing me. There have been several cases around where I sail, where ships didn't see the shore, until they hit it.

It’s sensible always to be cautious but stand on with caution is actually obeying IRPCS. When it’s obvious they’re not taking action then it’s incumbent on you to avoid collision. It’s which way one turns at that point that interests me.

 

[nburrell]

This is an interesting thread - earlier this year we overheard a Dutch sailor being called by name on Ch16 by Channel VTS (I think that's what they called themselves) to clarify what they were doing when they turned to pass behind a large ship, so effectively sailing the wrong way temporarily along the traffic separation zone. My first instinct was that the sailor probably didn't need the distraction of answering the radio and explaining himself to VTS at this point. However he was quick to respond and provided a clear/logical description of his actions. Channel VTS thanked him, but also asked him whether he had spoken to the bridge of the ship and advised them of his intentions. If not, it was suggested that he should be doing so in similar future situations. The Dutch sailor thanked VTS for their advice and carried on along his way.
So, we are being watched and it seems that calling ships to avoid potential confusion is encouraged.