"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that
taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with
ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and
suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS?

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it would
clear at dawn (4 am).


I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.





If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to
a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred
yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the
basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short
lived.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have to
do this every time that I go out.



TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???


Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected.

It depends upon the climate.


Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on
crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out
there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their
capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being
there.

And, as you can guess, I




The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know that
it is true.


For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a kayak







Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However, in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?




And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of the
ship's crew!


Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.

You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.



Regards


Donal
--