200726 VHF Colregs school

Overheard in the vicinity of a narrow strait in the Mediterranean Sea, one fine summer's evening in perfect visibility, the following conversation between a tanker and a cargo ship on VHF Channel 16. The tanker had the cargo ship on her port bow and was obviously concerned about a collision risk or close quarters crossing situation. The tanker calls up cargo ship by name and asks about her intentions. Cargo ship ignores call. The tanker calls again after a few minutes and the cargo ship replies.

Tanker: What are your intentions?
Cargo: Maintain my course and speed.
Tanker: But you are on my port side, you must alter course.
Cargo: My captain told me to keep to the course.
Tanker: Let's go back to school my friend. You are on my port side you are the give-way vessel. You must alter your course.
Cargo: I must alter my course?
Tanker: Yes, you must alter your course.
Cargo: I must tell my captain.
There was silence for about a minute.
Tanker: Ok my friend, maintain your course. Do not alter course. I will alter my course. Do not alter your course.
Cargo: OK, maintain my course.

Editor's note: Such ignorance of a fundamental rule is alarming and calls for more effective surveillance of traffic and their conduct by VTS and coastal state authorities. Port state control already has the duty to investigate cases of unsafe navigation. In instances such as these, which may be out of VTS coverage, it is suggested that other endangered ships be empowered to report such rogue vessels to the coastal authorities, and allow investigating agencies to access data from their voyage data recorders (VDRs) for initiating action against negligent watchkeepers through the flag state and the government issuing the certificate of competency. Perhaps it may be just the stimulus required to improve training and watchkeeping standards globally.

FEEDBACK - November 2007

Though the lack of knowledge of the give-way vessel was lamentable, would not the more correct action have been for the stand-on vessel to simply comply with Rule 8, 16, 17 instead of 'advising' the other vessel on what to do? I doubt if the Rules of the Road allow us to do the latter.

While on the subject, the use of VHF always appears debatable - USA advocates it (many navigators are unaware that the reason why we have a VHF on board is due to the US regulation requiring it after the Andrea Doria - Stockholm collision in 1950s) as a tool for collision avoidance, while Europe appears to support its non-use. Would not using vhf for collision avoidance be a contravention of rule 6?

Editor's note: In this context, 'lookout by all available means' includes the use of VHF, as the radio exchange made it apparent to the stand-on vessel that the give-way vessel was not intending to take appropriate action. Certainly, the use of VHF in collision avoidance must be discouraged and it definitely must not be used to offer unsolicited advice to other vessels. Yes, VHF is 'informally' used in US waters, particularly under pilotage, mainly to issue a 'Securit' call to other users of the waterway, and is generally effective in avoiding collisions.

In the last sentence, it is not clear if the writer meant to refer to Rule 8 instead of Rule 6, as it is presumed both vessels were navigating at an appropriate 'safe' speed under the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
 
FEEDBACK - June 2008

The acronym 'Colregs' should be changed to read as 'Acolregs' (Anti-Collision Regulations), otherwise it appears that one is fostering collisions and not being sufficiently proactive to avoid them...

The Acolregs do not advocate the use of VHF but on the other hand, they do not ban its proper use. There is no doubt that use of VHF is a useful tool provided the communications are understood by both parties (ship to ship or ship to shore).

I would not associate VHF with Rule 6 but rather with Rule 7 a) and eventually with a modification with Rule 36 and explicit mentioning of VHF under Annex IV.