Without any doubt, the recent survey into the current application of the Colregs {Seaways, July 2003) has proved to be a significant first step in achieving the Nautical Institute's ultimate aim, 'to improve collision avoidance at sea', a major project in the Future Plans. For the first time we are starting to assemble hard facts in place of the merely speculative.

Captain Baillod stated in his initial introduction to this project that the most objective evidence to date has come from the Institute's confidential Marine Accident Reporting Scheme (MARS). Certainly MARS has done a magnificent job in highlighting those near misses that occur, all too frequently it seems. However the question still remains: how indicative is it of the conduct of the majority at sea today? Or is it a small proportion of seafarers, ignorant of, or indifferent to, the application of the Rules, who are causing all this upset to everyone else?

Now, through the Colregs questionnaire, we have had the chance to analyse the equivalent of 452 MARS reports in an extremely detailed manner, soliciting all the contributors' separate opinions to paint, we would hope, a much broader picture. Nevertheless opinions are just opinions, always given subjectively as responses to personal experiences. It has always been said, somewhat tongue in cheek, that if you ask the opinion of 10 masters you'll get 10 different answers. So the question must be asked, can they all be right? Or are some more right than others?

The only way of giving credence to such subjective statements is to take some measure of the competence of each individual to make such a judgement of others. Hence the scenarios that were placed in the survey questionnaire featured last month: they were to gauge the respondents' own understanding of the Rules. They also serve to provide some perspective on the opinions expressed in the other sections. For example if a respondent of some experience complains about junior officers misinterpreting Rule 19, and then subsequently shows a degree of confusion in the answer to Scenario 3, this obviously puts the initial complaint into revealing context.

Many representative encounters could have been chosen but for the sake of brevity the number of examples was reduced to three. These three scenarios cover between them a good range of the steering and sailing rules, both in the 'in sight' and 'not in sight' conditions.

The results are, to say the least, interesting. The survey returns show a very high tendency (90 per cent) to blame others for contravening manoeuvres but, as we shall see, the results of the scenarios show that ignorance of the current Colregs is widespread and is not in any way confined by nationality or experience. The overall picture tends to be one of a game with no referee, played by contestants with different rule-books, each perfectly convinced they have the right answer.

Before looking at the responses we got, I invite readers to study Figures 1 and 2 (p. 5) and spend a few minutes deciding how you would have answered.

Over the next few months it is intended to take each scenario in turn, discuss each situation in as much detail as space will allow and suggest the correct responses for each vessel in strict accordance with Colregs. In each case this will be followed up by a brief analysis of the returns to see how everyone responded, rightly or wrongly.

Scenario 1

Referring to Figure 1, the first thing to clear out of the way is the significance of the small target to port and ahead of own ship. The fact is, this is a total irrelevance and has no bearing at all on the actions of either of the two vessels in contention, own ship and the crossing vessel to starboard

That said, this is fundamentally a simple crossing situation governed by Rule 15, Rule 16 and Rule 17. However, as this takes place within the confines of a TSS, the provisions of Rule 10 also have some relevance. In this case only in terms of the action chosen by the crossing target vessel, the own ship obeys Rule 15. Within the requirements of Rule 17 and Rule 10, the target first and foremost must obey Rule 17(a)(i) and 'keep her course and speed'.

There is, however, a slight ambivalence as to the strict interpretation of that phrase. On several occasions the courts have ruled that it does not necessarily mean to adhere slavishly to one's original course and speed, regardless of all other circumstances. To paraphrase the court's conclusions: for a vessel to keep her course and speed means that she is to continue to carry out her 'obvious navigational intention'. In this case, the obvious navigational intention, presumably incorporated into the passage plan, is to cross the scheme and therefore, to do so in accordance Rule 10(c), 'as nearly as practicable at right angles'. It would appear then, that there is nothing contrary to the Colregs in the crossing vessel altering to starboard, to make the right angle crossing, as this would still be considered to be keeping her course and speed.

Going back to the own ship's perspective, there is still the question of whether she can afford to make an alteration to starboard and still safely remain within the traffic lane. Although there is nothing in the Rules to say she must stay within the lane, there is a perfectly legitimate safety concern should she find herself moving out of the scheme and encountering other contra-moving traffic in the inshore zone. However, if we look carefully at the map of the scenario, and assume a 20° alteration to put the target roughly right ahead there should be little difficulty in altering as per the Colregs and remaining within the lane. The likelihood is that, measured on the radar, with the target currently five miles away, there would be some three miles to run to the edge of the scheme. It is also possible that own ship can start to follow the target vessel, back to her own original course, keeping a CPA astern of her, long before the three miles are up and the edge of the lane is reached.

In summary, own ship - alter to starboard; target ship, stand-on or alter to starboard.

Responses to Scenario 1

In order to create a simple framework for the analysis, the tick boxes for each suggested action were numbered 1 to 5 on each side (Figure 2). The actions chosen for each vessel are noted as a decimal, eg 2.1 refers to own ship altering to starboard and the target ship standing on. The correct actions for this scenario are 2.1 and 2.2.

Figure 3 shows the answer spectrum (all possible answers) for Scenario 1. This first situation appears to have given the respondents the least difficulty. The positive answers, those that strictly follow the Colregs, total 267, and the less positive, slowing or stopping the own ship, though still perfectly legal options add another 76, making a grand total of 343. This is about 76 per cent of the total responses, which

leaves 24 per cent not apparently conforming to the Rules, still significant enough.

There is an interesting spread of answers across the 'own ship stand-on' range (1.1 to 1.5) and if this is added to the 'own ship slow/stop options' on the right of the graph, it amounts to about 33 per cent of the total responses. This suggests a very definite reluctance to leave the scheme on the part of a large proportion of the respondents. Whether this is actually due to reluctance or to a mistaken assumption that being in the scheme exempts vessels from altering is a matter for speculation. Those choosing to stand-on, a total of 63 respondents, are either deliberately ignoring the Colregs or they are in total ignorance of them.

Response by country

It is important here to note that respondents were not asked their nationality, but where they had studied and obtained their certificates. Because many seafarers obtain their certificates in countries other than that of their birth this is therefore a comparison of education and training not of national or cultural qualities.

The UK scores well in this first scenario (Figure 4) with only 3 per cent opting for contrary action. At 14 per cent (86 per cent legal) Ireland, India and the Commonwealth countries are acceptable. However, for what is, at face value, such a straightforward situation, returns from Greece, Middle East, EC/USA and East Europe are inexplicably high, and those from the Philippines and the Far East can only be described as worrying.

• This scenario and the two others that will follow in future months provide an important opportunity for comment and debate on the current state of collision avoidance practice and the steps which could be taken to improve its application.