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...

[ QUOTE ]
talking sense now ,,,,,,,,,,, bound to get shot down

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Trevera, I couldn't give a S H I T Most of this lot wouldn't recognise a TSS if it stood up and spat at them.

The trouble is that we seem to want everything in black and white, and we are scared of making our own decisions, based on the facts before us.

Get out there guys, and stop trying to read more into the rules than there is...............I think I'm wasting my time /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

To be frank Malc , I think one or two trolls have arrived in the latest shipment , and people are getting more and more confused by them . Me ,, I've made my decision , don't ask what to do if you're in the poop and need a quick answer
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
To be frank Malc , I think one or two trolls have arrived in the latest shipment , and people are getting more and more confused by them . Me ,, I've made my decision , don't ask what to do if you're in the poop and need a quick answer

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem??? It's a Forum................It's for blathering on..................






So, they blather..........ad truckin' nauseum! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

dc67602tc.gif


INCOMING /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Sorry but I don't find your post helpful.

Bedouin is a formite who's views I respect and would consider carefully.

There has recently been 2 useful thought provoking threads on col regs and one thing i am certain of is that the rules do not tell you what to do in certain situation only what end result to achieve.

A number of experieced sailors have offered views (TwisterKen in the last thread) that are not completely incorrect answers but in Kens case certainly not the preferred course of action by the majority.

In this thread Bedouin makes the valid argument that a small yacht crossing a shipping lane is not impeding a ship if the ship can make a small alteration of course from many miles away.

I take a different view that in a TSS a small yacht should do all the avoiding action and big ships should be left to remain on autopilot until a collision is imminent then the collision regs stipulate which is the stand on vessel.

You insist that the collision regs are clear so if you were on a small boat crossing a TSS and your MARPA predicts that you would collide with a ship on your Port bow currently about 5 mls away if you both maintain course and speed which vessel do you think should initiate avoiding action?

This is not merely academic because there are 2 genuine differences of opinion and say Bedouin is right and the ship deviates its course slightly to avoid the crossing yacht yet its my yacht and I think the onus is on me not to impede the ship and have therefore slowed down we then have the start of a RADAR assisted collision.

So what vessel do you think should do something first?
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but I don't find your post helpful.

Bedouin is a formite who's views I respect and would consider carefully.

There has recently been 2 useful thought provoking threads on col regs and one thing i am certain of is that the rules do not tell you what to do in certain situation only what end result to achieve.

A number of experieced sailors have offered views (TwisterKen in the last thread) that are not completely incorrect answers but in Kens case certainly not the preferred course of action by the majority.

In this thread Bedouin makes the valid argument that a small yacht crossing a shipping lane is not impeding a ship if the ship can make a small alteration of course from many miles away.

I take a different view that in a TSS a small yacht should do all the avoiding action and big ships should be left to remain on autopilot until a collision is imminent then the collision regs stipulate which is the stand on vessel.

You insist that the collision regs are clear so if you were on a small boat crossing a TSS and your MARPA predicts that you would collide with a ship on your Port bow currently about 5 mls away if you both maintain course and speed which vessel do you think should initiate avoiding action?

This is not merely academic because there are 2 genuine differences of opinion and say Bedouin is right and the ship deviates its course slightly to avoid the crossing yacht yet its my yacht and I think the onus is on me not to impede the ship and have therefore slowed down we then have the start of a RADAR assisted collision.

So what vessel do you think should do something first?

[/ QUOTE ]


Which bit of keep out of the perishing way, don't you lot understand???? .......All this Blather, about summat as simple, beggars belief!
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

I admire Sailfree's attempt to keep the discussion at a cerebral level.

Does anyone have access to the Journal of Navigation, in which this issue seems to have been discussed? See: Collision Regulations – Not To Impede. Karen Williams. Journal of Navigation, Volume 55, Issue 03, September 2002, pp 495-505. doi: 10.1017/S037346330222202X, Published online by Cambridge University Press 06 Nov 2002.

An abstract of an article by I P A Stitt in the same issue (Journal of Navigation (2002), 55: 419-430) hints at more general dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity in Colregs.

"The COLREGS – Time for a Rewrite? Abstract: It is 30 years since major changes were last made to the collision regulations. This paper identifies a number of shortcomings in the current Rules, including excessive verbiage, unnecessary duplications and complications, and the use of weasel words. It also examines the use that has been made of Rule 2 in broadening the interpretation of other Rules. Proposals are then put forward for rewriting The Rules so as to improve their clarity and hopefully their understanding. The paper is written from the viewpoint of a mariner."

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

I note you are doing the blathering but not answering the specific question I pose. Yet you are happy to state the collision regs are clear.

ANSWER THE QUESTION if you know it all!!

Thanks Freesyle for your useful contribution. Its contrinbutions like yours that help newcomers (especially in this thread) understand that it is not all perfect and judgement and prefered courses of actions are necessary.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

I can get both those articles, will download them and take a look. Not sure about the copyright situation, so unlikely to publish them here!
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

If the article assist the discussion and you consider them clear in what they are saying you could precis them or write your interpretation if you have the time.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ 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'

[/ QUOTE ]

The title of Rule 16 is "Action by give-way vessel". The title of Rule 17 is "Action by stand-on vessel". That's why the two terms are used. "Give-way vessel" is also used in the text of Rule 17.

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

Extracted from there:

[ QUOTE ]

it implies that there are circumstances where it would be be perfectly. acceptable for a small vessel to impede the passage of a vessel one of the. traffic lanes. It introduces a subjective judgement,which the helmsman\OOW of the. (potentially) burdened vessel, i.e. the small vessel, is ill-equipped to make. That That. person is unlikely to have sufficient information regarding the other vessel to be able. to make a valid evaluation. Moreover, the watchkeeper of the burdened vessel could. not be certain that the OOW in the privileged vessel agreed with his assessment of whether, although her passage is impeded, there is sufficient room for manoeuvre so. that the privileged vessel’s safe passage is not impeded. Practical experience suggests. that few masters, watchkeepers or pilots of larger vessels care about these nuances of. wording and that even fewer helmsmen of small vessels know of their their existence!

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

I have both these as pdfs.

I can't post them in entirty, but I could email them if anyone wants.

Nice quote from stitt:

Seamanship usually involves experience and common sense rather than the
interpretation of weasel words. The mariner wants rules that are as unambiguous as
possible. It is often argued that The Rules must have suæcient Øexibility to cater for
the inÆnite variety of facts and circumstances that can face the mariner at sea.
However, the 1972 Rules are replete with vague and subjective words and phrases.
The resulting excessive Øexibility has created more problems than it has solved and
has resulted in the mariner being `damned if he does and damned if he doesn't' in the
event of a collision.


Sailfree has them now. I will be offline for the next 12 hours. Perhaps he would not mind passing them on to anyone esle interested ?
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
I note you are doing the blathering but not answering the specific question I pose. Yet you are happy to state the collision regs are clear.

ANSWER THE QUESTION if you know it all!!

Thanks Freesyle for your useful contribution. Its contrinbutions like yours that help newcomers (especially in this thread) understand that it is not all perfect and judgement and prefered courses of actions are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]


Personally sunshine......horror of horrors!! I don't give a rats ass about the colregs!

I certainly don't know it all, but after nigh on forty years of going to sea in vessels various, I have learned one very simple rule.............If it's bigger than me, get out of it's way! I don't give a damn who has right of way. I always assume that there is no-one on the bridge of any large vessel that I encounter, and react accordingly.

I don't think that more than a couple of contributions to this thread have been any help to begginers at all, seems to me that utter confusion reigns supreme.

Collision avoidance is the name of the game, so I repeat, If it's bigger than you, get out of the way.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
In this thread Bedouin makes the valid argument that a small yacht crossing a shipping lane is not impeding a ship if the ship can make a small alteration of course from many miles away.

I take a different view that in a TSS a small yacht should do all the avoiding action and big ships should be left to remain on autopilot until a collision is imminent then the collision regs stipulate which is the stand on vessel . . . So what vessel do you think should do something first?

[/ QUOTE ] The commentary by Karen Williams in Journal of Navigation provides a definitive answer to this question (which I think supports Sailfree's interpretation).

A few quotes from her article follow:

"In the context of the COLREGS, 'impede' is not open to interpretation as per common usage but is defined as stated in Guidance approved by the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO in 1982 (Cockcroft and Lameijer, 1996). The expression 'not to impede the passage or safe passage' means that the vessel required to take this action does so before a risk of collision develops . . . see Rule 8(f )(i). . .

" . . . We can now apply this understanding to Rule 10(j) regarding Traffic Separation Schemes. A power-driven vessel of less than 20 metres or a sailing vessel crossing a traffic lane, seeing on a steady bearing a power-driven vessel that is following a traffic lane, is required by Rule 10(j) to avoid impeding the safe passage of that power-driven vessel. She shall therefore take the appropriate avoiding action before a risk of collision develops . . . .. A power-driven vessel that feels her passage is in danger of being impeded by the crossing vessel should sound at least five short rapid blasts on her whistle and give the vessel time to comply with Rules 10(j) and 8(f )(i). If she does not comply and a risk of collision eventually develops, the power-driven vessel becomes a give-way or stand-on vessel and should take the appropriate action. The crossing vessel is still not relieved of her duty to avoid impeding the safe passage of the other vessel . . ."

She adds that many yachtsmen misinterpret the term "safe passage" and wrongly apply generous interpretations of rule 10. She also points out that when a risk of collision does develop, rule 8(f) makes it clear that the vessel of less than 20 metres is not relieved of her duty to avoid impeding the safe passage of the other vessel, even if the other vessel has become the give way vessel.

8(f) (i) 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.

Simple – see, all nice and cut and dried? Erm, I think not.

And, before someone does it for me, I should add that this argument, important though it is, does not answer the question with which the thread was started!
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Unfortunately I don't think that adds much but it does not define "impede the safe passage" - the article I quoted above - I suspect that you and Sailfree are doing what the author calls

"She adds that many yachtsmen misinterpret the term "safe passage" and wrongly apply generous interpretations of rule 10."

However I must say this is probably the most civilised and well-referenced discussion on Colregs this forum has ever seen
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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'

[/ QUOTE ]
The title of Rule 16 is "Action by give-way vessel". The title of Rule 17 is "Action by stand-on vessel". That's why the two terms are used. "Give-way vessel" is also used in the text of Rule 17.

Duly corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, stand corrected that Colregs does in two rules, refer to the term 'Give-Way' vessel, but you are splitting hairs and trying to score points IMHO
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
[I don't give a rats ass about the colregs!



[/ QUOTE ]

Most sensible sailors try to keep out of the way of ships but these threads are informative to those who want to learn and understand the collision regs. I am genuinly interested in the correct course of action and the preferred course of action. I have only been sailing big boats for about 8 years and these forums have been a great source of information especially when I thought I knew the answer but was wrong.

In your case as you have been doing it for ever, and clearly state you don't give a rats arse for the col regs and are not prepared to make any meaningful contribution can I respectfully suggest you shut up.
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I don't think that adds much but it does not define "impede the safe passage" - the article I quoted above - I suspect that you and Sailfree are doing what the author calls

"She adds that many yachtsmen misinterpret the term "safe passage" and wrongly apply generous interpretations of rule 10."

However I must say this is probably the most civilised and well-referenced discussion on Colregs this forum has ever seen

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your contribution and the reasonable way you presented your opinion made me think that my interpretation could be wrong.

While the last post gives one persons opinion and tend to agree with my proposed actions its not definitive and does show how the col regs can be open to some degree of interpretation and are not as absolute as we may all wish.

Sorry my last reply to Smiffy100 rather goes in the face of your comment "Civilised discussion"!!
 
Re: I\'m going to regret this but:- The last time I was in a TSS...

Edited because, like Sailfree, I have rather belatedly realised that he had earlier misunderstood Bedouin, who quite correctly was dealing with the original question (and not the issue of the crossing vessel's obligation to take action not to impede at an earlier time than a give way vessel in the TSS).

To those arguing that this might be confusing to beginners, I would reply: So? I would go so far as to argue that those who don't find the current Colregs confusing haven't studied them carefully enough. If this discussion makes beginners, or anyone else, wary of crossing a busy TSS, then it's a useful discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top