Dangerously unintelligible VHF exchanges

[finestgreen]

I guess part of the argument against VHF use is you might make an agreement with the ship you're worried about but someone else in the vicinity might still be expecting you to follow the normal rules

 

[RunAgroundHard]

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.

I would have turned in the direction of traffic flow in the TSS and let the vessel overtake and then return to crossing at right angles to the TSS behind the vessel. Going the wrong way in a TSS is not a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Sandy]

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 beg to differ. They are extremely logical to my mind. Just take time to learn them.

The get out of jail card is to slow down if you are unsure what the other vessel(s) are doing.

 

[Irish Rover]

I beg to differ. They are extremely logical to my mind. Just take time to learn them.

The get out of jail card is to slow down if you are unsure what the other vessel(s) are doing.

I never suggested they're not "logical". The words I used to describe then are "complicated, unwieldy and off putting", which they are. Of course, they may not be so, to you, or many of the other fine mariners on this forum, but remember, there are millions of less well educated, less clever people in charge of boats all over the world. Some of their literacy skills don't go much beyond reading the Dandy, if that far. There are also many leisure boaters who look at colregs and think - they're just for guys on big ships and I don't need to be bothered with all that blurb. Because they're put of by all the detail they also miss out on the very basics like
>drive on the right,
>give way to traffic coming from the right,
>give way to boats using sails, fishing, etc.
At least where I'm based, I'd be very happy if everyone just knew the very basics and abided by them.

 

[Roberto]

on the very basics like
>drive on the right,
>give way to traffic coming from the right,
>give way to boats using sails, fishing, etc.

+1
I'd say the description fits >90% of leisure boaters, Ok they may know the very basics, but in the end ColRegs are some drawings of boats with red/green/white dots on top and a few geometric shapes, all on a booklet lost inside the chart table (if it exists).
Safe speed and continuous watch are largely unknown, and possibly the biggest cause of leisure boating accidents.

 

[requiem]

Puts on pedant hat...

I guess part of the argument against VHF use is you might make an agreement with the ship you're worried about but someone else in the vicinity might still be expecting you to follow the normal rules

Note that agreements over VHF don't count as an excusal from navigating in accordance with the rules. Using the VHF to confirm intentions is a different matter from using it to negotiate a non-COLREGS-compliant passing, similar to attempting to wave another driver through a red light.

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

This is an interesting take, "only for a subset, and only then for another subset". I think for most professionals it is taught in the inverse: "do not, unless you have no alternative". I.e, rather than a preferred behaviour it's a required behaviour with a high bar for going against it. I would expect that even though it's stated for power-driven vessels only, courts would not hesitate to apply the underlying reasoning to a sailing vessel as a matter of "good seamanship" (albeit with some allowance for point-of-sail implications such as forcing a gybe).

I mention that last point because I believe courts have taken a similar line of thinking with 17(a)(ii); even though the rule states "may", good seamanship may often turn it into a "must".

 

[requiem]

+1
I'd say the description fits >90% of leisure boaters, Ok they may know the very basics, but in the end ColRegs are some drawings of boats with red/green/white dots on top and a few geometric shapes, all on a booklet lost inside the chart table (if it exists).
Safe speed and continuous watch are largely unknown, and possibly the biggest cause of leisure boating accidents.

I've sometimes wondered if the common approach of teaching the basic diagrams is ideal, particularly since it seems the remainder of the Rules may often be hand-waved away as "things not actually done" or explained with misleading aphorisms (e.g. that "tonnage" bit). My preference would be an approach that begins with some underlying reasoning (why turns must be early and obvious, what if the other vessel doesn't act as expected, etc) and works up to the maneuvering rules as an outgrowth of those principles rather than teaching them as arbitrary rules.

 

[finestgreen]

I've sometimes wondered if the common approach of teaching the basic diagrams is ideal, particularly since it seems the remainder of the Rules may often be hand-waved away as "things not actually done" or explained with misleading aphorisms (e.g. that "tonnage" bit). My preference would be an approach that begins with some underlying reasoning (why turns must be early and obvious, what if the other vessel doesn't act as expected, etc) and works up to the maneuvering rules as an outgrowth of those principles rather than teaching them as arbitrary rules.

That's pretty much how the "Seamans Guide To The Rule of the Road" does it

 

[westhinder]

I cannot understand that in 2023 people are still seriously advocating five blasts if you are unsure of a ship’s intentions. Even if you use a fog horn with a canister of compressed air, what are the chances of an officer on a closed ship’s bridge a couple of miles away hearing you, especially if you thought they were unaware of your presence?
I cannot think of a good reason not to call them in these circumstances (AIS shows the ship’s name) and ask what their intentions are and state yours. On the occasions I have done so, I have only had clear, professional and courteous replies.

 

[fisherman]

I was taught there should never be need for VHF discussions. After all, we don't have a conflab with other traffic at a roundabout.
But, when a US warship arrived in the Western approaches one day, he spent the entire time calling every target up to 12nm ahead negotiating their passage.

 

[westhinder]

Note that agreements over VHF don't count as an excusal from navigating in accordance with the rules. Using the VHF to confirm intentions is a different matter from using it to negotiate a non-COLREGS-compliant passing, similar to attempting to wave another driver through a red light.

I very regularly hear ship’s pilots arranging to pass each other green to green when that seems the most appropriate or the most practical way. They most certainly know the COLREGS

 

[mjcoon]

After all, we don't have a conflab with other traffic at a roundabout.

No, but it sometimes happens that the timing of arrival at the roundabout results in all four (assuming 4 routes) vehicles coming to a stop. There is then no rule (though I have not read the latest book!) that breaks the impasse.

 

[requiem]

I cannot understand that in 2023 people are still seriously advocating five blasts if you are unsure of a ship’s intentions. Even if you use a fog horn with a canister of compressed air, what are the chances of an officer on a closed ship’s bridge a couple of miles away hearing you, especially if you thought they were unaware of your presence?

Consider getting a nicer horn?

 

[requiem]

I very regularly hear ship’s pilots arranging to pass each other green to green when that seems the most appropriate or the most practical way. They most certainly know the COLREGS

I'm sure it happens, (and for example in US Inland waters it's permitted), and my copy of Farwell's devotes a section to "customs that people follow at their own risk" or somesuch. I suppose it's also possible that there isn't a risk-of-collision in play, and it's more a case of keeping up awareness.

Here is a case (The Nordlake, 2016) that comes to mind which involved a green-to-green agreement over VHF: “NORDLAKE”/“SEAEAGLE” - Collision case leads to rare decision (the rarity was due to the various ships involved, not the passing agreements).

The article mentions the primary fault was the breach of Rule 9 (being in the wrong water), but also faults the use of the VHF. It's not in the article, but the relevant quote from the ruling was: "There can be no doubt that whilst VHF may be used to exchange information it cannot be used to agree on a course of navigation which would conflict with the Collision Regulations".

 

[Sandy]

I never suggested they're not "logical". The words I used to describe then are "complicated, unwieldy and off putting", which they are. Of course, they may not be so, to you, or many of the other fine mariners on this forum, but remember, there are millions of less well educated, less clever people in charge of boats all over the world. Some of their literacy skills don't go much beyond reading the Dandy, if that far. There are also many leisure boaters who look at colregs and think - they're just for guys on big ships and I don't need to be bothered with all that blurb. Because they're put of by all the detail they also miss out on the very basics like
>drive on the right,
>give way to traffic coming from the right,
>give way to boats using sails, fishing, etc.
At least where I'm based, I'd be very happy if everyone just knew the very basics and abided by them.

How do you view the UK Highway Code, I'm unsure if your user name reflects an Irish connection. Does Türkiye have an equivalent, if so is it followed?

 

[Irish Rover]

How do you view the UK Highway Code, I'm unsure if your user name reflects an Irish connection. Does Türkiye have an equivalent, if so is it followed?

That's a completely separate matter and has nothing to do with the point I was making. If you tell me that a person with limited education and literacy skills wouldn't have difficulty with language like quoted below then I guess I must be wrong:
"A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5° abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights."

 

[AntarcticPilot]

That's a completely separate matter and has nothing to do with the point I was making. If you tell me that a person with limited education and literacy skills wouldn't have difficulty with language like quoted below then I guess I must be wrong:
"A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5° abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights."

It seems to be a very concise and precise definition to me; I don't think I could improve on it and I earn my marina fees by revising academic documents written in English by people whose first language isn't English. It's slightly old-fashioned; I might change "deemed" to "considered" or the phrase "deemed to be" to "regarded as"), but other than that, I think it would pass the Plain English guidelines. It uses appropriate technical terms ("abaft", "beam" and "sternlight") but any mariner ought to know them. It assumes you have read the bit of the ColRegs that define the arcs of visibility of the side and stern lights, but that's fair enough. Of course, there is no position from which you should be able to see the sternlight and either of the sidelights, but that's in a perfect world!!

 

[Irish Rover]

It seems to be a very concise and precise definition to me; I don't think I could improve on it and I earn my marina fees by revising academic documents written in English by people whose first language isn't English. It's slightly old-fashioned; I might change "deemed" to "considered" or the phrase "deemed to be" to "regarded as"), but other than that, I think it would pass the Plain English guidelines. It uses appropriate technical terms ("abaft", "beam" and "sternlight") but any mariner ought to know them. It assumes you have read the bit of the ColRegs that define the arcs of visibility of the side and stern lights, but that's fair enough. Of course, there is no position from which you should be able to see the sternlight and either of the sidelights, but that's in a perfect world!!

But, here, we go again. I'm not questioning it's conciseness or precision. I'm asking would it be easily understood by a person with limited education and limited literacy skills?
You say "any mariner ought to know them". That may well be but many leisure boaters don't regard themselves as "mariners" and, as I said previously, they think colregs and "all that technical stuff and jargon" is just for fellas on big ships or superyachts.

 

[Corribee Boy]

If they don't regard themselves as mariners they won't have read or understood the colregs in any case, and that's the problem.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

But, here, we go again. I'm not questioning it's conciseness or precision. I'm asking would it be easily understood by a person with limited education and limited literacy skills?
You say "any mariner ought to know them". That may well be but many leisure boaters don't regard themselves as "mariners" and, as I said previously, they think colregs and "all that technical stuff and jargon" is just for fellas on big ships or superyachts.

In any case, the primary audience is ships' officers, and that's a graduate-level profession - you don't need a degree, but it's at that level. But any technical document is likely to require some pre-existing understanding of the topic; I can't really imagine how you could rephrase it to avoid technical language without losing precision or introducing ambiguity or making it even less readily comprehensible. Here's a try, which I THINK retains accuracy and precision without specialized language or prior knowledge, but I think it is far less comprehensible than the original!

"A vessel shall be regarded as overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5° behind a line perpendicular to and either side of the midline of the vessel, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the white light at the stern of the vessel, whose angle of viewing is restricted to an arc extending rearwards 67.5° either side of the midline of the vessel, but neither the red light on the left-hand side of the vessel looking forward not the green light on the right-hand side of the vessel looking forward are visible. The angle of viewing of these lights is restricted to an arc from the midline of the vessel looking forward to 22.5 ° behind a line perpendicular to the midline of the vessel.