TSS / TSS rules / Shell Channel Pilot

[Way]

There are a couple of threads on this, but none seem to address this and some contradict what I've read in the Channel Pilot.

The Channel Pilot says that between Traffic Separation Schemes, say between Alderney and Dover, the ColRegs/TSS rules "affectively" apply as usual. Is this true? Intuitively it sounds wrong. It also assumes I havent misunderstood the section in the Pilot!

Any thoughts? I can only assume that in the TSS the rules apply and outside them (shipps entering leaving but not in the TSS) the rules don't officially apply.

Is it that in theory they don't apply but in practice they do?

 

[Angele]

Well the crossing at right angles bit definitely doesn't. If it did, a lot of us would have longer passages.

 

[jerrytug]

The ColRegs apply everywhere,including TSS's. I would suggest going back to the rules,and avoiding confusion introduced by waffling authors.
For more official guidance about TSS's, there is a free download Maritime Guidance Note the number escapes me on the MCA website,all the best Jerry
Edited to add: MGN 364 (M+F) "Traffic Separation Schemes- Application of Rule 10 and Navigation in the Dover Strait"

 

[Way]

I meant to say, it mentions that there is a note on the charts and I don't have them to hand. Can only assume that this is 'interpretation' or merely Cunliffe suggesting that ships near the lanes/entering them should be given a wide birth.

Obviously you can't cross something that isnt there at right angles, but out of the TSS, even if very near, surely normal ColRegs apply?

 

[Elessar]

no it isn't true.

your assumption is correct, though some TSS rules (eg about how you join them) apply outside them.

No, they don't apply in practice either. In practice you will see a lot of ships going the same way because they tak the shortest line between the TTSs but that's all.

We need Tim Bartlett back for chapter and verse!

 

[prv]

I don't have the book to hand to check the wording, but I assume all he means is that there are two compact lines of traffic, just like a TSS, even though there is no actual TSS in place. The TSS-specific rules certainly don't apply.

Pete

 

[Way]

Thought so - thanks Pete. Thanks everyone.

Not the sort of thing I want to muse on when a 10k tonne tanker is bearing down

 

[jerrytug]

no it isn't true.

your assumption is correct, though some TSS rules (eg about how you join them) apply outside them.

No, they don't apply in practice either. In practice you will see a lot of ships going the same way because they tak the shortest line between the TTSs but that's all.

We need Tim Bartlett back for chapter and verse!

You don't need any gurus,prophets or soothsayers,Bartlett,Cunliffe or anybody else,what you need is to sit down with the rules and read them,free on the web.
No disrespect intended to the above hallowed authors of course!
Cheers Jerry

 

[prv]

You don't need any gurus,prophets or soothsayers,Bartlett,Cunliffe or anybody else,what you need is to sit down with the rules and read them,free on the web.

It's certainly a good start, though I'd suggest that a bit of exposition from an expert is not necessarily a bad thing. Here is the authoritative version as incorporated into UK law:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/msn_1781-2.pdf

(Colregs themselves start on page 3)

Pete

 

[laika]

I have the shell channel pilot here and whilst it might just be his affectation, TC is effectively saying just what Way is suggesting he is, that between TSSes

is subject to what in effect are full TSS regulations except that there is no separation zone between the lanes.

Now I don't have the "proper" charts, but I do have the channel islands folio with cross channel routeing info and it says in the notes

BETWEEN THE OFF CASQUETTES SCHEME AND THE GREENWICH MERIDIAN ships crossing the easterly or westerly recommended directions of traffic flow should do so on a heading as nearly as practical at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow

In other words, sensible advice about not sliding diagonally across but rather a far cry from "full TSS regulations" (which importantly change behaviour in a risk of collision situation)

Still, this is the same pilot book where the caption to a picture of the inner swashway tells you to leave BC Outer to starboard as you come in...

 

[Way]

Perfect, thanks Laika, really helpful. As I thought it's advice rather than strange rules noone knows about.

Strangely I spotted the Swashway Beacon mistake last night too!

 

[VicS]

Thought so - thanks Pete. Thanks everyone.

Not the sort of thing I want to muse on when a 10k tonne tanker is bearing down

You dont have to worry too much about the little ones, they can steer round you. Its the 100 k tonne plus ones you are best avoiding. esp the big container ships that cannot see anything closer in front than about 10 miles

 

[donaldson]

The area between the Caquets and Dover TSSs should be crossed with care, as shipping seems to consider TSS collision rules apply. There is a note on the Admiralty chart to this effect. I was crossing this area, heading north at 90 degrees to the flow. I picked up a radar target at 10 miles range which never deviated from the EBL. Visual from 5 miles, and if I hadn't altered course at 2 miles to go behind his stern I would have been run down. Take care, and don't assume they will regard you as the stand on vessel.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

if I hadn't altered course at 2 miles to go behind his stern I would have been run down.

a) Perhaps a little over-dramatic, b) I reckon if you altered course at 2 miles off you were breaking Rule 17 whichever definitions of the words you use!

 

[Way]

Interesting. Donaldson, assume you were sailing? Was visibility poor?

I just wonder whether at c.2 miles they might have avoided you if you hadnt changed course yourself. Pretty sure I'd have done the same as you though! Heard an interesting c.16 call between two commercial vessels last summer, one saying to the other "you turn to starboard". Said twice, the second time more irately. Maybe its not just small boats who get a raw deal.

 

[Way]

toad_oftoadhall ....understand what you're saying on one level. Although I make it that at 15knots, which could be underplaying it, the ship would have crossed in c.7mins. If you're sailing with preventers on/spinnaker gear up, or the ship makes even a tiny course change the 'wrong' way, it doesn't give a lot of space for error.

I could be being overly opinionated here but my feeling on personal experience, but mainly from reading the MAIB reports on the Nedlloyd Vespucci/Whakuna collision and the Ouzo/Pride of Bilbao incident, is that commercial skippers can be pretty irresponsible. The skippers in both incidents should have been severely punished (and I don't think were) and if not, it won't stop ships from failing to take avoiding action or thinking it's ok to do 25knots through fog.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

toad_oftoadhall ....understand what you're saying on one level. Although I make it that at 15knots, which could be underplaying it, the ship would have crossed in c.7mins. If you're sailing with preventers on/spinnaker gear up, or the ship makes even a tiny course change the 'wrong' way, it doesn't give a lot of space for error.

IIRC Rule 17 doesn't allow you to factor in how long it will take you to change your own course. It specifically says it has to be 'apparent' that the other vessel isn't going to alter course for you. At two miles distance that condition isn't met whatever definition of apparent you choose. IIRC the stand on vessel is allowed to remove preventers, but not take the kite down if that would result in a change of speed.

or the ship makes even a tiny course change the 'wrong' way

If two vessels are on a collision course and the give way vessel makes a change of course, then you're no longer on a collision course. (and released from your obligations to hold course and speed.)


But yeah, if you're saying '*******s to rule 17, I'm gonna keep out of the way of big stuff rather than relying on them to avoid me' then I'm in total agreement.

 

[laika]

The area between the Caquets and Dover TSSs should be crossed with care, as shipping seems to consider TSS collision rules apply. There is a note on the Admiralty chart to this effect.

Is the wording on your admiralty chart different from my leisure folio? As I posted, mine gives directions to cross as near as possible to right angles to traffic flow, but makes no mention of applying the TSS collision rules (ie not impeding vessels following the "scheme"). Perhaps the "proper" chart is different as both you and TC state but if they wanted full TSS rules to apply, surely they'd just make it a TSS...

 

[Angele]

Is the wording on your admiralty chart different from my leisure folio? As I posted, mine gives directions to cross as near as possible to right angles to traffic flow, but makes no mention of applying the TSS collision rules (ie not impeding vessels following the "scheme"). Perhaps the "proper" chart is different as both you and TC state but if they wanted full TSS rules to apply, surely they'd just make it a TSS...

Note difference in the language used between COLREGS and the note on the charts.

COLREGS says "shall" - obligatory.

Charts says "should" ("ships crossing .... should do so on a heading as nearly as practical at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow"), as in "really ought to but ..."

I take the later therefore as a recommendation and not a rule. In daylight, in good vis, straying from the perpendicular crossing of these imagined shipping lanes isn't in the least bit dangerous. In fog, getting clear of where the big stuff is likely to be lurking as quickly as possibly, by crossing at right angles, is very sensible.

 

[laika]

Charts says "should" ("ships crossing .... should do so on a heading as nearly as practical at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow"), as in "really ought to but ..."

I don't disagree: I was just asking if the wording on donaldson's chart differed from my leisure folio one which mentions crossing at right angles but makes no mention of vessels applying TSS collision rules between the schemes.