Wrong about need for ICC - Apologies

[Lizzie_B]

I think you've just demonstratd why it's wise to have 'something'. They wouldn't have let you drive without any licence whatsoever. It would have been no good saying you come from a country where you are not required to have a licence, and so your home country's rules apply to you even inside their country, which is what some seem to be suggesting re the need not to have an ICC.

The fact that you met with two different interpretations of the rules demonstrates that you cannot depend on consistency so the more 'bits of paper' you have in your armory the better.

In fact, different countries have different reciprocity agreements about the recognition of other countries qualifications and it is by no means a unified global approach. For instance my British professional qualifications are recognised in Australia and NZ because the equivalent bodies in those countries are prepared to acccept them. To work in the USA I have to sit a watered down version of their tests.

When I worked in Nigeria, my driving licence was only valid for a month, after that I was expected to have obtained a Nigerian licence.

If you were to translate that to a Mediterreanean Liveaboard he could end up requiring sailing quals from several countries.

The fact is that no country is obliged to allow you to operate within their territory under the rules of your home (flag) country. If they choose to do so, that is their choice, and subject to change whenever they feel like it.

 

[Lizzie_B]

A country can impose compulsory pilotage for merchant vessels any where within it's territorial waters if it so wishes, not just going into harbors. Technically I suppose that would make the whole of it's territorial waters a 'special rules zone' but the fact remains they can do it.

The bottom line is that there is no international law that can force a soveriegn country to allow foriegn vessels to operate according to their flag country's rules if they do not wish to.

Once inside their territorial waters they can insist that they are satisfed as to the captain's competence, and if not they can 'supervise' the operation of that vessel.

 

[Anonymous]

Leaving aside the fact that having an ICC is a very good idea when travelling overseas - there can be no doubt about that - and concentrating on the legal point about what can and can't be done, I take your point that countries could insist on certain things but they don't - at least not officially. Sure, the local authorities might ask for proof of competence, so might the local police after a serious incident, and an ICC might be just what's needed to prove competence, I still question whether at a national level any country actually does - as a policy - require British skippers of British yachts to have any formal qualification at all.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
an ICC might be just what's needed to prove competence, I still question whether at a national level any country actually does - as a policy - require British skippers of British yachts to have any formal qualification at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
So we more or less agree - I had tried to make it clear that I was only talking about the legal situation, not whether in practise particular countries do systematically demand to see ICCs.

There is one thing that I am quite sure about however - if (when!) places like Russia cotton on to the fact that British yachts often don't carry ICC's. then they will be checking every British yacht that arrives for it - Russian authorities love missing bits of paper, they are a big money-spinner in bribes.

 

[Oliveoyl]

I guess the Russian bribe theory might just account for Swagman's trouble in Turkey - it might not have happened if he'd "forgotten" to remove a few EUR from the boat's papers.

 

[Lizzie_B]

In the USA it can be even more bizarre and ambiguous. The Federal authorities often leave such matters to the legislatures of individual states, but will make recommendations.

Hence I've never been asked for operator's licence by the USCG, but have been by State authorities.

The same applies to pilotage (a nice little earner). Going up the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays a ship will take on pilots from Virginia, Maryland and Delaware.

Some states can be ferociously 'indepenent' in their mindset.

 

[Guest]

Just to put in context

So far as ships are concerned, there are international agreements that cover certification, and document carrying, so that if British law hypothetically said that ship's Captains didn't need certificates, or the certification requirements were inadequate, their ships could legitimately be turned away or arrested by foreign countries.

Our problem (or, rather the good news) is that these agreements don't cover small pleasure boats. That's why it's a free-for-all as far as local laws for yachts are concerned.

 

[mike_bryon]

You ask for an example with supporting evidence well Croatia is the example and supporting evidence is found in for example the Imray med al'mac 07/08. it seems their laws do requires the British master of a British registered vessel to be qualified beyond the level required under British law and regulations. they state that the vessel must carry cert of comp in accordance with the country of the vessel's flag. However if none available then you must obtain a croatian certificate.

 

[rickp]

[ QUOTE ]
The USA is renowned for unilaterally imposing conditions on visiting foriegn flagged vessels. They find to do it unilaterally is often a quicker way to get something changed than by rounds of international meetings to formulate an agreement.

They have sufficient economic clout that they know shipping lines will comply rather than go bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes they even do it to themselves: see here

Be interesting if the EPA don't win their appeal...

Rick

 

[Anonymous]

That seems clear enough. It had to happen, I guess it will spread.

Best for folks to pass the test asap while it is really easy and requires no course or minimum experience. All you need to do is take the test at the moment but if this gets going sooner or later they are going to want to make more money out of it = have longer courses, etc. After all, the RYA has a vested interest in sailing courses.

 

[jimbaerselman]

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that there is no international law that can force a soveriegn country to allow foriegn vessels to operate according to their flag country's rules if they do not wish to.


[/ QUOTE ] Not quite. There is the international acceptance of the 'right of innocent passsage'. This implies that vessels on passage through another country's waters are assumed to be correctly certificated and equipped.

The devil lies in the detail of 'innocent passage'.

If you're not stopping en route, no problem. That's innocent.

If you're stopping once, all countries I'm aware of will define that as 'innocent'.

If you're making multiple stops, a few countries will insist that that is not 'innocent', and will insist on their rules for certification and equipment are met. Notoriously, New Zealand did this a few years back, and after international court action, removed the requirement. US, as noted above, will often insist that passage within it's offshore islands must be by 'properly equipped and manned vessels'. And I've had recent reports that Spain has from time to time insisted that vessels travelling between their ports should carry their defined safety equipments.

Inland waterways are clearly recognisesd as not 'innocent passage'.

So, let's get 'innocent passage' better defined, Eh?

 

[Anonymous]

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite. There is the international acceptance of the 'right of innocent passsage'. This implies that vessels on passage through another country's waters are assumed to be correctly certificated and equipped.
...

If you're making multiple stops, a few countries will insist that that is not 'innocent', ...

So, let's get 'innocent passage' better defined, Eh?

[/ QUOTE ]
Innocent passage is actually defined in Articles 17 to 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and it is clear that it excludes much more than just inland waterways - for example if you call at multiple ports then you are not entitled to claim "innocent passage".

As merchant ships are required by international convention to comply with adequate certification requirements, those provisions would override the right of innocent passage anyway.

The articles read as follows:-

[ QUOTE ]
Article 17. Right of innocent passage

Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

Article 18. Meaning of passage

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or

(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

Article 19. Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.


[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Swagman]

Jeez - what did I start?

In actual fact Turkey do not require you to carry an ICC - we cleared out of Bodrum 24 hours later with no issues - as we've done before from other Turkish ports.

It was the ratty little harbour master at Dacha who wanted it - not his country. So yes Olive - had I chosen to pay him his little 'fine' (as suggested also by a local agent) - then I'm sure he'd have cleared us out OK.

I've sailed the Med for a few years and understood (I still believe correctly) that technically one does not need as Brit skipper on a Brit reg yacht, to carry an ICC.

But that did not stop this minor official taking a stance and insisting on one. So getting one makes clearly sense - even if technically or legally its not required.

Cheers
JOHN

 

[jimbaerselman]

Nice quote Simon. As you say, things are defined for merchant vessels. And as you say earlier - they're not defined for leisure vessels. A difficulty arises here because 'leisure vessels' as a class are not defined within some countries, whose port authorities are trained only to handle commercial vessels. This leaves a bit of wiggle room for ill paid officials to raise their eyebrows in expectation of a little present. And 'special rules' have to be created to handle sporting events - such as dinghy racing.

 

[Sea Devil]

Are you sure they are 'leisure vessels'? I think part one registry states 'ship' and even the SSR is a 'small ship'... I think a ship is a ship is a ship - merchant or military.

 

[Guest]

Rights of innocent passage apply to all vessels big or small. The international agreements on certification just spell out the situation for merchant and passenger vessels over 500 tons.

If you were on a small boat just passing through territorial waters without stopping at a harbour, then in theory you might try arguing "innocent passage", it's an interesting thought. But most small boats are probably going to stop at harbours along the way...

p.s. you're right about 'ship' as used in the Merchant Shipping Acts for registrtion matters - it includes small vessels, as in the "Small Ship's Register".

 

[Melody]

You must remember that when you are cruising you will be dealing with local, often poorly trained, officials.

I think all countries will accept British qualifications for UK-flagged vessels, but what they will not accept is NO qualifications.

In a great many countries, people cannot believe that anyone would be allowed to drive a boat without having a licence. They would expect every skipper to have one and would not accept that you didn't.

Britain is the odd country out here and you cannot blame local officials in other countries if they don't know what applies in the UK. I doubt if the harbourmaster at your local port would know anything about regulations in Greece or Turkey for instance, so why should a Greek or Turkish official know what is okay in the UK?

I really don't know what all the fuss is about getting an ICC. It only takes a few hours to sit the test and can be done on your own boat.

 

[Sea Devil]

Actually the French do not require any certificate of competence or anything else for a French person to skipper a sailing yacht.. Like the British any French citizen can go and buy a sailing yacht and take it to sea without any qualifications or bits of paper.

Unlike the British they do have a list or requirements in terms of equipment depending how far you want to go off shore.

The ICC does not feature at all in French paperwork and they seem to manage to sail around the world without it.

 

[jimbaerselman]

The two countries with the most demanding sailing conditions in Europe have the least regulated leisure sailing environment. ironic, isn't it?

Is that because the French and British expect natural selection to kill off all the incompetents, thus removing any problems? Or is it because the problems around our coasts are so obviously scary that people fearfully volunteer to learn effectively before using the sea?