"I must repeat, in the hope that it will achieve some publicity, what I have said on previous occasions, that any attempt to use VHF to agree the manner of passing is fraught with the danger of misunderstanding. Marine superintendents would be well-advised to prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct their officers to comply with the Collision Regulations."

The “Maloja II” was a fog collision, and the judge’s comments need to be read in that context, as the Court of Appeal made clear when it approved these comments in a subsequent case. They are not to read as an embargo on all VHF communications about navigation between two vessels which are passing or which are approaching a close quarters situation.

For what it is worth, after more than 25 years spent as a shipping solicitor investigating maritime casualties including collisions my experience leads me to suggest that in open water situations in fog or in darkness and particularly in close quarters situations the temptation to use VHF should generally be avoided. Of course, I see tend to see only the cases where it has gone wrong, but time and time again I have dealt with collisions where one ship or both has attempted VHF contact as the vessels closed. Often, no contact is made because the other ship is not keeping sufficient VHF watch. In the dark or in fog problems with identification are common; the typical invitation to “ship on my port bow, come in please” may be answered by a completely different ship 20 miles away. Misunderstandings often arise, particularly when the parties are not fluent in a common language. Lastly and most particularly, the use of VHF, whether or not contact is made, causes delay and distraction when the watch keepers would be much better occupied taking “positive action” under the COLREGS to avoid or extricate themselves from a close quarters situation. Marine Guidance Note 167 (M+F), warns that; “… the use of VHF (to avoid collision) is not always helpful and may be dangerous”.

That these problems remain today, even in the days of AIS, has been highlighted by the MAIB’s report on the collision between “Hyundai Dominion” and “Sky Hope” (Report no 17/2005, published August 2005). In that case both ships were fitted with AIS so there was no problem with identification. However, MIAB’s found that the two vessels’ attempts to communicate by VHF led to misunderstanding and delay and that “…each should have taken early avoidance action to alleviate the situation, rather than waste further time on the VHF conversation”. In a new twist to a traditional tale the OOW of “Hyundai Dominion” was criticised for using AIS text messaging in a further attempt to avoid collision, when “…the time spent ….. was obviously time lost … for taking more relevant action”.

There are of course occasions when the use of VHF is entirely suitable for collision avoidance, the most obvious example being between two pilots who share a common language and a common understanding and very often in daylight encounters more generally. However, for what it is worth my experience is that in the typical casual encounter situation in the open sea in darkness or in fog it is fraught with danger.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Mallin, MNI, BSc.,
Partner,
Hill Taylor Dickinson,Solicitors,
London

202 Lambeth Road London SE1 7LQ +44 (0) 20 7928 1351