When you see a ship, never mind the IRPCS, just get out of the way

[Robin]

Using AIS does though help in these situations identify which order to handle them in. On a previous trip the ones you dont see behind the one you do, is often the trouble maker. AIS makes you aware that even in the shipping lanes there are fast and slow moving, and if you get the angles & speeds right/wrong you don't see the problem til you think you are out of what you perceived the danger to be. If I'd just done the bearing on the ship I could see, I'd have crossed its bow with ~ .75nm clearance. However, when I got to about 1 mile I would have seen a smaller faster freighter over taking him that I would have then had to take drastic action to slip behind (IRPCS say vessel in the lanes has rights over those crossing?)
With AIS, I decided to take an easier option and go behind both, which simply meant sheeting in, rather than having to tack, which I'd have to do if I delayed the decision.

I can understand the thinking but taking avoiding action for a ship that as yet is over the horizon but showing on AIS is overkill. First of all the CPA predictions at that range are not accurate because the likelyhood is that your own speed and heading (data derived from your GPS COG/SOG) are not constant, especially under sail. Then again the invisible ship may make adjustments themselves for another vessel large or small also unseen by you.

IRPCS say vessel in the lanes has rights over those crossing?

NO! That only applies in a TSS and most of us will avoid these where possible and yes they do have different and very strict rules. What I and others refer to as shipping 'lanes' are the routes taken by big ships, often between two TSSs (like between Ushant TSS and Casquets TSS for example). Ships entering and leaving TSSs have to be lined up and they will always take the straight line route between them, unless they are peeling off to head for a particular port or are joing the flow from one. There is NO requirement to cross these lanes at 90 degs nor do ships in them have any additional rights over the normal IRPCS.

Our usual Channel chart, which in our case is permanently on our nav table under a perspex cover with a Yeoman plotter, has my own pencilled in lines ruled between Ushant and Casquets TSSs that show the 'lanes' ie where ships taking a straight line course will be. Generally these are about 5mls wide with a 3 mile no man's land space between east and west going corridors. It is a useful reminder of where the maximum activity will be (and for when best not to plan dinner or a kip...) There is activity outside of these routes of course and in any direction but pretty much everything in them will be going the same way, the odd rogue never to be ruled out though. We navigate primarily by electronic plotters these days but I can't rule my own pencil lines on electronic charts so this overall paper view helps.

 

[Chris_Robb]

As so often happens, this poll seems to have answered an unintended question.

My conclusion is that nearly two thirds of respondents take steps to avoid situations which make their boat the stand-on vessel to big ship.

The strategm makes sense to me only in harbours and shallow water - where you can lurk in places not accessible to big ships - or for fast motor boats, but only occasionally does it make sense for yachts in open water.

AIS complicates the issue, so let me ask: without AIS or radar, how do you determine whether you and the ship you can see might reach a position which makes you the stand on vessel before that occurs? You cannot use the constant bearing criterion, because by IRPCS you have already become the stand on vessel. So what else is there, if not this: it's getting closer, is not a vessel engaged in fishing (etc, etc) and on a bearing anywhere in an arc from your port bow, through port to 22.5 degrees abaft your starboard beam?

The question I had in mind was: do you attempt to "keep out of the way" even if your action puts you in breach of IRPCS? I suspect that many of those agreeing with the statement in the original post would answer "no" to this question. But I wonder.

Never mind the odd IRPCS denier, what is worries me more is the apparently commonly-held belief that by "keeping out of the way" you can both dispense with detailed knowledge of IRPCS and avoid situations which make you the stand on vessel.

Thank God someone has got his head screwed on the right way! The stats are an eye opener - For me, I don't want any more electronics on board - I have a hand bearing compass, GPS and Radar. Thats quite enough technology thanks. I really don't understand why people get so worked up, my view (and I have been around a long time) is to take each ship in turn. People panick far too soon, steer all over the ocean, and the poor ship doesn't know what the hell to expect next.

KISS

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I’ve just been reminded myself of the exact terms of rule 17 which is what we’re *really* talking about in this thread. Every time I read the IRPCS I find myself wondering who wrote such poo.

Like the rest of IRPCS it’s an abysmally written rule. The actions required of a stand on vessel hinge on the meanings of “Apparent” and “risk of collision” neither of which is defined. Apparent in this context seems to mean ‘obvious’ but it can mean 'seemingly'. What an insane choice of word! If you wanted to create uncertainty you couldn’t do better than use a word with two meanings at a critical point and not define it!

I think we there has to be doubt about a ‘seemingly’ interpretation since the whole reason for the “stand on rule” is to avoid vessels deviating from their predictable course and causing a crash - if the rule allowed for a common-sense early avoiding action what would it’s purpose be? You'd not be preventing the the problem you're trying to solve.

"Risk of Collision" is also undefined. I take this not to mean 'on a collision course' - otherwise it would say so. In which case you can be on a collision course but (because you know you're about to tack off) under no risk of collision and therefore allowed to tack off. In which case it fails to prevent the thing it's designed to prevent.

What a crock of ****.

Luckily rule two allows you do do what you like to avoid danger so it would seem to be impossible to break the rules as long as you are avoiding danger.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

There seems to be a serious gulf between what I mean by 'apply the IRPCS' and what others seem to think it means. In my mind, apply the IRPCS does not mean sailing blindly on in the hope that a ship is going to alter course at the last minute and avoid a collision. It does mean standing on with caution if you are the stand on vessel, but taking avoiding action in good time if you believe a close quarters situation is developing.

So you would 100pc agree with "never mind the IRPCS, just get out of the way" or are you suggesting that the IRPCS allow the stand on vessel to "taking avoiding action in good time"? In which case the people who ignore the IRPCS are also obeying them.

Clue: The rules forbid you to take avoiding action unless it is apparent the other vessel isn't. I really can see how it can be "apparent" in good time. By definition it will be very late.

 

[Chris_Robb]

So you would 100pc agree with "never mind the IRPCS, just get out of the way" or are you suggesting that the IRPCS allow the stand on vessel to "taking avoiding action in good time"? In which case the people who ignore the IRPCS are also obeying them.

Clue: The rules forbid you to take avoiding action unless it is apparent the other vessel isn't. I really can see how it can be "apparent" in good time. By definition it will be very late.

As someone else said earlier, Toad, you need some common sence to be applied, but there may lie the problem.

 

[john_morris_uk]

So you would 100pc agree with "never mind the IRPCS, just get out of the way" or are you suggesting that the IRPCS allow the stand on vessel to "taking avoiding action in good time"? In which case the people who ignore the IRPCS are also obeying them.

Clue: The rules forbid you to take avoiding action unless it is apparent the other vessel isn't. I really can see how it can be "apparent" in good time. By definition it will be very late.

That's a no.... and a no....

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

As someone else said earlier, Toad, you need some common sence to be applied

I'll leave aside the fact that JM is taking the anti-common sense side in this debate. (Which is incredible since he doesn't appear to have a detailed knowlege of the rules either.)

Assuming common sense and common sence are the same thing, perhaps you can tell me what common sense would clarify in Rule 17?

Either you have to stand on into danger, which is crazy, or you can tack off in plenty of time in which case the rule isn't doing what it's intended to to which is prevent the stand on boat doing something unexpected. Either way the rule should make it clear which.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

That's a no.... and a no....

Let's be clear, you are claiming that, where a risk of collision exists, as a stand on vessel you can take avoiding action before it is 'apparent' that the other vessel will not be taking action? Or are you saying that you can tell if a vessel is going to take avoiding action early "in good time"?

 

[john_morris_uk]

I’ve just been reminded myself of the exact terms of rule 17 which is what we’re *really* talking about in this thread. Every time I read the IRPCS I find myself wondering who wrote such poo.

Like the rest of IRPCS it’s an abysmally written rule. The actions required of a stand on vessel hinge on the meanings of “Apparent” and “risk of collision” neither of which is defined. Apparent in this context seems to mean ‘obvious’ but it can mean 'seemingly'. What an insane choice of word! If you wanted to create uncertainty you couldn’t do better than use a word with two meanings at a critical point and not define it!

I think we there has to be doubt about a ‘seemingly’ interpretation since the whole reason for the “stand on rule” is to avoid vessels deviating from their predictable course and causing a crash - if the rule allowed for a common-sense early avoiding action what would it’s purpose be? You'd not be preventing the the problem you're trying to solve.

"Risk of Collision" is also undefined. I take this not to mean 'on a collision course' - otherwise it would say so. In which case you can be on a collision course but (because you know you're about to tack off) under no risk of collision and therefore allowed to tack off. In which case it fails to prevent the thing it's designed to prevent.

What a crock of ****.

Luckily rule two allows you do do what you like to avoid danger so it would seem to be impossible to break the rules as long as you are avoiding danger.

Sadly, if some politician read this, I suspect that they would find it very useful ammunition for compulsory licensing of all users of boats on the high seas. May I humbly suggest that you have a slow think about things before you criticise and dismiss the rules that professional mariners the world over apply every day and use successfully to allow shipping to navigate the seas without too many problems. The rules INTENTIONALLY don't define some things, because a modicum of seamanship is expected.

 

[fireball]

I'll leave aside the fact that JM is taking the anti-common sense side in this debate. (Which is incredible since he doesn't appear to have a detailed knowlege of the rules either.)

Assuming common sense and common sence are the same thing, perhaps you can tell me what common sense would clarify in Rule 17?

Either you have to stand on into danger, which is crazy, or you can tack off in plenty of time in which case the rule isn't doing what it's intended to to which is prevent the stand on boat doing something unexpected. Either way the rule should make it clear which.

Once again - you're either trolling, or being dense ...

the Colregs rule 17 state:
Action by stand-on vessel.

(a)

(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) (ii) of this rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances at the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

(d) This rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

---------
Which is quite clear in that you should stand on until you reach the point that you don't believe the other vessel is taking appropriate action. This distance/time interval will be different for each situation so it is pointless to give a time or distance in the colregs themselves.
At no point does it say you've got to put yourself under the bows of another vessel.
As JM, Chris Robb and others have said - common sense ....

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Which is quite clear in that you should stand on until you reach the point that you don't believe the other vessel is taking appropriate action.

So the meaning of "apparent" is based entirely on belief?

As soon as you *believe* the other vessel isn't going to take action you can take action yourself?

You got a source for that or are you guessing?

If you are right (you might be) it should be spelled out by the rules.

At no point does it say you've got to put yourself under the bows of another vessel.

Take for example an IOW ferry. It can stop from full speed in 1 boat
length. By the time it's "apparent" the ferry isn't going to stop you're
under 1 boat length from the bow of a quadrillion tons of steel at full
speed. It all hinges on apparent, which isn't defined AFAIK.

As JM, Chris Robb and others have said - common sense ....

No, they and their 34 mates are arguing against common sense.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The rules INTENTIONALLY don't define some things, because a modicum of seamanship is expected.

So in your mind it's ok to use seamanship to decide that 'apparent' means it's ok to get the hell out of here but you can't use seamanship to simply decide "I need to get out of here.". There is literally no difference.

 

[fireball]

Please - just go and try it .... the big ship will miss you - honest ....

 

[bedouin]

Sadly, if some politician read this, I suspect that they would find it very useful ammunition for compulsory licensing of all users of boats on the high seas. May I humbly suggest that you have a slow think about things before you criticise and dismiss the rules that professional mariners the world over apply every day and use successfully to allow shipping to navigate the seas without too many problems. The rules INTENTIONALLY don't define some things, because a modicum of seamanship is expected.

Blow the politician = reading this thread makes me think there may be something to be said for compulsory licencing - the poor grasp of the basics of Colregs by some of the posters is frightening.

Having originally opted for the "slightly disagree" to be moderate I really think the answer should have been "strongly disagree".

Sticking to COLREGS does not mean automatically claiming "power gives way to sail", or requiring big ships to avoid you on every occasion. If you wish to keep out of the way of big ships it is usually easy to do without breaking the rules.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Please - just go and try it .... the big ship will miss you - honest ....

It might not..........

drinks will be on you, I think Andrew!

 

[john_morris_uk]

So in your mind it's ok to use seamanship to decide that 'apparent' means it's ok to get the hell out of here but you can't use seamanship to simply decide "I need to get out of here.". There is literally no difference.

See my signature...

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

See my signature...

I wish you the best in your future efforts to stick strictly to rule 17.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Blow the politician = reading this thread makes me think there may be something to be said for compulsory licencing - the poor grasp of the basics of Colregs by some of the posters is frightening.

Having originally opted for the "slightly disagree" to be moderate I really think the answer should have been "strongly disagree".

Sticking to COLREGS does not mean automatically claiming "power gives way to sail", or requiring big ships to avoid you on every occasion.

I agree - and I am beginning to wonder if some people are being intentionally obtuse.

Its at this point that I declare that I am off out and will be back later...

 

[Refueler]

......
Clue: The rules forbid you to take avoiding action unless it is apparent the other vessel isn't. I really can see how it can be "apparent" in good time. By definition it will be very late.

Unfortunately with greatest respect to J Morris UK and yourself ... there seems to be a bit of 'litary licence' creeping in here .....

J Morris UK says "before a close quarters situation develops" .... mmmmmm IRPCS are designed to give actions to avoid a close 1/4's situation developing to a dangerous level and possible collision. A close 1/4's situation means different things to different vessels .... that is why you will not find distances quoted in collision avoidance.

The above quoted "Clue :" brings in a word that is nowhere to be found in any IRPCS - forbid. In fact the IRPCS are vague in this as they say " by action of give-way vessel alone .... " leaving it to the discretion of the stand-on vessel to determine when he considers it prudent to get the hell out of it !

Points like this have been debated by naval committees / IMO ... all sorts and none have been so specific in their statements as some on these forums. I can remember debates at marine college where no-one even the lecturers could define fully. basically the IRPCS are generalised guidelines to observe with 'get-out' holes - some so badly worded that when the 72 regs were being brought in to replace the previous - colleges etc. actually taught both ! I was unfortunately in that era !

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

leaving it to the discretion of the stand-on vessel to determine when he considers it prudent to get the hell out of it ! [snip]
basically the IRPCS are generalised guidelines to observe with 'get-out' holes - some so badly worded that when the 72 regs were being brought in to replace the previous - colleges etc. actually taught both !

I concur! Well said.

Rule 17 is so vague as to be totally literally meaningless.

Literally it could mean:

a) "when on a collision course the stand on vessel must hold his course until it's obvious that the other vessel will not take avoiding action"

b) "It's at the discretion of the stand-on vessel to determine when he considers it prudent to get the hell out of it."

If it's b) then it fails to do what it attempts to do which is prevent the stand on vessel acting unpredictably, but surely it can't be a).

Either way it's academic to me 'cos I'm in the ~130 odd majority who would avoid ramming ships even if it meant transgressing a bit!