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...

Actually it is "sufficient searoom for the safe passage of the other vessel". Slightly different connotations between manoeuvre and passage.

Dave

P.S. these threads are great revision practice.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference here is that the white ship is altering course to avoid a collision with the ferry and, in the absence of the ferry, the situation wouldnt have arisen in the same way.

e.g. if the ferry wasnt there, and the yacht found itself on a collision course with the white ship, the yacht can slow down, (preferable IMHO).

In the actual situation,the white ship alters course to starboard heading straight at the yacht..... no chance of collision as long as both maintain course and speed until clear, therefore no need for yacht to take any action.

The problem seems to arise because the yacht fears that the white ship is not aware of him, and might resume his original course.

I'm not sure what we do about this... the rules assume that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can see their attitude. However, there are obviously occasions when big ships havent seen little boats.... should we have rules for small boats who are worried that big boats might not have seen them?
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

I think this is a case of job protection by the marine lawyers.

The fact that it is so unclear means that it is useless apart from giving Lawyers something to argue about post-collision
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

My ferry was crossing the TSS but both large vessels seemed to agree that she was the stand-on vessel.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

OK I am now confused.

Large ship proceeding along a TSS, Small yacht motoring Xing a TSS. At 10mls both ships MARPAs indicate a collision situation is both maintain speed and course.

What vessel is required to alter course?

Option a) (my interpretation of Col Regs) the motoring yacht under 20m must always give way irelevan whether bigship is on port or starboard side . Big ship is stand on and only deviates speed/course at last minute.

Option b) Big ship alters course a few degrees to avoid small vessel.

What I think is agreed is that at last minute when collision is imminent both are required to do whatever is necessary to avoid collision.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

My view is that if the ship can safely alter course then it remains obliged to do so. If it can't then the yacht must take action. If the intention of rule 8 (f) were anything else it could have been worded in a much clearer way.

Note that action taken "not to impede" should normally be taken earlier than as "give way"

The rules do give a definition of what it means "not to impede" which is perhaps not what we would have assumed if the definition was not there.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Damn, you're right! Just realised I've been arguing against what I said in the other thread. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Must get on with my work instead!

Good point about the ship being stand-on vessel. I suppose the issue revolves around what is meant by "impeding the passage or safe passage of anther vessel".

In a TSS, Rule 8(f)(i) puts an obligation on the vessel less than 20m to take early action - I agree (even if it means turning to starboard temporarily - re the other thread).

<ul type="square"> A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the Rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision. [/list]
Personally I'm pleased the issue's been aired - certainly made me think about it, and, more importantly, go back to the Rules.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

If 10mls means 10 miles, then the small yacht is 'required' to alter course. The ship is entitled to expect the yacht to sort itself out. 10 miles is an age to a small yacht.

The small yacht crossing is required not to require a ship in the TSS to apply the colregs to the situation! If you require action by the ship you are impeding progress.


I guess there are 3 stages in an interaction.

1. A closing situation anticipated - need to think about appropriate action.

2. A closing situation happening - need to apply colregs

3. Stand-on/give-way definitions seem insufficient or not being applied. Both vessels take action - allowing for the possible avoiding actions which may be taken by the other.

Of course this seems over analytical and they really blurr into each other. But my interpretation of the TSS rule is that the small yacht crossing a TSS is required not to let the situation progress beyond stage 1. If it does colregs and common sense apply.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

OK I understand your interpretation.

To keep it simple I am simply looking at 1 ship in TSS and yacht under 20m Xing. Effectively I have sailed on the principle that a ship in a TSS is the same as a car on a major road and a yacht under 20m is the one trying to pull out of a side road.

In your opinion if the ship can go round and col regs say yacht is stand on (ship is then approaching from Port side) then the ship should alter course, my opinion is that a yacht Xing a TSS is always under an obligation to alter course/speed so that ship does not need to (and that is irrelevant to whether its motoring or sailing).

Irrespective of the practicalities of relative size I am interested what the consensus view of the correct interpretation of who gives way in my example in a TSS.

There are a few YM instructors and examiners that I note are conspicuous by their silence on these threads!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I notice a few quote the rules. Are they on any website or are you typing them from Rules of the Road book or equivalent?
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

I have the book to hand....these threads help the understanding of a fairly dry subject.

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

I am pretty confident that that is the case - otherwise the yacht would simply be "give way".

I agree that your understanding is a common one - but for me the critical point is that if that were the case there would be no need for the distinction between "impede" and "give way".

I think you are basing your view on you understanding of the word "impede" but I point is that because the requirement "not to impede" is explicitly defined in the regs then you should use that as the definition rather than an everyday understanding. In fact you could make the case that the word "endanger" fits the meaning better than "impede".

I am typing the rules partly from memory - so the wording may not be accurate - but there are plenty of websites with them on - just google for "colregs" and you'll find loads.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
OK I am now confused.

Large ship proceeding along a TSS, Small yacht motoring Xing a TSS. At 10mls both ships MARPAs indicate a collision situation is both maintain speed and course.

What vessel is required to alter course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither is required to "alter course"... the small yacht is required "not to impede the big ship".... she can do this how she likes, as long as she does it. Slow down, or stop, is easiest to be sure of the desired result. Alter course is OK if it works.

As you say, if risk of collision becomes likely, they revert to the rules of the road, rather than the rules of the TSS.

The thread seems to have drifted away from the 3 boat situation where it started.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are basing your view on you understanding of the word "impede" but I point is that because the requirement "not to impede" is explicitly defined in the regs then you should use that as the definition rather than an everyday understanding. In fact you could make the case that the word "endanger" fits the meaning better than "impede".

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of years ago the Royal Institute of Navigation (or was it the Nautical Institute?) ran an exercise in which deck officers were given several different scenarios requiring interpretation of Colregs. I can't remember the exact details, but IIRC one of the questions involved a collision course between a give-way vessel and a stand-on vessel which was required not to impede. The correct answer, according to the published analysis, was that the give-way vessel should give way. However, well over 50% of the respondents got the answer wrong. Moral: don't rely on other people knowing the rules!
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[quote but IIRC one of the questions involved a collision course between a give-way vessel and a stand-on vessel which was required not to impede. The correct answer, according to the published analysis, was that the give-way vessel should give way. However, well over 50% of the respondents got the answer wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose that if the vessel required not to impede, impedes to the point where there is risk of collision, then the give way vessel should give way, but that would probably be the wrong answer...

There is the answer which passes an exam, and the answer which works in the field.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Yes - I've seen a reference to that - which is why I am sure I'm right about my interpretation
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]


I suppose that if the vessel required not to impede, impedes to the point where there is risk of collision, then the give way vessel should give way, but that would probably be the wrong answer...

There is the answer which passes an exam, and the answer which works in the field.

[/ QUOTE ]
Causing the vessel to alter course does not represent impeding within the meaning of the act
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

By vhf - same channel.

Pride of Calais, Pride of Calais this is,,,

Sir I'm the yacht fine on your port bow at x Nm, I would like to thank you sir for steering the big white ship directly into my path, because of your request I'm altering course to Stb - please keep clear - yacht X out.

On vhf same channel, immediately after talking with P of C.

Big white ship, Big white ship this is yacht X, your alteration of course to stb has put you on a collision course with me I'm the yacht 2 nm's on your bow- I am altering course to Stb, repeat Stb, please keep clear and pass my down my port side over!

That should do it.

Hopefully either Dover CG or Dover port control would have heard your traffic and seriously embarrass the Pride of Calais WO!

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are basing your view on you understanding of the word "impede" but I point is that because the requirement "not to impede" is explicitly defined in the regs then you should use that as the definition rather than an everyday understanding. In fact you could make the case that the word "endanger" fits the meaning better than "impede".

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of years ago the Royal Institute of Navigation (or was it the Nautical Institute?) ran an exercise in which deck officers were given several different scenarios requiring interpretation of Col regs. I can't remember the exact details, but IIRC one of the questions involved a collision course between a give-way vessel and a stand-on vessel which was required not to impede. The correct answer, according to the published analysis, was that the give-way vessel should give way. However, well over 50% of the respondents got the answer wrong. Moral: don't rely on other people knowing the rules!

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, although someone on this thread will no doubt correct me, Col regs never refers to a vessel as the 'Give Way' vessel. Col regs only refers to a 'Stand on vessel' It does this deliberately, and even then it gives responsibilities to the 'Stand on' vessel We should all try and not try to equate Col regs with the highway code.

ALL vessels have the responsibility of avoiding collision, and that is the main point of Col regs, and it doesn't matter, in the last resort, how you do it, YOU AVOID COLLISION.

IMHO most of the long winded discussions involving Col regs occur because some 'knowledgeable' forumite, invariably confuses the situation by ignoring the primary objective of one of the vessels.

At the risk of being completely shot down, take the course of action of a vessel, it may be a yacht (under sail), or it may be a motor powered vessel crossing 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.

(b) A vessel using a traffic separation scheme shall:

(i) Proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane.

(ii) So far as is practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone.

(iii) Normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or leaving from either side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable.

(c) A vessel shall so far as practicable 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.

So under Rule 10(c) a ship (crossingthe TSS )CAN alter course as and when necessary to avoid other shipping in the Traffic lane, and in which ever direction the skipper decides, so as to avoid that shipping, provided his GENERAL heading is nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

If you bother to read Col regs (which I know most of you won't), you will find that it is very simplistic and clear in it's approach to all actions and reactions to and between vessels.

Don't try to over complicate it, and read into it what isn't there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top