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

OK! Let's try to rewind a bit.

Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate
under Radar alone?

The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely
that in
the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed.
However,
nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe
speed is
some exact function of the degree of visibility.

Have I ever suggested such a thing?


Before radar, attempts where
made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the
visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't
anything
that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced
to
below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway.

Have I ever suggested that they must stop?

With a proper radar
setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be
prudent
without radar.


Uhh ohhh!!!!

I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some
evidence to back this up? It would help, if the evidence came from
international sources, rather than domestic ones. After all, the CollRegs
are in fact the "*International* regulations for the prevention of
collisions at sea"..






So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required,

Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping
a lookout by sight"?


the vessel
can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman,
who is
likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted
to
also function as the lookout.

Agreed.


How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes well.

The lookout is there because things do not always go well.




Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the
ColRegs is
that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup,

I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a
pragmatic view.

I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that
they should exercise a degree of caution.



the
courts have not seen it that way. And if you insist that this "letter of
the
law" is all important, overriding everything else, I might ask where in
the
ColRegs there is an exception for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a
slip?
Rule 5 simply says "at all times," it doesn't say "when underway." In
fact,
the courts have ruled that a "proper lookout" is satisfied by "no lookout"
in
many situations. (Though there have been odd cases where the courts said
that a
boat anchored near a channel needed a lookout to warn off other boats.)

The point is, the concept of what is a proper lookout, and what is a safe
speed
is rather variable. The courts have clearly held that if there was a
reasonable chance that a better lookout might have prevented a collision,
than
the vessel is held liable. But if a proper lookout is posted, the vessel
is
permitted to effectively navigate on radar alone.

What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as
Joe says?


I'd like to see a link to such a case.






That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the
Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels
anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't
you
believe in the ColRegs?


I have complete faith in them.


The lookout is required, but he isn't the one driving the boat.

Of course he isn't.




So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you
can't
run on radar alone?"

What did you mean by that?

This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is.
" Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but
that is
moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. "


I meant that although the lookout is required, his contribution to the
actual
driving of the boat will be minimal. The helmsman is relying on radar
alone.
If it truly is "zero visibility" this is rather obvious. (Of course, the
fog
often varies so that if the fog lifts, the lookout may get a chance to
contribute, but then it isn't "zero visibility.")

BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole
premise of
that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs.

There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the
navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility.
Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering.


Regards


Donal
--