They should cut his danglies off !

How does that work then?

Where I've been spending my tme lately, there's a little TSS in the Stretto di Messina but regarding small boats it just says, "small bats shall not get in the way of big boats" and that's it. You can sail on whatever side you like as long as you keep out of the big boats' way.

Not so in the channel?
 
No comparison between the two. Dover Straits is very strictly controlled. Suggest you look at the plots of shipping going up and down channel and ferries crossing, then you will appreciate why.
 
Tranona said:
No comparison between the two. Dover Straits is very strictly controlled. Suggest you look at the plots of shipping going up and down channel and ferries crossing, then you will appreciate why.
Click to expand...

Why is not an issue; I was asking "how?". eg if I want to go from Hastings to Ramsgate in my 8m sailboat, do I have to cross the channel twice?
 
Zen Zero said:
Why is not an issue; I was asking "how?". eg if I want to go from Hastings to Ramsgate in my 8m sailboat, do I have to cross the channel twice?
Click to expand...

No. The TSS has designated lanes and those for commercial shipping are one way.That is what Traffic Separation means. You can go with the flow or at right angles to it, but not against it, which is what the transgressor is alleged to have done. Even if he were in a commercial ship he would still be charged with the same offence for the same action. Pleasure boats are encouraged to use the small boat lanes which follow the coast.
 
Zen Zero said:
if I want to go from Hastings to Ramsgate in my 8m sailboat, do I have to cross the channel twice?
Click to expand...

No - TSSes always (as far as I know) have an "inshore traffic zone" between the lanes and the coast, which small vessels can use in any direction.

Pete
 
volvopaul said:
When I saw your post title I thought it might have been about our private message topic!!
Click to expand...


The trouble is Paul the tw @ t is too close to you, any mention of what has been going on and some who dont know you will point fingers, needs to be handled very carefully, otherwise I would have already posted, I think you need to post it and then at least no one on the forum will be left with even the slightest doubt, also need to point out that its isnt col either :)

There will be forum members relying on their boat in rough conditions thinking their boat has been serviced when it might not have been touched for 3-4 years or their life raft canister may be empty or missing the CO2 bottle :eek:

I spent a lot of time posting warning about dodgy Yacht Brokers, some of the forum brokers (decent honest people) then started to have a go at me, this really needs to come from you Paul, the forum trust you well enough to realize it isnt just calling a competitor, I know enough to back you up fully, Ive seen boats left in a state that bad that I was uncomfortable to be on it in a marina while I made it safe.
 
prv said:
No - TSSes always (as far as I know) have an "inshore traffic zone" between the lanes and the coast, which small vessels can use in any direction.

Pete
Click to expand...

So why the phoque was he out of the small boats are allowed zone and getting in the way of the ships if he was doing a circumnavigate?
 
Zen Zero said:
So why the phoque was he out of the small boats are allowed zone and getting in the way of the ships if he was doing a circumnavigate?
Click to expand...

Good question. That is why he has been charged - he should not have been where he was. As the article suggests the fines and costs are high and the judge will not be pleased that he ignored the court as well.
 
I can't tell from that article but I doubt that his offence was going the wrong way in the TSS. I'd guess the alleged offence is not being in the TSS at all. The issue here is that using the TSS is compulsory if you are >20m. If you are over >20m you are technically in breach of the rules if you sail inshore or hug the coast (Tranona, ref your post above, it is not a pleasure vs commercial distinction, it is < or > 20m)

On this point the MCA are imho a bunch of waste-of-taxpayer money jobsworths. if you are, say, sailing twixt London and the Solent in a Targa 62 you dont belong offshore with the big ships, from either your pov or theirs. But the dimwit coastguard at Dover will binocular spot you and will order you to go offshore, and his even more dimwit mates at MCA enforcement unit will seek to prosecute you if you dont join the big ships, the deckheads. The sunseeker LIBS delivery crews have to call into Dover port and (wastefully) tool about for 5 minutes, to avoid this treatment, and perhaps the Princess guys too

The size for a pleasure boat having to go into the ship channel should be much bigger than 20m
 
Last edited:
jfm said:
On this point the MCA are imho a bunch of waste-of-taxpayer money jobsworths. if you are, say, sailing twixt London and the Solent in a Targa 62 you dont belong offshore with the big ships, from either your pov or theirs. But the dimwit coastguard at Dover will binocular spot you and will order you to go offshore, and his even more dimwit mates at MCA enforcement unit will seek to prosecute you if you dont join the big ships, the deckheads. The sunseeker LIBS delivery crews have to call into Dover port and (wastefully) tool about for 5 minutes, to avoid this treatment, and perhaps the Princess guys too
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of this?

TSS's are agreed with IMO, as are the details of vessel sizes, etc.

I'd be interested to see your example of someone prosecuted, or even a case brought, against a 20m vessel for using the ITZ.

There is certainly no requirement to call into a port en route.

The radar track (not binoculars) will show exactly what any vessel did - and is often used as evidence for vessels transiting the wrong way up the lanes (the southwest lane is the responsibility of the French).

Anyway, as I say, the example you'll give will enable a better answer.

Perhaps if you'd have read the article, you'd have seen :

Guillemot is, however, still in trouble - and with a problem that will be trickier to resolve. He is facing a possible court case for repeatedly sailing the wrong way up the shipping lanes as he went through the Dover Strait.

Safran was tracked going against the flow of shipping in the Traffic Separation Scheme off Dover and, according to the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA), is under investigation for violating Rule 10 of the Collision Regulations.
Click to expand...

which might answer your point that you couldn't tell if he had gone the wrong way...
 
Last edited:
chanelyacht said:
Do you have any evidence of this?

TSS's are agreed with IMO, as are the details of vessel sizes, etc.

I'd be interested to see your example of someone prosecuted, or even a case brought, against a 20m vessel for using the ITZ.

There is certainly no requirement to call into a port en route.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends how they interpret Rule 10(d):

(d) (i) A vessel shall not use an inshore traffic zone when she can safely use the
appropriate traffic lane within the adjacent traffic separation scheme. However, vessels
of less than 20 metres in length, sailing vessels and vessels engaged in fishing may
use the inshore traffic zone.
(ii) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (d) (i), a vessel may use an inshore traffic zone when
en route to or from a port, offshore installation or structure, pilot station or any other
place situated within the inshore traffic zone, or to avoid immediate danger.
Click to expand...

Unless you're arguing that the big gin palaces can't safely (not "conveniently") use the traffic lane, then (i) seems to say they "shall not" use the inshore zone. They can't take advantage of the exception in the second sentence.

Instead, it seems that they get round it under (ii), by making their route to (and then from) a port (Dover) in the ITZ. Not sure how you square that with "certainly no requirement" - it seems to be the only way they can legally use the zone.

Can't comment on prosecutions, but as for the rules I'm afraid I'm with jfm on this one.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top