96010 Can a TSS be considered a narrow channel

I am Master on a container vessel which transits the Singapore Strait several times a month. The Strait and approaches to Singapore are, as you know, areas open to much 'Rule of the Road' abuse. I frequently observe close quarter situations mainly involving vessels departing the Keppel Fairway and the many anchorages off Singapore which are immediately to the north of the westbound traffic lane, getting involved with traffic passing through that lane. There is at times obvious confusion as to who has the right of way, southbound vessels exiting the Fairway or westbound vessels in the traffic lane. The reason for this appears to be that due to the geographical restraints of the TSS in this particular area (limited manoeuvring space outside the lane) westbound ships consider themselves to be in a "narrow channel or fairway" and are therefore privileged because they can "safely navigate only within such channel or fairway" (Rule 9d).

A glance at charts BA 2556 and 3831 shows that this could be a legitimate claim as I well know from much experience here. Westbound traffic is invariably on full sea or manoeuvring speed and it is not uncommon to meet 100,000 dwt tankers in ballast making 15 knots with the west-going stream up to 4 knots. Can they realistically be expected to alter their course to starboard or slow down for a ship coming out of the Keppel Fairway or anchorages flanking the TSS? Due to their location, these departing vessels have to be at "stations" which includes having their engines ready for manoeuvring. The westbound traffic has to (as I do) rely on Rule 2(b) and maintain course and speed. Yet M1280** clearly states that being in a traffic lane affords no privileges or rights of way to these westbound vessels - it requires them to give way - the only exemptions being under Rules 10 (k) and (I).

There is a great difference between the English Channel TSS and the Singapore Strait TSS. In the English Channel TSS the requirements of M1280** can more easily be complied with because the give way vessel has the space available - a course alteration is not going to take it into a petroleum anchorage. In the Singapore Strait, compliance with M1280** could have dire consequences. Yet I have seen many times ships dropping their pilot at the Fairway Buoy in the Keppel Channel and then quickly building speed up to 10 or 12 knots (regardless of the "blind spot" of P. Tembakul which obscures eastbound traffic in the southern fairway. This also applies to traffic manoeuvring out of an anchorage heading south to cross the westbound lane before turning east. Their tactic is to get across or into the lane as fast as possible and in doing so expect any westbound traffic to give way to them under Rule 15. Perilously close quarters situations often result with sound signals, Aldis lights and VHF all in use.

I have discussed these situations with other masters, Singapore pilots and even find conflicting opinions amongst my officers as to who is the burdened or the privileged vessel. My position on the matter is that, if in a TSS where I am the burdened vessel, I will give way if I have the sea room to safely do so. Where space is severely restricted, such as in the Singapore Strait, I invoke Rule 2(b) considering that "a departure from these Rules is necessary to avoid immediate danger". I can only hope that this is the correct interpretation and that it would "stand up" at any marine inquiry. A further complication exists to add to an often chaotic situation - owing to land reclamation in the Changi area of Singapore Island, tugs towing barges of landfill cross the TSS from the Indonesia side around the clock. The Tug Masters often consider themselves to have the right of way under Rule 3 (g) (vi) "restricted in their ability to manoeuvre" and that power driven vessels should keep out of their way under Rule 18 (a - ii). As mentioned earlier, westbound vessels in the Singapore Strait often tend to treat it as a restricted fairway - with some justification - and believe that they are, under Rule 9 (d), privileged. Hence more close quarter scrapes. Singapore pilots, in conversation, very often relate "near miss" incidents which are all attributable to misinterpretation of the Collision Regulations.

It is certain that it is a lot easier to enforce Traffic Separation Schemes in some areas than it is in others. Perhaps if the Singapore Strait were to be considered a "fairway" instead of a TSS, mariners proceeding through the area would have more definite right of way over crossing traffic. In this particular location I think it is right and sensible for traffic who are able to give way to do so. I am sure that there are many other masters and watchkeeping mates who share my views and concerns and have a feeling that "something has to be done soon" to improve the present, far from satisfactory, situation in this region. I would welcome your views, criticisms and ideas of how the present ambiguity can best be resolved.

This is a strong argument for adapting the Regulations for a particular area. I would be interested to hear the reactions of other regular users of the Singapore Strait and it would be an ideal subject for the Singapore Nautical Institute to debate. There is a warning on chart 2556 regarding crossing traffic near the Southern Boarding Ground and ANM 17 states that compliance with Rule 10 is mandatory for aIl ships when operating in or near an IMO adopted scheme and that vessels using these schemes are not given the right of way over crossing vessels. This wording would suggest that the reporter would have difficulty supporting his arguments at an inquiry, however, crossing vessels must also act in a seamanlike manner and not cross at slow speed directly in front of through traffic. I have recently received several reports from this area and the following from a Master who takes a contrary view to the one expressed in 96010. See 96011
** See MGN 364