I'm going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Thats a bit unfair on the big ships - I've crossed the Channel a few times and have overheard discussion between biggies relating to me on a couple of occasions and on both occasions they have very careful to take my presence into consideration (in the nicest possible way)
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
In a TSS a small vessel cannot be the stand on vessel

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it can - Rule 8 makes it absolutely clear
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
For reassurance take a hand bearing on him and watch it change. You could also call him on the vhf and confirm he's aware of you and his intention to pass astern.

But the quickest way to motor out of his path is - straight ahead!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of the few occasions when I would use the VHF. The one thing you are certain of is that the white ship is not going to hold her present course; she will want to return to her old course as soon as she has given the ferry sufficient clearance. You know that she is listening to her VHF, and you know which channel she is listening on. You don't know her name, but she has just answered to a description. At the moment, although she is pointing directly at you, you are not on a collision course and she will go behind you. But if she hasn't seen you, and turns to port to return to her old course, then you could be in difficulty. A precautionary call of "White ship in the west going lane near the ferry **** of ****, this is the yacht two miles ahead of you; are you aware of me?" would be justified.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

The picture I have drawn is of you and the ferry crossing the lane, and the white ship proceeding along the lane about 45 degrees on both of your port bows....
This makes both you and the ferry the stand on vessels. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).


If I was on the white ship and agreed to do what the ferry asked, and knew that you were there and not stationary, I would make my substantial alteration to starboard, knowing that if I headed straight for you, you would have passed ahead of me by the time I reached your current position.

If you then turned to port, I would wonder what was going on and keep a close eye on you. If I could clearly see your starboard side, I would guess your intention and carry on... always watching to make sure you maintained your new course and speed, and that I was going to pass between you and the ferry.

I would much rather you had maintained your course and speed, as per the rules.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a TSS a small vessel cannot be the stand on vessel

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it can - Rule 8 makes it absolutely clear

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll let you argue that point with a heavy , personally I'll be doing the same and doing the shepherd routine


get the flock out of there /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
I'll let you argue that point with a heavy , personally I'll be doing the same and doing the shepherd routine


get the flock out of there /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
At this point the ship is described as "heading straight towards me" - turning 90 degrees to Port would then put you on a collision course with the fastest possible closing velocity - you're a braver man than I if that's your approach /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

At the very least if there is any doubt I would turn onto a parallel course (as opposed to reciprocal) so that (a) that maximises thinking time and (b) in the worst case it minimises the speed of impact
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
in the worst case it minimises the speed of impact

[/ QUOTE ]

I note you are already thinking in terms of minimising the force of the impact!!!

I was refering to the rule a vessel under Xm shall not impede a ship in a TSS.

I bet you quote the law at a mugger holding a knife to your throat as you are in the right! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
I was refering to the rule a vessel under Xm shall not impede a ship in a TSS.

[/ QUOTE ]Surely that is different from being a stand-on vesssel?

In a TSS, there is still a need to have clear Rules to avoid collision. Rule 10 (Traffic Separation Schemes) also says
<ul type="square"> (a) This Rule applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by the Organization and does not relieve any vessel of her obligation under any other Rule. [/list]
I therefore believe that Rule 8 should still apply.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Interested in others opinions but I took that rule to mean that a small vessel Xing a TSS had no rights and had to take necessary action to avoid ships in a TSS.

A big ship in a TSS holds its course until it is obliged to deviate to avoid a collision and complys with Col Reg WRT overtaking vessels in the the TSS.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
I note you are already thinking in terms of minimising the force of the impact!!!

I was refering to the rule a vessel under Xm shall not impede a ship in a TSS.

I bet you quote the law at a mugger holding a knife to your throat as you are in the right! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
In fact I would either have carried straight on or done a 180 - and if the other vessel was truely pointing straight at me 2 miles away I would have kept going.

As far as TSS is concerned there are two points here

(a) Being required "not to impede" is not the same as being give way vessel - once you get to close quarters then the usual give way/stand on rules apply

(b) As the white ship had made an alteration from course then the situation is more complex anyway.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
I took that rule to mean that a small vessel Xing a TSS had no rights and had to take necessary action to avoid ships in a TSS.

[/ QUOTE ]It may well be sensible for small boats to keep out of the way of bigger ships - that's pretty sensible IMHO. But if you genuinely are in a potential collision situation, then there has to be absolute predictability - which is why all the other Rules still apply.

Incidentally the Rules do not confer "rights", but lay down criteria designed to create predictable behaviours and outcomes.

EDIT: PS - as stated in the earlier thread, AFAIR, my only experience of this has been in the North Channel TSS, both by day and at night. That's a quietish area, but if in doubt, a call to the ships is usually all that it takes. On the few occasions I've called one, I've found them to be helpful and courteous. I fully accept that things may be more fraught in the Channel....
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

As you said , you are almost certainly going to regret this thread /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Sorry I thought the very idea of a TSS meant that a small vessel cannot be a stand on vessel. The ship acts as stand on and is only obliged to act to avoid an "imminent" collision, they could then report you for not obeying the rules of a TSS.

You seem to imply that when crossing a TSS a small vessel can be a stand on vessel and if say at 2-5mls a collision could occur the ship should alter course! My understanding is that the col regs require a ship in a TSS to alter course only when it is absolutely necessary (because small vessel is not obeying the rules for xing a TSS) to avoid a collision.

As we obviously disagree can others please wade in and advise?

As these threads have thrown up some different views either we are each imagining a different specific situation or some of us are wrong. As most that post are pretty experienced I think its a bit frightening!!
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Rule 8f(i) says the "not impeding" vessel must give the other vessel sufficient sea room.

I would take this to mean give way....

Dave
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Colregs themselves define "not to impede" simply as allowing "sufficient searoom so that vessel can manouvre safely".

A clarification was added in 1987 (IIRC) Rule 8 (f) (iii) that makes it clear that the usual rules apply when "vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision".

So according to Colregs you can be "stand on" vessel but still required not to impede the give way vessel - clear isn't it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Rule 10
Traffic separation schemes
(a) This Rule applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by the Organization and does not relieve any vessel of her obligation under any other Rule.

This is deja vu all over again..... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

it would be easier if it just said ' if you're in a little boat and you see big boats coming towards you , get out of it's way by turning the safest direction at the time ' , and leave it to the skipper to decide which way to turn and by how much
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

If it meant give way don't you think it would say give way? The fact that they've introduced the separate concept shows that they are not supposed to be synonyms - and 8 f iii also makes it clear that the vessel of passage can still be the give way vessel

Allowing sufficient sea room means exactly what it says - so if you are in the middle of a TSS with no other ships around you and there is nothing to stop the large vessel altering course to avoid you then you remain stand on vessel.

I'm not trying to defend the rule - I think it is nonsense and should be reworded precisely because of the ambiguity it introduces.

As I see it - the "not to impede" works at a greater distance than "give way" so if the big ship is restricted in how it can manoeuvre then you must not get to where "risk of collision exists"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top