# EU Collision Regs Survey



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

A survey into col regs to check understanding/interpretation has been started.

click here http://ecolregs.com/ to participate.

It is in the interest of all, so please do it. Open to non-proffessionals as well, or if you have retired a bit of fun.


----------



## R58484956 (Apr 19, 2004)

Come on you ex masters and mates. Have a go.


----------



## John Cassels (Sep 29, 2005)

Just completed it but it sure aint for guys of my generation. Even the
numbering of the rules is different. In my day used to be rules 1 - 16 for
lights and shapes and 17 - 32 for steering and sailing then plus annexes.

There are a few mistakes in the wording of the questions but that being said,
don't think I did too well.


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

Thanks John C.

I noticed the mistakes as well. Not sure if it is deliberate or not,as some were a tad ambiguous, which, is of course, the purpose in some respect.

It is quite tough, even if you are still at sea, difficult to decide unless the doing it for real.


----------



## John Cassels (Sep 29, 2005)

For someone who got Masters F.G. 41 years ago noticed I was well
out of date.
One of the ambiguous questions - just over half way - began " during night
time sailing vessel A and vessels B.


----------



## oldman 80 (May 7, 2012)

vasco said:


> Thanks John C.
> 
> I noticed the mistakes as well. Not sure if it is deliberate or not,as some were a tad ambiguous, which, is of course, the purpose in some respect.
> 
> It is quite tough, even if you are still at sea, difficult to decide unless the doing it for real.


I haven't looked at it yet, and may choose not to do so, as I fear it will anger me a bit and raise my blood pressure which isn't good for me.
Your comments re "mistakes" are however probably well founded.
It's a mess !!!!!!!!! - I believe, but many of us saw it coming - a long time ago now.
(POP)


----------



## John Cassels (Sep 29, 2005)

If you haven't looked at it yet , how can you possibly comment one way
or the other ?.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Vasco thanks for posting this. Most interesting. Have to say I found the questionnaire challenging. Although 42 years since doing Masters, over the recent past 12 years have conducted quite a number of "check voyages" for Owners on a wide variety of ships assessing navigational practices and knowledge of ColRegs. Helps to keep me up to date. Despite a few mistakes the questions are cleverly worded and some appear ambiguous. Certainly tests the old grey matter? If as the authors state, "almost 50 percent of seafarers throughout the world disregard/ignore the ColRegs at sea when they are taking action" then this study is very worthy and should be supported.
If a good proportion of SN members participate it will certainly show our support.


----------



## oldman 80 (May 7, 2012)

callpor said:


> Vasco thanks for posting this. Most interesting. Have to say I found the questionnaire challenging. Although 42 years since doing Masters, over the recent past 12 years have conducted quite a number of "check voyages" for Owners on a wide variety of ships assessing navigational practices and knowledge of ColRegs. Helps to keep me up to date.
> 
> 
> > Despite a few mistakes the questions are cleverly worded and some appear ambiguous.
> ...


Could that be because the rules themselves are perceived as ambiguous, and as you probably have, in some way "implied", are they even of relevance anymore ? - with 50% declaring they ignore or disregard them. 
If the old days were anything to go by - they certainly should be relevant. How important they were, and great averters of misfortunes, and all that goes with them.
I still haven't looked at it, and don't expect that I will.
Re:- S.N. members participation, - and our support.
Support for what - The Rules or Ignoring them.
Please clarify. ?


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

oldman 80 said:


> Re:- S.N. members participation, - and our support.
> Support for what - The Rules or Ignoring them.
> Please clarify. ?


It is support for the clarification of rule. I feel they are just as important now as they ever have been.


----------



## oldman 80 (May 7, 2012)

vasco said:


> It is support for the clarification of rule. I feel they are just as important now as they ever have been.


Thank you for that.
Agreed absolutely.
And the rules are international as you know, but one sometimes wonders does one not ?
50/50 is shocking, - if it's correct.


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

oldman 80 said:


> Thank you for that.
> ?
> 50/50 is shocking, - if it's correct.


In a two month trip around the UK coast I hear arguments about who does what about once a week, probably more. These are just the ones on channel 16.

We call them the red line folowers, the thinking being they will not deviate from the course line on the Radar/ECDIS because the Standing orders say 'follow the passage [email protected]' or they are feeder ships on a schedule.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

vasco said:


> It is support for the clarification of rule. I feel they are just as important now as they ever have been.


Vasco, I totally agree. Have asked c4ff the survey administrators to clarify the "nearly 50%" statistic and how it was derived. Like you I have come across a number of "red liners" over the past couple of years, but they are rare and certainly not 50% of give-way vessels.

Oldman80, If you do the survey you will see what I mean. The ambiguity was in the way the questions were worded, although there are a number of ambiguities in the COLREGS which have been well tested in court.


----------



## John Cassels (Sep 29, 2005)

Must add that the ambiguity was not only confined to the wording .
A good example was a question regarding overtaking vessels . The question
concerned an overtaking vessel with a decreasing angle abaft the beam but
my first thought was that there was no indication that the angle when first
observed was more than two points abaft the beam.

It's a long long time since I last stood a bridge watch so maybe it's me .
Are they still required to learn the sailing and steering rules by heart ?.


----------



## oldman 80 (May 7, 2012)

vasco said:


> In a two month trip around the UK coast I hear arguments about who does what about once a week, probably more. These are just the ones on channel 16.
> 
> We call them the red line folowers, the thinking being they will not deviate from the course line on the Radar/ECDIS because the Standing orders say 'follow the passage [email protected]' or they are feeder ships on a schedule.


Right - that sounds interesting to me, and considering the once per week argument (Channel 16 only) then 50% may be somewhat exaggerated, but even so the "ignore" factor must surely be unacceptably high.
The red line followers :- that's one of the things we guys (and our forefathers) from the past fully anticipated with the seemingly inflexible restraints/restrictions imposed upon ships staff with the arrival of the "*gospel according to the sacred passage plan*" - for the lack of a better way of putting it. Personally I think their introduction and the seeming requirement for rigid enforcement was "*way over the top*". Add to that the ambiguities with increasingly complex colreg issues and it seemed you were looking at a massive headache. Another good reason not to even think of revalidating. The guys ashore, the smart/cover their ass regulators want to run the ships on paper - well let them get on with it, - I say. It doesn't effect me anymore though, thank Christ, I just feel some sympathy for you guys who have to put up with it all.
I wouldn't, - life is too short in my view. That's just my opinion though - not a gospel reading.
In addition it seems likely to me that all the garbage you have to put up with can hardly make shipboard life very pleasant. Aren't you guys all stressed out, snapping and snarling at each other ? I don't know, but it seems likely to me that you are.
And where the hell does the job satisfaction come from these days.
That's why I turned to the skies - well at least part of the reason, but it wasn't all roses there either - but much much better in my view, the adrenalin rush returned, the excitement and "satisfaction factor" were immense - believe me. 
*I won't be doing the survey* - ambiguous questions are best ignored in my view - they result in ambiguous answers - pretty much worthless in effect, and a waste of valuable time. However, I suppose it will "look good on paper", and that seemingly is all that matters these days. 
One final comment, I hope the standard of tonnage you guys sail on today has improved - when I got out, it had fallen to the level of junk, - real junk I mean. Just shocking. Oh ! the paperwork looked good of course, but the ships were run down to crap.
As for the shipowners - well the French Minister of Transport at the time of the Prestige incident got it right - *Shipping Gangsters* - he said. 
Best of luck with your "Survey".


----------



## Blue in Bim (Mar 16, 2010)

COLREGS are in certain situations completely ambiguous and the sooner they are overhauled the better. Have you seen 'Tanker Tromedy' ? Available free online and a break down of tanker problems (including navigation). Well worth a look.


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

I posted this as a matter of interest for all, it is interesting to to hear comments from the serving and ex-serving.

I learnt the old rules and the new ones. The 3 basic in sight rules have stayed the same, it is only the fog where it has changed.

I was contacted by a vessel crossing from port in fog banks. He was steady and we agreed I would maintain my course. This was on a ship to ship channel.
Some British guy interjected and said I should obey the rules, crossing situations don't apply. I had to point out to this pompous person that we are not in fog, we can see each other at a safe distance. Another example of VHF mis-use. One of us could have easily though Mr Pompous was the other.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Vasco,

I followed up with the survey project principals on the 50% statement. One of the marine division project support staff in C4ff at Warwick University, responded as follows:-

Quote: Our statement concerning this 50 percent figure is based on a survey conducted by the Nautical Institute in 2002. The results of this survey were published by Nautical Institute in April 2003 in a preliminary report entitled “Improving the application of the COLREGS”. In actual fact, the trigger for our Colreg research was the reports we received from our students during their mobility experiences (2007-2013), which included sending Turkish students to UK to study Post-HND programmes for benchmarking purposes (Turkish and British programmes for the training of young Turkish students – see www.maredu.co.uk). One of the major findings for us was from our students who they reported that during their 12 month sea service as part of their cadet training programme, they struggled to practice Colregs rules in real life with no or limited support from their responsible officers. This is believed mostly due to their responsible officer’s lack of knowledge in Colregs rules. We would like to see where the problem lies with this, navigation offices, teachers or something else. Most action to avoid collision might be right when Colregs rules are referred to, but when those seafarers are asked why they did some action, it is usually what they have seen from their seniors not the reference to actual Colregs rules. 

One of the other examples is that although one can take appropriate action to avoid collisions with Colregs rules, most navigation officers opt to use VHF radio instead. For instance, If you have been in Mediterranean sea, you would have heard many VHF radio conversation for simple actions to avoid collision. This is worrying if VHF Radio is the primary means when taking actions to avoid collisions. 

There are some good examples among Navigation Officers who have good knowledge of Colregs and apply it fully at sea, they tell you they do NOT use VHF Radio in taking actions to avoid collision. We would like to find out why one can use it and another can not? 

We are also aware that not every country takes Colregs as serious as it should be. Each country’s navigation officers view, approach and understanding of/to Colregs are not the same. Furthermore, we have also studied a number of past accidents with our M’aider project (www.maider.pro – new enhanced website will be launched soon www.mayday.pro) and many of these accidents were contributed with the navigation officers’ actions that are contrary to Colregs rules. It is clear that Colregs will only work in an environment if all seafarers have mutual understanding of it. This is what we would like to see in the project. Endquote.

SN members will be disturbed to hear that the problem lies with the responsible navigating officers lack of knowledge about the ColRegs, hence their inability to effectively train cadets.


----------



## vasco (Dec 27, 2007)

Thank you CALLPOR.

I have spoken to cadets that have been on watch where the OOW didn't speak, or want to speak English. 

In my case they have the watch, but before any alteration for a ship they have to tell me why and which rule. This is simple but effective. It also means they are learning from the rules, rather than my interpretation of them.


----------

