Dangerously unintelligible VHF exchanges

[TwoHooter]

But it is not that simple. Lets say there is a vessel on your port side and you are converging and the faster vessel. If you are more than 22.5 degrees then then you are stand on. If you are approaching at less than 22.5 degrees the other vessel is stand on. So in laymans terms the faster vessel is over taking but under the colregs that is not the case because at more than 22.5 degrees you are simply a vessel approaching from Starboard.

Sorry, but I'm not sure about that.
Suppose I am indeed the faster vessel, and at this moment I am approaching the other vessel on my port side and I can see her green side light.
Am I simply a vessel approaching from starboard, and therefore the stand-on vessel?
I think it depends how the sequence of events started.
If the sequence of events started with me astern of the other vessel and within the arc where I can't see either of her side lights but only her stern light then I am overtaking and during that manouver I am never the stand-on vessel, but always the give way vessel. The other vessel should (and I should expect her to) maintain her heading and speed while I overtake unless some circumstance arises that will oblige her to change course in such a way as to give rise to the risk of collision, in which case I believe (it's too late to check right now) she should slow down or stop while I pass.
Only if the sequence commenced with me able to see her green side light long before we were in close quarters would I be the stand-on vessel.
Well, that's what I think and I will be interested to know whether others agree.

 

[Supertramp]

I was thinking exactly the same - and even worse it depends on when each vessel recognises the sequence commenced.

The worst thing to do is for everyone involved to start changing course and speed regardless.

The key is early recognition of a situation but without radar, AIS or good visibility you may have very little time to judge and act.

It's also surprising how often such situations occur.

 

[Seven Spades]

Sorry, but I'm not sure about that.
Suppose I am indeed the faster vessel, and at this moment I am approaching the other vessel on my port side and I can see her green side light.
Am I simply a vessel approaching from starboard, and therefore the stand-on vessel?
I think it depends how the sequence of events started.
If the sequence of events started with me astern of the other vessel and within the arc where I can't see either of her side lights but only her stern light then I am overtaking and during that manouver I am never the stand-on vessel, but always the give way vessel. The other vessel should (and I should expect her to) maintain her heading and speed while I overtake unless some circumstance arises that will oblige her to change course in such a way as to give rise to the risk of collision, in which case I believe (it's too late to check right now) she should slow down or stop while I pass.
Only if the sequence commenced with me able to see her green side light long before we were in close quarters would I be the stand-on vessel.
Well, that's what I think and I will be interested to know whether others agree.

Well you have just repeated what I have said. There is no disagreement here.

 

[Irish Rover]

I was thinking exactly the same - and even worse it depends on when each vessel recognises the sequence commenced.

The worst thing to do is for everyone involved to start changing course and speed regardless.

The key is early recognition of a situation but without radar, AIS or good visibility you may have very little time to judge and act.

It's also surprising how often such situations occur.

Which gets us conveniently back to the subject matter of the thread - the attraction of using the VHF to alert the other vessel to your presence and intention and determine his intention .

 

[john_morris_uk]

Which gets us conveniently back to the subject matter of the thread - the attraction of using the VHF to alert the other vessel to your presence and intention and determine his intention .

And the answer. It may be attractive to use VHF but it often doesn’t help and is not encouraged. All well and good when you’ve two vessels who speak good English and who can positively identify each other but that’s often not the case.

 

[finestgreen]

Which gets us conveniently back to the subject matter of the thread - the attraction of using the VHF to alert the other vessel to your presence and intention and determine his intention .

There's already perfectly good sound signals for signalling an intention to overtake, though

 

[Irish Rover]

There's already perfectly good sound signals for signalling an intention to overtake, though

Sound signals are of limited use in high traffic areas and, is evident from this thread, there appears to be differing opinions of what constitutes overtaking.

 

[Irish Rover]

And the answer. It may be attractive to use VHF but it often doesn’t help and is not encouraged. All well and good when you’ve two vessels who speak good English and who can positively identify each other but that’s often not the case.

It often doesn't help and, equally, it often does. Poor English is a major issue and, what gave rise to this thread. Encouraged, or otherwise, VHF communication regarding intentions is a fact of life - and death, unfortunately.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Sound signals are of limited use in high traffic areas and, is evident from this thread, there appears to be differing opinions of what constitutes overtaking.

Sound signals for overtaking are specified for narrow channels. I don’t recall them applying or being relevant in open water.

Your suggestion that overtaking is ill defined is already covered by the rules.

1. If you’re in sight of another vessel the rules apply.
2. If you’re approaching from more than 22.5 degrees shaft the other vessels beam you’re overtaking.
3. If you’re not sure then assume you’re the give way vessel and slow down alter to st’bd etc.
4. Your status can’t change until you’re passed and clear. ie, Just because you can now see the other vessels starboard light doesn’t make you a crossing vessel with rights.

 

[Irish Rover]

Sound signals for overtaking are specified for narrow channels. I don’t recall them applying or being relevant in open water.

Your suggestion that overtaking is ill defined is already covered by the rules.

1. If you’re in sight of another vessel the rules apply.
2. If you’re approaching from more than 22.5 degrees shaft the other vessels beam you’re overtaking.
3. If you’re not sure then assume you’re the give way vessel and slow down alter to st’bd etc.
4. Your status can’t change until you’re passed and clear. ie, Just because you can now see the other vessels starboard light doesn’t make you a crossing vessel with rights.

But I never said it's ill defined. I said there are differing opinions or, maybe I should have said, interpretations.
As I said in an earlier post "the reality is colregs are complicated, unwieldy and off putting and, as a result, ignored by many boaters". Guys using their VHF to indicate/enquire about intentions clearly either have no confidence the other vessel knows or will comply with colregs or, quite possibly, the themselves don't know what's required by colregs.

 

[finestgreen]

Sound signals for overtaking are specified for narrow channels. I don’t recall them applying or being relevant in open water.

You're right, sorry

 

[john_morris_uk]

But I never said it's ill defined. I said there are differing opinions or, maybe I should have said, interpretations.
As I said in an earlier post "the reality is colregs are complicated, unwieldy and off putting and, as a result, ignored by many boaters". Guys using their VHF to indicate/enquire about intentions clearly either have no confidence the other vessel knows or will comply with colregs or, quite possibly, the themselves don't know what's required by colregs.

I interpreted your suggestion that there are differing opinions as you suggesting they’re ‘ill defined’. I don’t think they are. Plenty of explanations and simple interpretations available.

 

[penfold]

But I never said it's ill defined. I said there are differing opinions or, maybe I should have said, interpretations.
As I said in an earlier post "the reality is colregs are complicated, unwieldy and off putting and, as a result, ignored by many boaters". Guys using their VHF to indicate/enquire about intentions clearly either have no confidence the other vessel knows or will comply with colregs or, quite possibly, the themselves don't know what's required by colregs.

Follow rule 8, no need to touch the VHF. There are plenty of incidents which have been created or exacerbated by VHF use. It's surprising and disappointing that VTS operatives are advising vessels to use VHF rather than COLREGS; if they have concerns they have powers to instruct vessels and should do so, not create the risk of confusion by passing the buck.

 

[Irish Rover]

I'm not sure if there are rules about a vessel going around in never ending circles but that's certainly where this debate is going. In an ideal world everyone operating a ship/yacht/boat would be fully conversant with colregs and would fully observe all the rules. But the reality is many operators are not, through lack of awareness or education, or through ignorance or apathy. VHF is increasingly used to determine intentions and agree manoeuvres which are often contrary to colregs and ambiguous. I'm not sure there's any solution short of a global system of VTS.

 

[boomerangben]

It strikes me that either a watch keepers qualification does not require a minimum standard of understanding and communicating in the English language, there is little/inadequate examination of that skill when selecting watchkeepers or it is not enforced. If either of the last two, then what enforcement is there in the knowledge of Colregs and how well is it taught in the first place. It sounds to me that the international marine community need to get a grip on qualifications, education and periodic re qualification/checking. Perhaps we should have more formal training of leisure boaters too.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

It strikes me that either a watch keepers qualification does not require a minimum standard of understanding and communicating in the English language, there is little/inadequate examination of that skill when selecting watchkeepers or it is not enforced. If either of the last two, then what enforcement is there in the knowledge of Colregs and how well is it taught in the first place. It sounds to me that the international marine community need to get a grip on qualifications, education and periodic re qualification/checking. Perhaps we should have more formal training of leisure boaters too.

While many nations uphold high standards, I am afraid it is fairly well-known that some do not. It's difficult to oversee this as the issuance of certificates is up to individual nations; the national body (the MCA in our case) is responsible for maintaining standards, and most do so in good faith - but of course, there are black sheep and also countries where nepotism and bribery are part of the culture. Also, in countries where English is one of the national languages (i.e. a lot of the former Empire, because no single national language has a majority), the version of English spoken may be difficult for a native English speaker to understand, because the cadence and speed of speech are not what we expect, not to mention idiosyncratic grammar and idiom.

 

[Irish Rover]

It strikes me that either a watch keepers qualification does not require a minimum standard of understanding and communicating in the English language, there is little/inadequate examination of that skill when selecting watchkeepers or it is not enforced. If either of the last two, then what enforcement is there in the knowledge of Colregs and how well is it taught in the first place. It sounds to me that the international marine community need to get a grip on qualifications, education and periodic re qualification/checking. Perhaps we should have more formal training of leisure boaters too.

Admirable aspirations, or the cynics among us might say pie in the sky.

 

[Mark-1]

I'm not sure if there are rules about a vessel going around in never ending circles but that's certainly where this debate is going. In an ideal world everyone operating a ship/yacht/boat would be fully conversant with colregs and would fully observe all the rules. But the reality is many operators are not, through lack of awareness or education, or through ignorance or apathy. VHF is increasingly used to determine intentions and agree manoeuvres which are often contrary to colregs and ambiguous. I'm not sure there's any solution short of a global system of VTS.

If the Coll Regs were unambiguous Cockcroft & Lameijer wouldn't exist, Court Cases over colregs wouldn't happen and it would be impossible to squabble over them on sailing forums.

 

[mjcoon]

... the version of English spoken may be difficult for a native English speaker to understand, because the cadence and speed of speech are not what we expect, not to mention idiosyncratic grammar and idiom.

As has been said, that may apply within UK too...

 

[AntarcticPilot]

As has been said, that may apply within UK too...

True. Liverpudlian, Geordie and Glaswegian come to mind.