Well, I heard the darnedest thing today by a simulator instructor regarding B2B in international water. The bridge instructor is not a mate, but rather a retired Navy Captain… Besides the point, the scenario of the evolution was outbound of Apra Harbor, Guam, but SIMULATING Guam was a foreign country, not a U.S. Territory, thus we were in International waters. Coming out of the harbor meant close port to port passing with inbound vessels.
The only mention of B2B in the COLREGS is rule 34-h (inland).
However, 33 CFR 26.04 (b) states:
“Each person who is required to maintain a listening watch under section 5 of the Act SHALL, when necessary, transmit and confirm, on the designated frequency, the intentions of his vessel and any other information necessary for the safe navigation of vessels.”
So, what was said? So I forget the exact verbiage, and if he used (can not, shouldn’t, ill advised), but he basically said since the COLREGS does not mention B2B in international waters, that only whistle signals (or light) should be used for maneuvering in accordance with COLREGS. We all looked at him like he was crazy.
Now am I crazy and missing something here in international guidance for using B2B for the safety of navigation? I know International radio telephone is governed by the IMO and the ITU. Searching these agencies, I have found little information to smash him over the head with for his regulatory idiocy. I could use some ammunition and a little help for my own personal green idiocy as well in regards to publications!
[QUOTE=Lone_Star;183692]
Now am I crazy and missing something here in international guidance for using B2B for the safety of navigation? I know International radio telephone is governed by the IMO and the ITU. Searching these agencies, I have found little information to smash him over the head with for his regulatory idiocy. I could use some ammunition and a little help for my own personal green idiocy as well in regards to publications!
Thank you.[/QUOTE]
He isn’t exhibiting regulatory idiocy, he is technically correct. You will find the regulations of ITU prescribe the channel for such use, but that’s just an allocation, not a requirement on its use collision avoidance. Kinda like this IMO resolution-- A. 954(23). All it says is, "VHF channel 13 is designated by the Radio Regulations for bridge-to-bridge communications. The ship called may indicate another working channel on which further transmissions should take place. The calling ship should acknowledge acceptance before changing channels. " But it doesn’t say to use it to avoid collision or follow an agreed up passing/overtaking even if mutually agreed to. Collision avoidance practice is in COLREGs, a separate convention and it doesn’t say use the radio.
If you want to google ‘VHF collision avoidance’ you will get your fill of reading which basically says what your instructor says. Two links below will give a discussion worth reviewing, though it may seem counter-intuitive and contrary to widespread practice.
[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;183696]You will find the regulations of ITU prescribe the channel for such use, but that’s just an allocation, not a requirement on its use collision avoidance.html[/QUOTE]
Agreed, no international governing documents states they (foreign vessels) shall. 33 CFR 26.04 however states that WE shall, and wouldn’t this make him wrong? Others hailing in on B2B is not only common practice, but good seamanship internationally.
STCW guidance, and IMO regulations make it necessary that the person using B2B must use english (as terrible and limited as it is), and be certified in its use with the implication that one of its primary uses will be in safety of navigation.
Maybe he’s trying to prove a point, but I still can’t see him calling someone out for making an arrangement on VHF. If he used the verbiage “should not” because COLREGS doesn’t say, wouldn’t he be wrong? Surely there is one line that points out a guard must be kept on Bridge to Bridge for safe navigation?
There was a third mate on a USNS ship when we were conducting “hydrographic surveys” in the Persian Gulf. He would hail a ship like this: “Vessel off my starboard bow, what are your intentions?” It never occurred to him that whoever heard him would have to do a 360 degree sweep to look for him because of his useless broadcast. He never said “This is the vessel on your port beam, what are your intentions?” It used to drive me nuts but I was a lowly AB so I kept my mouth shut. We occasionally got responses but they weren’t much help.
I wonder what the American mates are going to do when the other ships are automated and there is no one to answer their insistent radio calls for passage.
“Brown and white dhow, brown and white dhow on my starboard bow, come in please.” I always chuckled at that one.
“Brown and white dhow, brown and white dhow on my starboard bow, come in please.” I always chuckled at that one.[/QUOTE]
That reminds of the time we were transiting the Florida Straights. I called the Captains cabin and told him we had what looked like a makeshift raft of refugees a mile off the bow and what did he want me to do.
He said give them one short blast and pass them on the port side
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;184028]There was a third mate on a USNS ship when we were conducting “hydrographic surveys” in the Persian Gulf. He would hail a ship like this: “Vessel off my starboard bow, what are your intentions?” It never occurred to him that whoever heard him would have to do a 360 degree sweep to look for him because of his useless broadcast. He never said “This is the vessel on your port beam, what are your intentions?” It used to drive me nuts but I was a lowly AB so I kept my mouth shut. We occasionally got responses but they weren’t much help.[/QUOTE]
Even better, add “I bear 123 degrees from you at a distance of 3.5 miles…” If anyone listening has someone at that range and bearing, they know it’s them being called, and they know who’s calling.
This.
The “ship on my stbd side this is the vessel on your port side” hailings are unfortunately still fairly common. Even with more positive identifcation (AIS, range/brg, etc) the practice of automatically hailing to arrange a passing is still farcical and completely unnecessary in the vast majority of cases - whilst the IRPCS have their shortcomings, there are few IRPCS assisted collisions reported - the same cannot be said of VHF arrangements leading to incident.
Learn the rules and follow them.
The stock answer, on receipt of any such hailing without complicating circumstances, should be : “I will be taking action (or standing on) in accordance with the IRPCS”