200446 VHF and COLREGS

VHF and COLREGS
MARS Report 200446

Recently I was in the position to bring a Ro-Ro vessel from La Paz to Dubai with a bunker stop in Singapore. South of Sri Lanka, I listened in to the following on VHF channel 16:

A Korean vessel: "Ship on my port bow, this is motor vessel on your starboard quarter", etc., etc. The usual rubbish, to which I never answer. The answer was given by the stand-on ship. The request was made to the stand-on vessel to move out of the way for various reasons none of which could be considered serious.
The stand-on vessel refused to move out of the way and started protesting, saying that he was not going to move away. Another voice was saying: "How much did you pay for your license? Ever heard of the Rules of the Road? Better stay home if you cannot move around in the Indian Ocean".
A few things were ultimately expressed in probably the Korean language but the discussion did not lead to the requested results. Obviously there was a bit of cursing. However, in English, he continued that he would do what he thought he should do.

Many minutes later, the same Korean voice said "Thank you very much". The answer of the Stand-on voice was: "Fool".
I was not on scene and therefore cannot comment. However, we report these type of incidents to MARS as much as we can. We are able to report piracy attacks to a telex number in Kuala Lumpur or to an E-mail address. However, we should be able to report these COLREG violation incidents to an authority which could address the Fleet Manager/Nautical Superintendent, or whoever is involved, of the companies or operators of the ships violating the rules and/or forcing others to violate the Rules of the Road.
Wouldn't it be nice if Rule 1 (or Rule Zero!!) in the COLREGS stated that no violation of the rules are allowed by arrangements through voice communication or other kinds of communication. COLREGS are not perfect but they have existed for many years with good results. However, forced violations like the example above, must not be permitted. This should be addressed by an authority. We know where we stand and what has to be done. The Rules of the Road must not be downgraded.

Having proof is difficult but a possible punishment would be an advantage. Answering these calls always leads to discussions and disruption of the situational awareness of the navigator(s). In this case, it led to an assumed forced violation of the rules, bluntly imposed. This seems to be a very dangerous way to operate.