[QUOTE=steeltoesonplanes;134341]Topsail has a terrible take on this situation. This is not what they said. Listen to the recording. Do not read this.[/QUOTE]
I am happy that you raise the matter because whether using VHF in collision avoidance or translate Texan dialect can result in the same confusion …
Between what I think, what I mean to say, what I believe to say, what I actually said, what you want to hear, what you hear, what you understand, what you want to understand and what you really understand, there’s at least nine opportunities to disagree!
Mentally lured
The apparent simplicity in reaching passing agreement does not provide any cure against subsequent erroneous actions. The danger, which is hardly recognised by some colleagues, who encourage the wider use of VHF in collision avoidance, is over-reliance on information provided by another vessel. There is a crucial difference between anticipation of actions, understanding of intentions and actions as they finally carried out. When agreement has been reached on VHF some officers become mentally lured, i.e. they expect another vessel to execute her manoeuvring in accordance with[B] their [/B]understanding of developing situation. For example, when another vessel confirms her intention to alter course to starboard, one expects her to do it when he thinks it is proper time and place for her to maneuver and in a way he would have executed this maneuver. Then when something goes not as expected, the time is being lost in the first place for realization that agreed pattern as individually understood is not what actually takes place and only afterwards for agonized action.
My words that in majority of cases only manoeuvring as prescribed by the COLREGS would be sufficient and no any additional calls and agreements would be necessary were met without much sympathy. Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion (Overtaking) in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem.
An obvious idea is to draw attention to the fact that establishing of VHF contact and reaching of passing agreement, does not bring as such any benefits for the purpose of collision avoidance when COLREGS and rules of good seamanship are forgotten or not followed.
Another danger lies in attempts to negotiate passing agreement to bypass the COLREGS. Although such bypassing is not strictly speaking prohibited, the use of VHF to propose and agree a course of action for collision avoidance that may not fully comply with the Collision Regulations, should normally be for reasons of due navigational prudence and not just convenience. In simple words such use should only be in situations where there is no other alternative.
Believe that many will agree that in any particular situation, conning officers shall realise that irrespective whether one uses VHF to come to passing agreement with another vessel or not, only actions undertaken in compliance with the COLREGS, and not VHF communications, can bring one’s vessel to safety out from collision course. VHF is certainly a helpful tool for the purpose of collision avoidance, but one to be used discreetly, with knowledge of its limitations and only when situation so orders.
Provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost.