Conference of Yacht Cruising Clubs

 

Annual Meeting - Thursday 13 January 2005

 

Technical content of the minutes of the meeting

 

Index of technical items dealt with at the meeting

 

 

Present at the meeting at the Naval Club, 38 Hill Street, London  

   

9.         Summary of Pilot Guide Editors’ meeting of 12 January 2005

            (Minutes of this meeting will be circulated separately)   The Hon. Secretary circulated a list of pilot guides and sailing directions currently being published by the CYCC Pilot Guide Editors, and this is attached at Annex 9)   CS had chaired the meeting the previous afternoon and now reported a successful occasion and a lively debate between the Sailing Directions editors.  The main topic had been to exchange views on whether waypoints should be included in pilot guides.  All agreed that skippers use waypoints and will do so increasingly.  The editors were more cautious about whether the two kinds of aids-to-navigation – waypoints and guides – should be brought together.  There was some concern that including waypoints to an extent took over navigation itself from the skippers, who should be making their own passage decisions.  This applied particularly to the less experienced, who might be tempted to treat the published waypoints as road maps and thus risk ignoring the realities of weather, tides and other maritime traffic.  Technical issues also arise for the editors about showing waypoints on the chartlets in the guides, when these were in any event subject to disclaimers.  On the other hand, the meeting could see that purchasers were increasingly likely to wish for this kind of information.  For the time being, the majority were not going to go wholeheartedly towards including waypoints.   The meeting had also considered briefly the potential interest of joining with competing publishers such as C-Map, who are trying to build up pilotage information to be included with their charting software.  The feeling was that there is little monetary advantage to the editors, at least for the time being.  The editors had also thought that there remains a good long term perspective for the guides in their present form.   10.       Current issues on which CYCC members may want to develop positions  10.1     Mandatory and voluntary reporting of accidents & incidents (Annex 10.1)  BGcommented on the withdrawal by the MCA of its Statutory Instrument making it mandatory for yachtsmen to report accidents and incidents to the Coast Guard.  The original draft of the regulation had excluded small vessels, including leisure craft, and had simply enacted the European Directive requirements for merchant ships.  The Government had not consulted on the extension and it had come as a surprise and was perceived as bureaucratic ‘gold plating’ in an unacceptable form.  The RYA had negotiated with the Department of Transport and, when this proved insufficient, had initiated proceedings for judicial review, with the help of parliamentary solicitors.  On 12 January, the MCA released an amending draft Statutory Instrument, withdrawing the requirement, and this must be counted as a considerable victory for the RYA.  The position thus returns to what it was previously; namely that reporting is obligatory for commercial craft but not for leisure craft.  The RYA’s Legal & Government Affairs group will keep a watch on developments to make sure that no further problems arise before the new draft comes into force, in principle in early May 2005.   BG further reminded the meeting about the need for voluntary reporting of accidents and incidents either to the MAIB or, confidentially, to CHIRP.  The RYA supports this voluntary approach:  it is the extension to mandatory reporting that is unacceptable and impracticable.   10.2     Charts & publications used for passage planning and navigation (Annex 10.2.1)  10.2.1   The Hon. Secretary commented on the draft Marine Guidance Note suggesting that MCA should approve certain charts and publications for carriage by any small vessel, which the MCA had put out for consultation in early November.  The Cruising Association, CYCC and RYA had protested, with CA and RYA stating their support for CYCC’s detailed submission.  There had been two concerns, the first of which was that the MGN seemed to infer that leisure craft might be required to carry and rely on approved and up-to-date charts and publications, which was contrary to the position taken by the MCA when SOLAS V came into force in 2002.  The second was that the conditions for approval, notably to do with updating, potential liability and insurance, that might make it impossible for CYCC editors to seek approval, thus seriously damage their competitive position and thus risking the loss of valuable and long standing aids to navigation published by the Editors over many decades.   In the light of the submissions, the MCA verbally made it clear to both CYCC and RYA that there was no intention to disturb the existing arrangements for leisure yachtsmen.  The intention had been to assist commercial vessels, which had a greater need to try to comply with the SOLAS carriage requirements.  The choice of words to include leisure vessels in the draft had been an oversight.  A new draft would be issued in early January and CYCC and others were encouraged to bring any continuing concerns to the MCA’s intention.   HEnoted that chart agents present at the UKHO Small Craft Consultative Group in Spring 2004 had raised the possibility of their leisure charts meeting chart carriage requirements.  MCA had been represented at the meeting and had agreed that it was not aware of any accident occurring as a result of improper carriage and that leisure sailors should be regulated with a very light hand.  He surmised that the draft MGN was the outcome of that exchange.   HEalso commented that UKHO’s assessment is that less than 10% of leisure sailors have up-to-date charts.  Did this mean that they were exposed to litigation in the case of an accident?  Would the courts treat the SOLAS V carriage requirements as evidence of good practice?  BG agreed that there is a risk but did not think it was a great risk.  The courts would consider the behaviour of a ‘prudent yacht skipper,’ not that of a professional SOLAS navigator.   Post meeting update – revised draft Marine Guidance Note issued  The revised draft has now been published (and is attached at Annex 10.2.1, supplement).  All references to leisure craft have now been deleted, so that this important aspect of our concern is now quieted.  On the other hand the verbal assurance that the word ‘publications’ would be deleted has not been fulfilled and the conditions for approval remain unchanged.    The time limit for consultation on the revised draft is 4 April 2005 and CYCC’s Pilot Guide Editors are currently considering what position to take.  The RYA has indicated that it stands ready to assist CYCC in any representations that its Editors wish to make.  

Agreed:  CYCC should make such representations to the MGA about the revised draft MGN as the Pilot Guide Editors judge necessary and welcomes support from the RYA in convincing the MCA about the case put forward.   10.2.2  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Small Craft Consultative Group  HE referred back to his report to CYCC of UKHO’s April 2004 meeting (attached at Annex 10.2.2).  He continued to have a long term concern about the impact on products and prices of the transition from a Royal Navy surveying organisation to a trading agency run by commercial management required by Government to make profits.  UKHO is an effective monopoly with a mandatory SOLAS V customer base and is therefore highly profitable.  UKHO controls the market in charting data and there is no sign that it may lower its prices.  He saw no immediate solution for those wishing or needing to use Admiralty products.   He found it very useful for CYCC members to pass concerns on to him as the discussion of them gives the Consultative Group a validity that it would not otherwise have in the eyes of the UKHO.  At the last meeting he had raised the issues of Gaelic names on Scottish charts:  UKHO had replied that it was following new Ordnance Survey practice and maybe this needed rethinking.  He said UKHO was making slow progress in rebasing Scottish charts on WGS 84 because the underlying charts were felt not to be accurate enough and a thorough updating is being carried out.  He had also raised the possibility of marking environmentally sensitive or restricted areas on charts:  the response is that this will be done if there is a navigational issue, but otherwise it will not, in order to keep clutter to a minimum.  

Agreed that all clubs should endeavour to identify charting issues and bring them to HE’s attention, so that he can take them up with fellow members of the User Group and with UKHO.   Addendum on chart datums 

In response to a question raised at the meeting, HE has prepared the following definition of chart datums currently in use:

 

   

 

10.3     Trinity House review of aids to navigation  The Hon. Secretary briefly covered matters arising at the Trinity House User Consultative Committee and the launch of ‘2020 The Vision,’ previously reported in the CYCC bulletin of 1 November 2004.  He went on to say that the General Lighthouses had just published for consultation its plans arising from its quinquennial review of aids-to-navigation, as indicated in agenda paper at Annex 10.3.  The consultation paper looked thorough and well drafted.  He felt that, in view of our presence on the Consultative Committee, it is important that CYCC reviews the consultation paper and shows that it is contributing to the debate.  He hoped that CYCC clubs would review the proposals for each of their areas.  BS thought that CYCC should encourage Trinity House to continue its programme of lighting its buoys.  AH reported that CCC had already consulted with the Northern Lights and had the impression that there will be few problems.  RM worried that leisure yachtsmen’s involvement with the review might strengthen the case for charging light dues to the leisure sector.  TO noted that CYCC needed to be attentive in drafting its reply, given the confusion in many yachtsmen’s minds between aids under the responsibility of the GLAs and those dealt with by harbour authorities, albeit the GLA’s have a supervisory role with regard to the latter.  Yachtsmen mainly use the harbour authorities’ buoys.  BG reminded that at the previous review the RYA had been able to help Trinity House by suggesting that certain buoys on approaches could be discontinued, provided that related sector lights were developed.   The work of reviewing the GLA’s proposals did not appear onerous, given the apparently high quality of their preparation.  The GLA’s summary of areas and the chart shown below were tabled was tabled.  The GLAs' areas of jurisdiction, which includes 8623 miles of coastline, have been broken down into 21 Areas. Where considered appropriate, these 21 Areas have been broken down further into sub-areas. Boundaries of these Areas are shown below.  The Clubs indicated willingness to take responsibility for reviews, as indicated in the table, and HM for the RYA and TO for the CA said they would be willing to share with other CYCC clubs the results of any work done separately done by them.  The Hon. Secretary volunteered to act as a coordination point, so that any general points can be drawn out of this work, although copies of CYCC’s comments will need to go separately, as requested, to the Commissioners of Irish Lights, Northern Lights and Trinity House.  

 

  The RNSA said that it would be happy to help out other clubs in their areas as needed, through its local branch network.  Additionally, the RCC PF undertook to review any aids affecting its recommended through cruising routes, namely 1. Channel to Faroe via inshore waters, 2. Channel to Faroe via offshore waters, 4, Channel to Shetland via East Coast, and 5. North Sea crossings.  

Agreed:

-           The Hon. Secretary will read through the GLA’s consultation paper and summarise the instructions for the clubs in a convenient form and will thereafter act as a coordinator insofar as this may be needed.

 

-           CYCC clubs will review the GLA’s proposals for the areas indicated and inform the Hon. Secretary of the results by 28 February 2005 at the latest, so that he can bring them together for submission to the GLAs by the due date of 25 March.

  10.4     Windfarm planning and implementation issues   CS introduced the current status as it has developed since the last CYCC annual meeting, as set out in Annex 10.4.  The Hon Secretary said he had spoken to Dr Susie Tomson of the RYA’s Legal and Government Affairs group, who is leading for the RYA on environmental issues and is working with TO at the Cruising Association on the survey mentioned last year of cruising routes.  She had said the RYA/CA joint report on routes in the three critical Round 1 and round 2 areas had been well received and that Trinity House had agreed to fund an extension of the work, which she hoped would create a complete mapping of cruising routes and sailing areas around the United Kingdom.  She saw this task as very important, not just for wind-farm issues but also, as needed, for other discussions with regulators.  She had also pointed out that the concerns of the yachting community are going to extend well beyond windfarms towards other renewable energy proposals, such as tidal generators.   TO took up the discussion.  He said that when the Government made the decision to use wind power, none of the responsible Government Departments understood about marine and leisure boating issues, and the MCA had not been invited to contribute.  RM confirmed from his experience in the Liverpool Bay area that neither Government nor the developers had shown proper understanding of pilotage issues.  TO went on to say that the CA and RYA had got together in 2004 and produced the report mentioned by Dr Tomson, called ‘Sharing the Wind.’  ‘Sharing the Wind’ was appreciated by Government and the continuation study for the whole area Land’s End to Mull is starting with the aim of completing it by Easter 2005.  The Government would like to see it further extended from Mull to the Shetlands.  In practice, the first drafts were being completed by a central team, not least because of the problem of achieving common standards.  Major input had been hoped for from clubs contacted by the RYA, but the response for ‘Sharing the Wind’ had proved disappointing.  The work is undoubtedly important:  for example, a major concern highlighted was that the presence of wind farms forced both merchant and leisure vessels into narrower passage lanes, thus creating a dangerous concentration of shipping.   HM commented that if clubs do not collect the information needed, it cannot be passed on, and that he was glad that Trinity House is helping finance the work.  TO warned that the money was not significant and would not be likely to trickle down to the clubs.  TO also pointed out that, while CYCC editors could contribute to harbour approaches, they may be less well informed about routes between harbours.  AH recalled that similar issues to the present had arisen when fish farms were being established.  Work done by CCC and others to identify safe havens needed by mariners had had a significant effect on decisions on locations for fish farms that Crown Estates had had to make.  TO said that the RYA and CA had made clear to Government that they would not stop insisting on free access for safe haven purposes to all ports at all times.   MKB deplored the apparent lack of research that he thought had been evident in the proposals for the Portland wind farms, now in suspense.  RM illustrated this point by raising the published concerns as to the impact of wind farms on radar, now being researched at a late stage.  TO noted that this is a real issue for yachtsmen, because it appears that merchant vessels are handling radar interference from wind farms by tuning down their radars, with the inevitable risk of not being able to identify small vessels, which present poor radar targets in the best of conditions.   HM noted that Dr Tomson is hopeful that the clubs will be able to provide information for the new cruising route surveys.  The matter had been raised at the most recent RYA Cruising meeting and the thought had been that clubs, especially pilot guide editors, were in a good position at least to know the popular cruising routes and sailing areas and thus cross-cut with information developed by Dr. Tomson and the CA.  The density of traffic might be more difficult to establish, but probably some qualitative judgment could be made.  

Agreed:

 

-           The Hon. Secretary would discuss with Dr Tomson and obtain her and CA’s guidance and instructions, which he would pass on to the CYCC clubs.

 

-           The clubs would endeavour to contribute to the survey, not least because of Dr Thomson’s view that the information could become a permanent weapon in the armoury of defending the interests of cruising yachtsmen.  On the face of it, there is a linkage between the information needed for this survey and that on which the clubs’ response to the Trinity House consultation is based, so that a similar allocation of UK and Irish waters to the clubs might reasonably be made.   10.5     Current status of regulation about the marking of fishing gear  AM introduced his paper on the current status of this issue (set out in Annex 10.5)  He considered that the real issue is that the MCA does not accept that there is a problem of danger to mariners from unmarked or badly placed fishing gear.  The RYA’s considerable efforts over the years to encourage the reporting of accidents involving fishing gear had encountered difficulty in obtaining reports.  It is evident that the real number of accidents is higher than the reported number.  The MCA’s has found itself unable to substantiate its own data.  The question remains as to what number of accidents is enough to achieve a reaction from the authorities.   The RYA is going direct to the port authorities.  There is limited reaction so far, but the Queen’s Harbourmaster Portsmouth has now issued instructions setting strict limits on fishing gear in his area.  The RYA has met ABP Southampton and negotiations are continuing.  The limitation of the ports is, of course, that they can only act within their own harbour limits:  much of the most serious problem lies in the harbour approaches outside these limits.  Furthermore, professional fisherman are, by and large, better at marking than amateurs, who often go in for wildcat laying of equipment.   AM further pointed out that it seems that efforts by other European countries are more effective than those of the UK.  He had hoped that European regulation would address the issues in a real way, but the results seem limited.  HM commented that he had hoped that the European Directive would encompass lobster potting, but it did not.  AM concluded that maybe the yachting community needs to change its strategy.  The issue seems to be held at a middle management level within the MCA: it should be moved to a higher level.  To do this would require more strenuous gathering of data, so that the nature of the problems and the geographical extent of problem areas can be defined.  The central South coast area including Hampshire is certainly a troubled zone for this purpose.   CS suggested that all CYCC clubs should seek to encourage their members to understand the importance of making reports of fishing gear accidents and incidents, whether via the RYA or directly to the Coast Guard or using CHIRP.  

Agreed that CYCC clubs should take up the need for more comprehensive reporting in the interests of their own members and of the maritime community generally.    

10.6     Current status of possible Government plans with regard to charging light dues

  AM again introduced his paper (at Annex 10.6).  His view is that the problem has gone to bed for the time being.  He shares the concern of others as to what the Minister of Transport had meant when he said at the launch of the GLAs’ ‘2020 The Vision’ that he felt that larger yachts should pay light dues.  He wondered whether this implied that the level at which light dues become payable might be brought down below the present level of 20 GRT.  HM commented that the new rates for the current year are due to be published on 1 April 2005, so we should receive an indication at that time as to any changes to the regime that might be under consideration.   The meeting speculated as to the source of the pressure to extend light dues to leisure craft.  The Government is evidently keeping to its mantra that “the user should pay.”  TO thought that the risk is not going to go away.  He believed that the UK Harbourmasters’ Association  is behind the extension to leisure craft and that this is really an issue to do with increasing harbour dues.  They had made an earlier attempt in 1989, which had failed, and they tried again in 1993.  This had encouraged the British Chamber of Shipping to take up the cudgels.  Fortunately, the consultants appointed by the Department of Transport in 2003/2004 had disagreed with the BCS and the minister had concluded that, for the time being, it is administratively too difficult to tackle leisure craft.  

Agreed to remain on the alert, particularly when the next round of light dues are announced and for the clubs to support the RYA in its efforts on our behalf, since this is evidently an issue on which the RYA should lead.

 

10.7     Current status of Crown Estates ground rent

  BG gave a brief update of developments since CYCC’s 33^rd Annual Meeting, as noted in Annex 10.7.1  in respect of the rent charged by the Crown Estates for use of the seabed on which yacht moorings are anchored, in particular reference to PB’s question as to whether the RYA should press the Crown Estate to plough back a proportion of its rental into marine projects.  

To start the discussion, he distributed the listing by harbour of the rentals charged by Crown Estates. and this is attached at Annex 10.7.2.  He pointed out that it would not be possible to change the commercial approach now taken by Crown Estates in exploiting its seabed holdings.  However, he remarked on the existence of the Crown Estates’ ‘Marine Stewardship Fund,’ described in its website thus:  “Established in 1999, The Crown Estate's Marine Stewardship Fund has already distributed almost £600,000 to a wide range of practical projects around the coast. The Marine Conservation Society's Clean Seas Campaign (including the Good Beach Guide and Beachwatch), the restoration of a derelict coastguard lookout as a wildlife observation post on the Ceredigion coast, and an intertidal archaeological survey of the River Hamble are just a selection of the projects that have received funding in recent years.  The fund was established to provide grant-aid to practical projects and programmes which contribute to the development of best practice, and make a significant contribution to the environmental management and stewardship of the marine estate. We are constantly looking for good projects around the whole of the UK coast.” BG thought that there is a good case for pressure to ensure effective use of the fund but he felt that Crown Estates would not release additional monies for projects.  He felt that so far the Scottish Crown Estates has been better organised and considerably more active, perhaps because in Scottish waters it is almost invariably the sole landowner of the seabed.  The amounts available, though, were always likely to be modest in comparison to the rentals charged.

 

Agreed:  CYCC clubs should pursue projects that they felt would represent a proper ploughing back of profits in relation to the Fund and give feedback for follow-up, if they come to feel that their proposals are not being dealt with expeditiously.

 

 

11        “What public service weather forecasts will cruising yachtsmen require in the coming decade?”

 

(The minutes relating to this agenda item have been distributed separately).

 

12        Next meeting – Thursday 12 January 2006

  We will ask to return to the Naval Club, since members are content with its hospitality and it has the extra benefit of being close to Green Park underground station, on the Jubilee line, change at Canning Town for Custom House and the Excel London Boat Show.

 

DAVID DARBYSHIRE

Hon. Secretary of CYCC

Annex 9

 

 

Pilot Guides & Sailing Directions edited by CYCC members at January 2005

 

 

 

 

Annex  10.1

 

 

Mandatory and voluntary reporting of accidents and incidents   Circular of 21 December 2004 to CYCC members on withdrawal of mandatory reporting 

The MCA published for consultation at the end of last week a draft Statutory Instrument  to come into effect in May 2005, which deletes the obligation introduced last September for skippers of 'recreational craft under 45 metres' to report accidents and incidents to the Coast Guard.  The background to this issue was covered in my circular to you of 30 October.

 

The firm position taken by the RYA against the new regulation was undoubtedly a main cause of the change of mind by the Government, and we have every reason to be grateful for RYA's efforts.  Without the RYA there would probably have been no change.  There are some consequential aspects that remain and the RYA is continuing to deal with these.  The RYA rightly points out, however, that it is important for the yachting community to remain on excellent terms with the MCA and other authorities and this particular issue must not be allowed to create any adversarial impression.

 

The MCA does say in its consultation letter:  "owners, operators and those in charge of any craft are reminded that the MCA strongly recommends a report to be made if the safety of the craft is, or is likely to be affected and that persons in charge of recreational craft should report an incident to HM Coastguard, irrespective of any legal requirement to do so, to enable the effective deployment of search and rescue and anti-pollution resources if necessary."  Voluntary reporting of accidents and incidents via the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB), the Confidential Hazardous Incident Reporting Scheme (CHIRP) and the Nautical Institute's MARS scheme also remains important, as noted in my circular of 12 April 2004 to CYCC members.

 

Question

 

Do CYCC members believe that there is a need for any further action on behalf of cruising yachtsmen?

 

Annex 10.2.1

 

Charts & publications used for passage planning and navigation

 

CYCC Circular of 21 December 2004 to Pilot Guide Editors

 

I followed up today with Joe Collins, Head of Navigation Safety Branch, about the status of this proposal, on which CA, CYCC and RYA commented on 30 November.  Joe confirmed the comments that Steve Johnson of the RYA had already passed on, namely that MCA had never intended to impose carriage requirements on recreational craft under 150 tons and was not planning to do so.  He also told me that MCA has no wish to do anything to jeopardise the sailing directions published by CYCC members and will almost certainly delete the mention of 'publications' in the revised draft Marine Guidance Notice, to be published shortly after Christmas.  He said that the MCA would welcome further submissions if we still have concerns after seeing the revision.

 

This email is sent to the CYCC Pilot Guide editors; a wider distribution will follow once we have had the chance to read the revised MGN.  (The revised MGN was published immediately after the CYCC 34^th Annual Meeting).

 

Question

 

On the reasonable assumption that the revised MGN, when published, will apply only to small commercial vessels (up to 150 tons) and only to charts carried by them (essentially UKHO Leisure Series, Stanford, Imray and similar) and may or may not apply to electronic navigation charts; and on the further assumption that the MGN will not refer to publications other than charts, do CYCC members believe that there is a need for continuing concern on behalf of cruising yachtsmen and pilot guide publishers?

 

 

 

Annex 10.2.1, supplement

 

“Dear Sir/Madam

Alternative Arrangements for Meeting Chart and Nautical Publication Carriage Requirements on MCA Code Vessels and Fishing Vessels under 24 metres in Length

The proposed Marine Guidance Note (MGN) sets out alternative arrangements by which certain MCA Code Vessels and fishing vessels may satisfy chart and nautical publication carriage requirements through the use of privately-produced products. The draft notice affects and will be for the attention of ship and fishing vessel owners, masters, skippers and deck officers.

Issues and options for the consideration consultees

The MCA recognises the practical difficulties faced by operators of these categories of small vessels in using full-sized charts and nautical publications intended for much larger vessels. Alternative arrangements are now being proposed

by MCA to enable compliance with UK carriage requirements using privately produced products. Consultees are invited to comment upon this proposal.

You are invited to comment on the Marine Guidance Note. Any comments should be sent to Capt Geoff Stokes, Bay 2/29, Spring Place no later than Monday 04 April 2005.  The draft Regulations will also be available on the MCA website during this period at www.mcga.gov.uk . We may also be contacted to assist with any queries on telephone 023 8032 9146 or fax 023 8032 9204 or e-mail nav&comms@mcga.gov.uk .

Yours faithfully, Joe Collins, Head of Navigation Safety Branch”

 

DRAFT MARINE GUIDANCE NOTE

 

Notice to Ship and Fishing Vessel Owners, Masters, Skippers and Officers

 

SUMMARY

This Note sets out alternative arrangements by which certain MCA Code Vessels and fishing vessels may satisfy chart and nautical publication carriage requirements through the use of privately-produced products.

 

Key Points

 

• UK carriage requirements exist for MCA Code vessels under 24 metres in length and fishing

vessels under 24 metres in length.

 

• The MCA recognise the practical difficulties faced by operators of these categories of small

vessels in using full-sized charts and nautical publications intended for much larger vessels.

 

• Alternative arrangements are now recognised by the MCA to enable compliance with UK carriage requirements using privately produced products.

 

1. The revised Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) entered into force on 1 July 2002 and is given legal effect in UK legislation by the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2002.

 

2. Regulation 19 of SOLAS Chapter V relates to carriage requirements for shipborne navigation systems and equipment (including charts and nautical publications) and applies to all ships irrespective of size. However, maritime administrations have discretion to grant exemptions or equivalents to the provisions of certain regulations for:

 

            • Ships below 150 GT engaged on any voyage, and

• Ships below 500 GT not engaged on international voyages; and

            • Fishing vessels.

 

3. A nautical chart or nautical publication is defined by Regulation 2.2 of SOLAS Chapter V as: “a special purpose map or book, or a specially compiled database from which such map or book is derived, that is issued by or on the authority of a Government, authorized Hydrographic Office or other relevant government institution and is designed to meet the requirements of marine navigation”.

 

4. Under Regulation 34 of SOLAS Chapter V, all vessels which go to sea are required to ensure that the intended voyage has been planned using appropriate nautical charts and publications.

 

5. Chart and nautical publication carriage requirements for small vessels in commercial service, pilot boats and work boats are covered by a number of statutory codes of practice. However, individual codes are presently in the process of being unified within a harmonised code as an alternative standard. The harmonised code will be published later this year.

 

6. The relevant text in the harmonised code relating to carriage requirements stipulates: “Charts and other nautical publications to plan and display the vessel's route for the intended voyage and to plot and monitor positions throughout the voyage should be carried. The charts must be of such a scale and contain sufficient detail to show clearly all relevant navigational marks, known navigational hazards and, where appropriate, information concerning ship's routeing and ship reporting schemes. Nautical publications may be contained within a consolidated publication. However, vessels operating in Area Category 6 need not carry publications. An electronic chart plotting system, complying with the requirements detailed in Marine Guidance Note MGN 262, may be accepted as meeting the chart carriage requirements of this subparagraph”.

 

7. Legislation relating to carriage requirements for fishing vessels is dependent upon vessel length. For the purposes of fishing vessels between 15 and 24 metres, the requirements are covered by the Merchant Shipping (Safety of 15-24 Metre Vessel) Regulations and the associated code of practice contained within Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN) 1770(F) – see Section 9.4.3 “Nautical Publications”.

 

8. The MCA recognises the practical difficulties faced by operators of small vessels in using full-sized charts and nautical publications intended for much larger vessels.  Discussions have taken place recently with a number of long-established firms who produce charts and publications primarily intended for recreational marine users.

 

9. As a consequence, the MCA will recognise certain products, produced by private organisations, to satisfy UK national carriage requirements or any implied requirement to aid passage planning under Regulation 34 of SOLAS Chapter V as follows:

 

• MCA Code vessels under 24 metres in length, and

• Fishing vessels under 24 metres in length.

 

10. Before the MCA gives any such recognition, however, private producers will need to satisfy the MCA in writing that certain conditions have been met. These include:

 

• Provision of processes to ensure the quality of end products;

• Availability and frequency of an updating service (notices to mariners);

• A copyright agreement with one or more national hydrographic offices to ensure the

provision of the bulk of source data for charts and publications;

• Professional indemnity insurance to cover any cases of negligence in the

compilation of such charts and publications.

 

11. In addition, privately-produced charts and publications may supplement official charts and publications carried by large commercial sailing and motor vessels over 24 metres (“megayachts”) in areas where they contain additional detail which supplements official products.

 

12. Applications for recognition should be made to the Head of Navigation Safety Branch at the address shown at the foot of this Note. Information on those organisations which have been approved by the MCA will be promulgated in a Marine Information Note (MIN) in due course.

Annex 10.2.2

 

UK Hydrographic Office Small Craft User Group

 

Howard Easton's report of meeting on 22 April 2004

 

Howard Easton, of the Bristol Channel Yachting Association and our CYCC member of the User Group, attended a consultative meeting of UKHO on 22 April 2004. 

 

Official minutes will be issued in due course, so these notes highlight specific points only. The meeting was constructive and good natured, with many new and some old faces following further changes in the organisation of the UKHO. For the first time the MCA was represented.

 

1.         The UKHO continues to change with a strong commercial emphasis coming in.  John Dawson (head of business management) explained that their objective was to maximise exploitation of their data base, and to this end they had set up Admiralty Holdings to enter partnerships with other organisations. When we attempted to sound him out on where exploitation might lead, given the UKHO monopoly of UK hydrographic data, we did not get a very clear answer, but he did acknowledge the leisure sectors existing complaints on pricing!

 

2.         Between 5% and 10% of UKHO revenue comes from the leisure sector. Inevitably this is reflected in the resources committed to the sector, and is the reason why some developments have to wait on SOLAS demand.

 

3.         WGS 84 - We were given another map detailing the progress on the project to date, and we were taken through the detail by Chris Walton. As it happens, I have in my file the same map as given out in January 2003, and between the two dates, the anticipated completion dates for many areas have gone out by 9 months - some by more than a year!

 

Areas of Scotland and N I are still to be done and some will not be complete before 2008. This reflects the need to do a full new edition because of the quality / reliability of survey data incorporated in the present charts. When we asked them to do a simple interim "quick and dirty" changeover as applied in England, the HO were not prepared to do so.

 

4.         I asked whether the new charts for Scotland would substitute Gaelic names for English ones, as raised by Arthur Houston (CCC). Chris Walton was not sure of the answer, but thought that that might well be the plan. After some discussion and explanation of the safety problems involved, she agreed to discuss the issue with colleagues and requested that we write in with our detailed views. I have asked Arthur to do so.

 

5.         The Committee on Shipping and Hydrography together with the Ministerial Advisory Board of the Department of Transport are the people who decide which areas are to be re-surveyed. So if we feel there is a need to cover a particular area, we should contact them. Otherwise, surveys are likely to be solely areas requested by shipping interests, harbour boards, etc.

 

6.         I followed up Barry Smith's (CA) request that marine conservation areas and SSSIs should be marked on the charts together with information about areas to avoid during nesting season, etc. There was general agreement that environmental restrictions on navigation (including anchoring) should be marked, but there was no support from the meeting for more than this.

 

7.         I raised your (RCC) request that shipping forecast areas be shown on large scale passage charts, but again there was great reluctance to do so. There are issues of area names varying from country to country, but the HO concern was mainly about clutter. They feel that the charts are already cluttered and don't wish to make this worse or to have to miss other things out. I did try!

 

8.         Doug Huckle came in for a discussion of leisure folios bringing with him the folios of the West Indies which were first issued in September 2003. The Firth of Clyde folio is intended for January 2005