Anchoring but not checking in (if needed)

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

These......



I would call the authorities and explain what I planned and ask.

Heaving to is simple.

In the two examples I gave, engineless with no wind, or awaiting a strong tide at a strait, heaving-to is not a viable option.

In many countries where this issue would come up, you often can't get a hold of the "authorities" in normal day hours while in front of a commercial port, let alone in the more likely remote area where this issue would occur.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by motion

Fly the "L" flag. That means quarantine but not clearing into the port

I believe the use of the L flag for this purpose is no longer in the latest International Code of Signals. It was in older versions. The "L" flag flown by itself means: You should stop your vessel instantly.

https://msi.nga.mil/Publications/ICOS

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Paul L

In the two examples I gave, engineless with no wind, or awaiting a strong tide at a strait, heaving-to is not a viable option.

In many countries where this issue would come up, you often can't get a hold of the "authorities" in normal day hours while in front of a commercial port, let alone in the more likely remote area where this issue would occur.

While there may be circumstances where heaving to (or lying ahull in the case of no wind) is not viable, as a general matter I think heaving to IS viable and edge conditions where it is not do not invalidate it as good practice.

As for authorities, you call on the radio, and the phone, and send an email if you can. You make the effort as a show of good faith. Then you do it all again in the morning.

With regard to signal flags and purely for entertainment value, I dated a woman many years ago whose nominally adult daughter was not a good driver. I found a sticker for Delta ("I am maneuvering with difficulty, please stay clear") and we put it on the daughter's rear window.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by CyKlop

And it is phrases like this that lawyers make their milk money on. Does that phrase mean:

"... traversing that sea (without entering internal waters) or (calling at a roadstead) or (port facility outside internal waters)

or, as I think it means:

... without (entering internal waters or calling at a roaststead or port facility outside internal waters).

Why do I think that? Because the first and last items in that list are both verboten, so I believe that implies the sandwiched activity is ALSO verboten.

However, I am not a maritime lawyer, so my advice isn't worth a 4 year old gum drop. Ask a real lawyer.

Perhaps you think that because you have a problem with reading comprehension, or are simply ignorant of international maritime travel. Or, perhaps you don't know the difference between internal waters, territorial waters, and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

The right of innocent passage is clearly defined and understood as stated.

The first item is "traversing the sea without entering internal waters," is not 'verboten.' In fact this is why the right of innocent passage is so important. Again, knowing the difference between internal vs. territorial waters is critical to understanding this statement. If you need a specific example please let me know.

The last item is "calling at a port facility outside internal waters" means calling at a port that may not be a "port of entry" into that country which is 'verboten.' Many countries have ports (outside 'internal waters' but within territorial waters that are not port's of entry. (For example, Washington state has 75 ports, but only 10 ports of entry. )

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

The last item is "calling at a port facility outside internal waters" means calling at a port that may not be a "port of entry" into that country which is 'verboten.' Many countries have ports (outside 'internal waters' but within territorial waters that are not port's of entry. (For example, Washington state has 75 ports, but only 10 ports of entry. )

Without taking exception to your statement, with which I agree, in the US the app CBP ROAM has made the distinction of ports of entry less an issue for recreational boats. ActiveCAN and the phone-in entry does much the same for Canada. These are huge benefits to visitors and returning citizens in the US and Canada.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

While there may be circumstances where heaving to (or lying ahull in the case of no wind) is not viable, as a general matter I think heaving to IS viable and edge conditions where it is not do not invalidate it as good practice.

As for authorities, you call on the radio, and the phone, and send an email if you can. You make the effort as a show of good faith. Then you do it all again in the morning.

....

Heaving-to is often useful. It just didn't apply to the examples I stated and you responded directly to. Nothing to do with edge conditions. We were discussing when the Right of Innocent Passage might allow you to anchor.

Good faith effort or not, you will often not get a response in these types of situations while long distance cruising.
We just sailed down the Mozambique Channel to South Africa. On the passage we saw a southerly predicted up the channel and were not willing to voluntarily take the beating. We decided to go into a remote, very small island about 10 miles off the mainland, Ilha do Fogo, and anchor for a few days to wait out the weather. We were not cleared into Mozambique, as we were enroute Mayotte to South Africa. No cell service, no towns or ports within VHF range, no officials that cover the area, etc. Certainly some risk, but better than the alternative.
I just posted a blog on the island
SV J Georgia: Iha do Fogo, Mozambique

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Paul L

We were not cleared into Mozambique

So illegal, and you risked getting caught.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

So illegal, and you risked getting caught.

Well some would call it illegal, others would call it good seamenship and within the Right of Innocent Passage. We also could risk very dangeous seas with hard southerly against the start of the south going Aghualas Current in an area known for ship breaking sea conditions. Something I was not willing to do.
5 other cruising boats that started their passages from 3 different countries all ended up doing the same thing and anchoring for a few days in this remote island,

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Well some would call it illegal, others would call it good seamenship and within the Right of Innocent Passage.

Ah, but you see, it doesn't matter what "some" people might call it, or even what "others" might call it. What matters is what the authorities in that particular jurisdiction would call it. THEY are the ones who get to set the definitions, not "some" or "others." And UNCLOS is just a general agreement; one which not all countries (like the USA) have agreed to. No matter the case, each individual nation gets to make its own rules and laws. You violate those laws at your own risk.

(And let me be clear: I am not saying that you were violating those laws. I am only saying that what is debated on an internet forum like this one is of no interest at all to the law-enforcement authorities in any nation. And, in the end, THEY are the ones who might arrest you and/or impound your boat.)

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Ah, but you see, it doesn't matter what "some" people might call it, or even what "others" might call it. What matters is what the authorities in that particular jurisdiction would call it. THEY are the ones who get to set the definitions, not "some" or "others." And UNCLOS is just a general agreement; one which not all countries (like the USA) have agreed to. No matter the case, each individual nation gets to make its own rules and laws. You violate those laws at your own risk.

(And let me be clear: I am not saying that you were violating those laws. I am only saying that what is debated on an internet forum like this one is of no interest at all to the law-enforcement authorities in any nation. And, in the end, THEY are the ones who might arrest you and/or impound your boat.)

Exactly, it is far more up to the whims of the locals than any tight legal issue. In the same vane, I'm not making risk tradeoff decisions based on pedantic CF arguments. In the example I gave above I was certainly aware of the risks of authorities getting ugly. There are stories of boats having their passports confiscated and eventually doing a runner in the middle of the night. The risk of continuing on into the weather totally overrode those risks. CF arguments often don't represent what cruisers are actually doing.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by motion

Fly the "L" flag. That means quarantine but not clearing into the port

Err , it’s means stop your vessel immediately

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

Perhaps you think that because you have a problem with reading comprehension, or are simply ignorant of international maritime travel. Or, perhaps you don't know the difference between internal waters, territorial waters, and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).



The right of innocent passage is clearly defined and understood as stated.



The first item is "traversing the sea without entering internal waters," is not 'verboten.' In fact this is why the right of innocent passage is so important. Again, knowing the difference between internal vs. territorial waters is critical to understanding this statement. If you need a specific example please let me know.



The last item is "calling at a port facility outside internal waters" means calling at a port that may not be a "port of entry" into that country which is 'verboten.' Many countries have ports (outside 'internal waters' but within territorial waters that are not port's of entry. (For example, Washington state has 75 ports, but only 10 ports of entry. )

Innocent passage is determined by the big guy in a uniform wearing a gun and representing his country.

All other debates can be carried out from the privacy and comfort of your gaol cell in the town.

[StuM]

"L" used to me "I'm not clean". But not any more.
Nothing to do with whether you want to clear in or not.


In years gone by, editions of the International Code of Signals (ICOS) did contain signals for vessels that suspected they harbored, or could be harboring, contagious diseases. In Brown’s 1916 edition the L (Lima) flag (black and yellow squares) signified ‘I have or had some dangerous, infectious disease on board.’ And this meaning was continued in the 1923 and 1931 editions. When the ICOS was radically overhauled in 1965 to recognize the then-widespread use of radio communications (relatively rare when the earlier editions were published) the ICOS shrank from a nearly 600 page tome to a comparatively svelte 160 pages, and the meaning of the L (Lima) flag was simplified to mean only ‘You should stop your vessel instantly’ to eliminate any possible confusion. This meaning has persisted through current versions. Mariners can find a copy of the current (1969, revised 2003) edition of the ICOS for free download here.

In an interesting nod to past practice, some local ordinances were enacted to re-use the old meaning of the Lima flag for the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, notably in Alaska and Newport, R.I."

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Ah, but you see, it doesn't matter what "some" people might call it, or even what "others" might call it. What matters is what the authorities in that particular jurisdiction would call it. THEY are the ones who get to set the definitions, not "some" or "others."

Worth noting that UN agreements including UNCLOS and numerous IMO and ITU treaties have no force in law. They are implemented by countries in their own laws - thus the differences between COLREGS and US Inland Rules. Some countries have a history of duplicating international agreements; others (like the US) commonly fiddle with them.

Also worth noting that expectations of consistency and fairness are unfounded. For example, cruisers regularly anchor on the Bahamas Banks before clearing in although that runs counter to UNCLOS and more importantly Bahamian law. Most of the time the Bahamians ignore that. Sometimes they'll go on an enforcement effort and boats get confiscated and owners fined. "But everyone does it" will just irritate the nice RBDF and Bahamas Customs and Immigration officers.

I'm a rule-bound guy. There are enough risks in life over which we have no control without taking additional ones unnecessarily. Other cruisers may be more laissez faire and/or have a higher risk threshold. Their boats, their lives, their finances, their decision.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Worth noting that UN agreements including UNCLOS and numerous IMO and ITU treaties have no force in law. They are implemented by countries in their own laws - thus the differences between COLREGS and US Inland Rules. Some countries have a history of duplicating international agreements; others (like the US) commonly fiddle with them.

No, they haven't "fiddled" with them. International Rules (COLREGs) under US Law are identical to COLREGs implemented by every other signatory nation:


US International Rules:
The International Rules in this book were formalized in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and became effective on July 15, 1977. The Rules (commonly called 72 COLREGS) are part of the Convention, and vessels flying the flags of states ratifying the treaty are bound to the Rules. The United States has ratified this treaty and all United States flag vessels must adhere to these Rules where applicable. President Gerald Ford proclaimed 72 COLREGS and the Congress adopted them as the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977.

The US , like many other countries, does also make their own rules for "internal waters" in accordance with COLREGs Rule 1(b):


COLREGs:

"1 (b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, 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."


US Inland Rules:
"§83.01 (b)(1) These Rules constitute special rules made by an appropriate authority within the meaning of Rule 1(b) of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, including annexes currently in force for the United States (“International Regulations”). "