National modification of the IRPCS (Colregs)

[jackdale]

The discussion of the inverted cone for sailboats in the AIS reliance thread got me thinking about national modifications to the IRPCS.

In Canada

We have a modification to rule 25 (e)

Sailing Vessels Underway and Vessels Under Oars — Canadian Modification

(f)
Notwithstanding paragraph (e), in the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, a vessel of less than 12 metres in length proceeding under sail when also being propelled by machinery is not required to exhibit a conical shape, apex downwards, but may do so.

US Inland rules have a similar modification

(e) A vessel proceeding under sail when also being propelled by machinery shall exhibit forward where it can best be seen a conical shape, apex downwards. A vessel of less than 12 meters in length is not required to exhibit this shape, but may do so.

How many other countries modify the IRPCS? How many of us are aware of those mods when we visit other countries.

The ones mentioned above are not that crucial; this one is:

Rule 28

Vessels Constrained by their Draught — International

(a)
A vessel constrained by her draught may, in addition to the lights prescribed for power-driven vessels in Rule 23, exhibit where they can best be seen three all-round red lights in a vertical line, or a cylinder.

Vessels Constrained by their Draught — Canadian Modification

(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, no vessel shall exhibit three all-round red lights in a vertical line or a cylinder.

[StuM]

Those are not modifications to Colregs. Colregs is Colregs!

They are additional national special rules in accordance with Colregs:

Rule 1
(a) These rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

(b) Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these rules.


I would have expected someone with your constantly repeated qualifications would be aware of this and appreciate the difference.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Those are not modifications to Colregs. Colregs is Colregs!

They are additional national special rules in accordance with Colregs:

Rule 1
(a) These rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

(b) Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these rules.


I would have expected someone with your constantly repeated qualifications would be aware of this and appreciate the difference.

The tern used in Canada is "modifications."

Collision Regulations

In the US, the special rules are the Inland Rules.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The tern used in Canada is "modifications."

Collision Regulations

In the US, the special rules are the Inland Rules.

I guess it's a matter of terminology.

But no country can modify IRPCS, it is an International agreement.

A country can only produced local legislation based on IRPCS.

The Canadian authorities have called their Inland Rules "Collision Regulations C.R.C. c 1416". That is not IRPCS,modified or otherwise.

It is local legislation based on IRPCS with special rules (modifications if you want) added.

Perhaps your original question should have been
"How many other countries have their own legislation based on IPRCS with local modifications"
rather than
"How many other countries modify the IRPCS?"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

I guess it's a matter of terminology.

But no country can modify IRPCS, it is an International agreement.

A country can only produced local legislation based on IRPCS.

The Canadian authorities have called their Inland Rules "Collision Regulations C.R.C. c 1416". That is not IRPCS,modified or otherwise.

It is local legislation based on IRPCS with special rules (modifications if you want) added.

Perhaps your original question should have been
"How many other countries have their own legislation based on IPRCS with local modifications"
rather than
"How many other countries modify the IRPCS?"

From "Schedule 1 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications" from Collision Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1416)

Collision Regulations

Rule 28

Vessels Constrained by their Draught — International

(a)
A vessel constrained by her draught may, in addition to the lights prescribed for power-driven vessels in Rule 23, exhibit where they can best be seen three all-round red lights in a vertical line, or a cylinder.

Vessels Constrained by their Draught — Canadian Modification

(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, no vessel shall exhibit three all-round red lights in a vertical line or a cylinder.

Canadian Modifications, of which there are many, are our "special rules" and are embedded within Schedule 1.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From "Schedule 1 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications" from Collision Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1416)

Collision Regulations



Canadian Modifications, of which there are many, are our "special rules" and are embedded within Schedule 1.

Schedule 1 is NOT IRPCS. It is part of Collision Regulations (C.R.C. c.1461) i.e. a totally separate piece of national legislation.

So Canada has not "modified IRPCS". They have produced their own legislation based on IRPCS.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Schedule 1 is NOT IRPCS. It is part of Collision Regulations (C.R.C. c.1461) i.e. a totally separate piece of national legislation.

So Canada has not "modified IRPCS". They have produced their own legislation based on IRPCS.

Pedantic personified.

Unless some one else wants to contribute to the discussion, I am out of here.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Pedantic personified.

Unless some one else wants to contribute to the discussion, I am out of here.

[reed1v]

Still waiting for the world to have one common navigational light system. Gets tiring of having European sailors merrily sailing outside the channel markets when making port along our eastern seaports.

[Robin3]

COLREGS threads are like GUN issue threads, sooner or later somebody gets Pi$$ed off

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Still waiting for the world to have one common navigational light system. Gets tiring of having European sailors merrily sailing outside the channel markets when making port along our eastern seaports.

Gets tiring for us too, time the US joined the rest of the world in so many things. Add TV systems and AC electrics to the list too.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Still waiting for the world to have one common navigational light system. Gets tiring of having European sailors merrily sailing outside the channel markets when making port along our eastern seaports.

There used to be 30 different buoyage systems. Getting it down to 2 was a big step. Three countries using System B in the middle of System A must be more frustrating.

International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation Lighthouse Authorities Maritime Buoyage System - CCG - Aids to Navigation

[monte]

Interestingly the US inland waterway special rules apply to most/many of their coastal ports, harbours and coastlines. It's worth checking those special rules even if not planning on using their 'inland waterways'

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by monte

Interestingly the US inland waterway special rules apply to most/many of their coastal ports, harbours and coastlines. It's worth checking those special rules even if not planning on using their 'inland waterways'

And why I stuck on 'reminder' labels' to the wheel pedestal!

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by StuM

Schedule 1 is NOT IRPCS. It is part of Collision Regulations (C.R.C. c.1461) i.e. a totally separate piece of national legislation.

So Canada has not "modified IRPCS". They have produced their own legislation based on IRPCS.

Title on the cover of Transport Canada current "Modifications"...............

International Regulations For Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
with Canadian Modifications.

Suggest you contact Transport Canada and tell them they are not allowed to do that.