Risk of not checking in, new country / island

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think the point is that while safety of crew and vessel always take precedence, the law (in most countries) is pretty clear. You must proceed to a port of entry directly, and you must not stop before hand, except in the above circumstances. Anchoring appears to be considered stopping in most jurisdictions.

Should you stop due to fatigue, a border officer will determine if this is justified. If you are short-handed crew (as I am), then it only seems prudent to take this fact into account when planning the entry.

Like I said, border folks are (mostly ) human. If you are reasonable, they likely will be as well. But there’s no guarantee. And in my personal example, it was clear the fatigue and unsafe waters reason, which seemed legit to me, was not.

You're talking about U.S waters, right? The Americans are famously anal about this, and even make foreign flag vessels check in and out every time they sail from port to port within U.S. waters (exactly the same regime which exists in Russian waters). This is not the norm elsewhere. Anchoring without going ashore out of necessity because of the need for rest, is generally considered innocent passage. In fact, the UNCLOS treaty says so:


"2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation.. . "



I don't know any European country (except perhaps Russia) where anyone would care about your anchoring overnight on the way to checking in somewhere, without going on shore.


The Germans, for example, sure don't care. When you transit the Kiel Canal you are welcome to overnight at various places, some of them free, in the Canal. People do go on shore even and no one cares.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You're talking about U.S waters, right? The Americans are famously anal about this

When going to Ketchikan (Alaska port of entry) from Canada, it is more than a day-sail in US waters for slower boats. US customs will happily let you anchor halfway in Foggy Bay (but nowhere else) to make it a 2-day passage ... But you have to ask for permission to do this before you leave Canada, if you want to be greeted with smiles when you arrive in Ketchikan.

That's probably about as generous as the US gets.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Are you saying Indonesia does not operate under the same laws as the rest of the world in this regard? If so, then great. It’s an exception. But this thread isn’t about entering Indonesia. It’s about whether one can legally stop before clearing into a foreign nation. You can’t (except, apparently in Indonesia).

If you anchor before clearing in, you are risking legal ramifications. But if the choice is between legal problems and serious risk of harm to crew or vessel, then most people would choose the former. Still doesn’t change the reality of the legal situation. And you better hope you have one of those “human” officers.

This is getting far from the OP issues. Indonesia has one of the busiest shipping lanes using the right of innocent passage. Shipping to and from the Singapore Straits (Malacca Straits) to Australia or the Pacific regularly take the shipping lanes through Indonesia. Indonesia specifically calls out the lanes and a few other limitations that differ from the UNCLOS right of innocent passage.
Its an area 3,000 miles long with 17,000 islands, so enforcement is not easy.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Paul L

This is getting far from the OP issues. Indonesia has one of the busiest shipping lanes using the right of innocent passage. Shipping to and from the Singapore Straits (Malacca Straits) to Australia or the Pacific regularly take the shipping lanes through Indonesia. Indonesia specifically calls out the lanes and a few other limitations that differ from the UNCLOS right of innocent passage.
Its an area 3,000 miles long with 17,000 islands, so enforcement is not easy.

For more info see UNCLOS Article 36 - Archipelagic Sea Lanes

These are their declared ASLs

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Anchoring without going ashore out of necessity because of the need for rest, is generally considered innocent passage. In fact, the UNCLOS treaty says so:

"2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation.. . "

I guess the question turns on the definition of “necessity” and "incidental to ordinary navigation.” Earlier posters on this thread suggested anchoring just because you are tired does not meet the criteria. It certainly seems to be the case in Canada/USA.

As I keep saying, safety of crew and vessel are always paramount. If, in the opinion of the captain, anchoring is required, then that would seem to meet the UNCLOS standards. But it will be the border officer who adjudicates the question. In my case it was made clear to me that my view of necessary did not square with the officer’s.

[Jim Cate]

The only thing he really cared about was whether we had a gun on board. I said yes. He said, good, don't go anywhere without it.

I think that you get the same line clearing into Texas, don't you?

Jim

(not political, just a wise ass remark)

[Belezar]

I have done it a couple times in the Caribbean while chartering. Time is short and often offices are closed. They don’t care if you go ashore at night and eat. They don’t care about your Q flag. Waited around the next morning - no one shows, later. It’s a risk, but very small, and if your paperwork is off they just roll their eyes. There is also preclear out and 24 hours which has some wiggle room. I wouldn’t do it anywhere else though. Of course there aren’t many places that every day is a new country, or two.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't know any European country (except perhaps Russia) where anyone would care about your anchoring overnight on the way to checking in somewhere, without going on shore.

Agree, but I would note that this is NOT the situation that the OP posed. He was talking about anchoring overnight, and then moving on, without any intention of ever checking in. Whole different situation, and a very important difference, too.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Agree, but I would note that this is NOT the situation that the OP posed. He was talking about anchoring overnight, and then moving on, without any intention of ever checking in. Whole different situation, and a very important difference, too.

I agree, and the important difference is that if you never go on shore and go straight on to another country, then you are truly in transit and that really looks like innocent passage.


Different countries interpret the law differently, but anchoring overnight to get a night's rest in transit on your way somewhere else, as part of your passage plan, sure sounds like "ordinary navigation" to me. I would think few countries would object to this.



You can also just call the coast guard and discuss it with them. You can tell them that you intend to exercise your right to innocent passage by anchoring overnight in such and such a place and no one will go on shore, and you will sail on to whateverstan the next morning, and ask if they are ok with that. If they're not OK with that, then go check in, or don't stop. In most countries, the coast guard is friendly and helpful and if they don't have instructions to crack down on that, they will just tell you fine, go ahead, and then coast guard patrols will likely be informed that you are ok and they won't bother you.




I would not hesitate to do this myself so long as I have checked and have no information about intolerance to this in that particular state. It is truly stupid to check in and check out of a country where you don't even plan to set foot on the ground.


For many years, I have migrated 1500 miles from the Solent to Finland and back every year. The UK and all the countries in between are all EU, so there is not supposed to be customs control, but since UK is not Schengen, if you have non-European citizens on board you are supposed to go through passport control as soon you leave the UK and enter another European country.


I normally did this on Helgoland after sailing nonstop from Cowes to there, about 3 days and nights of sailing.



But the last two times I've done that route we skipped Helgoland for one or another reason, and I ended up just not bothering to check in at all. I have an EU residence permit, and the rest of my crew is always EU citizens, so it would not be too heinous if I got caught, but once you are away from Belgium and Holland really no one cares any more anyway. It's been more than two years since I've even been boarded, although I cross at least 7 or 8 international borders on the way, each way.



I'm not recommending that to anyone, but just to show that one can make a certain judgement call based on local practice. I wouldn't try this in the Caribbean, or for God's sake, in the U.S.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
Different countries interpret the law differently, but anchoring overnight to get a night's rest in transit on your way somewhere else, as part of your passage plan, sure sounds like "ordinary navigation" to me. I would think few countries would object to this...

I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the behaviour of "getting a night's rest" looks pretty identical to the behaviour of smuggling.

"I swear officer that I only anchored for the night to sleep, the bales of marijuana that washed up just inshore of me must have fallen off some other boat."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the behaviour of "getting a night's rest" looks pretty identical to the behaviour of smuggling.

"I swear officer that I only anchored for the night to sleep, the bales of marijuana that washed up just inshore of me must have fallen off some other boat."

Indeed. Another good reason to call the coast guard and let them know who you are and what your intentions are. That is a lot less suspicious behavior than just rocking up and surreptitiously dropping the hook, and then scooting off before dawn.



And they might even want to come pay you a visit, but that would be far preferable in most cases (depending I guess on the country and the level of corruption) to going out of your way and losing a day or two finding a POE and checking and out.


Assuming of course you don't actually have anything to hide

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

........


You can also just call the coast guard and discuss it with them. You can tell them that you intend to exercise your right to innocent passage by anchoring overnight in such and such a place and no one will go on shore, and you will sail on to whateverstan the next morning, and ask if they are ok with that. If they're not OK with that, then go check in, or don't stop. In most countries, the coast guard is friendly and helpful and if they don't have instructions to crack down on that, they will just tell you fine, go ahead, and then coast guard patrols will likely be informed that you are ok and they won't bother you.




.......

The vast majority of countries that I would consider stopping in would not have any VHF coast guard to contact in the area. Throwing out phrases like 'right of innocent passage' to those that do have VHF and have marginal English over a radio is likely to end in silence or a black hole conversation. When there are serious language issues it sometimes ends up worse, not better, making radio contact. I once called a harbor master to ask for premission to enter a harbor. I wasn't sure if I really needed premission. The call was all in Spanish over a not so clear radio. The end result was I was now sure that the harbor master said either I could come in or that I shouldn't come in. Attempts at clarification ended in radio silence. It would have been better to just head straight in.

In places that do have good VHF CG contact, like Australia or New Zealand, you are likely to get a rational response and probably explicit permissuon.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Paul L

The vast majority of countries that I would consider stopping in would not have any VHF coast guard to contact in the area. Throwing out phrases like 'right of innocent passage' to those that do have VHF and have marginal English over a radio is likely to end in silence or a black hole conversation. When there are serious language issues it sometimes ends up worse, not better, making radio contact. I once called a harbor master to ask for premission to enter a harbor. I wasn't sure if I really needed premission. The call was all in Spanish over a not so clear radio. The end result was I was now sure that the harbor master said either I could come in or that I shouldn't come in. Attempts at clarification ended in radio silence. It would have been better to just head straight in.

In places that do have good VHF CG contact, like Australia or New Zealand, you are likely to get a rational response and probably explicit permissuon.

Kind of thread drift, but language is an important issue.


There is a lot of different trouble you can get into in Central and South American waters without Spanish language skills. The language barrier is more your problem, than theirs.


You can be more sure of getting along on English in Europe, particularly Northern Europe, but at the far end of the Baltic you may need Russian, as not all the harbormasters or traffic control operators in the Baltic states have any English.



In French waters it is awfully good to have some French.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is a lot of different trouble you can get into in Central and South American waters without Spanish language skills. The language barrier is more your problem, than theirs

Actually, it isn’t. The use of English (ability to speak and understand maritime English) is mandatory worldwide. I had to go to Maritime English class and pass the exam to get my general operators certificate. So do the Latin American radio operators. The problem is the heavy dialects, but all the officials on VHF radio speak English

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Actually, it isn’t. The use of English (ability to speak and understand maritime English) is mandatory worldwide. I had to go to Maritime English class and pass the exam to get my general operators certificate. So do the Latin American radio operators. The problem is the heavy dialects, but all the officials on VHF radio speak English

It maybe mandatory, but that has nothing to do with actually having an understandable conversation over the VHF in many parts of the world. Large commercial ports will be better, but areas where cruisers go will often have little useful English over the VHF. I can think of dozens of examples over our cruising range.