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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
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?

First you say you don't, but then you say a ship must be able to stop in time to
avoid a vessel spotted visually. That seem pretty specific - especially at zero
visibility.



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?

Yes. You said recently:

"IMHO, the CollRegs say that a ship should be able to avoid a vessel that is
spotted visually."

If vision is down to a few dozen feet, the only way a large ship could comply
with that is by not moving. Or do you have a different spin on this?




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?

Yup. I think I've even quoted cases.

It would help, if the evidence came from
international sources, rather than domestic ones.

The ferry incident I've quoted is Canadian. Farwell's is co-authored by
Commander Richard A. Smith, Royal Navy. When my edition was published he was
the commanding officer of the HMS Achilles. Although a majority of the cases
they quote are from US courts, Farwell's is definately teaching the
"international" law. BTW, one British court opinion they cite was one of the
first cases where the moderate speed "half distance" rule has judged to not be
the "rule of law," and that each case must be judged on its own merits.

Another specific case mentioned in Farwell's involves two vessels , one without
radar the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 7 knots in 1 mile vis in a busy area,
another with only .75 mile vis but a good radar was allowed 8 to 9 knots. This
was listed as a specific case where radar permitted a higher speed. The
footnote cited: "The Hagen [1973] 1 Lloyd's Rep 257" so I assume this was a
British case.


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"?


Certainly not by large ship standards. If there were an incident, they'd have a
lot of 'splaining to do!

On the other hand, Maine Lobsta Men single hand all the time. One comment in
Farwell's is that local customs cannot override the Lookout requirement, but in
practice, at least for small boats, they do.



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.


No - you've said that the ship has to be able to stop, based on visual input.
That becomes an impossible task in real pea soup; for most heavy ships its
impossible in anything considered "thick fog." You seem to go back and forth on
this, first insisting that ship must be able to stop, then claiming you don't
intend the obvious implication of that. So perhaps you can take us through
this - what speed might be appropriate, and what are the parameters that would
allow the ship to avoid hitting the kayak?




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


I don't think so. The only way that works is if the river is known to be free
of small craft that might not show on radar.


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


Joe will have to answer that.






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.

Now that's scary! Wouldn't that mean that a ship doesn't have to worry about
the kayak, because it would never violate the rules by impeding its safe
passage?

But you didn't answer the question - do you keep a lookout while anchored or
moored?



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.


Your helmsman has "full visibility" in thick fog? Does he have radar vision?

Jeff,
Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can
navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster
including
lanod can see thru thick fog without radar.

Joe

-jeff