"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like

Apoligies. I do usually snip.

Donal wrote:


Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a
fog
horn?

Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't
find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the
point or advantage?

Many people view the rules from their own perspective. Many sailors think
that power gives way to sail, even uf the sailboat is the overtaking vessel.
Commercial seamen tend to behave as if they were in a TSS, even when they
are not (a real issue in my waters). Fishermen leave a basket permanently
fixed aloft.

I had a power boat for 10 years, and five years ago I changed to sail. I
find it truly astonishing that these two groups can be so completely
ignorant of the other.


After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a
knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra
set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him
who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident.
.... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no
accident, don't get caught.)

I would estimate that 2/3rds of ships were not sounding their horns the last
time that I crossed in fog.




Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything
that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.

Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular
individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who
are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt.

I understand this point of view. However, on balance, I think that
personal freedom is more important.




He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a

menace.

He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy
waterway", you assume.

I was under the impression that he was talking about a major river, and that
it was a fairly busy part. of the river.

I've repeatedly said that when

You also don't know how good a visual lookout he
is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though
his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he
is or is not a menace.

He has stated that he is the only lookout, and that he is only watching the
Radar, and listening to the VHF. He claims that this meets the CollRegs'
requirement for a lookout by both "sight and hearing".




snip


I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.

I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as
the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) ....
conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout
and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone
designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions
warrant.

I agree.

snip
In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".

This would surprise me! I don't think that I've ever heard of a British
court using a foreign court's ruling as "precedent". The only exception is
where an internarional treaty has ceded soverignity is a specific area, and
a court has been established under the terms of the treaty. eg Human
Rights issues can be decided by the Internation Court of Human Rights as
long as Britian remains a signatory to the treaty. I don't know that an
IMO court exists.




What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must
behave
accordingly.

If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in
a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak
has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does.

I agree. Everybody involved has responsibilities.

My disagreement with Jeff and Joe, is that they think that big ships can
assume that the area is clear of small vessels because "they have no
business being there", or because "looking at the Radar screen *is* keeping
a lookout by sight".





horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

BG You're reaching to try and make a point ...

Honestly! I've seen this close up. I've come close enough to big ships to
be able to see that there was nobody on the forward part of the deck, when
the ship wasn't sounding a fog horn. Why do you think that I get wound up
about it? That's why I bought a radar.

I had a chat with an ex-merchant mariner (navigator). He explained that
British flagged vessels maintained higher standards than vessels registered
under flags of convenience. He said that British flagged vessels always
had at least two people on the bridge, and would always post a lookout "on
the bow" in fog.


the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.

I've answered this point a few times already. I really don't expect the
shipping to come to a halt. I definitely believe that they should maintain
steerageway, and quite honestly, if they slow down to 12 kts, then they are
at least playing the game.




The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.

Very arguably! Fog can roll in in a few minutes. It can happen when it
is not forecast. There is an inshore lane in the Solent which runs very
close to the shore ( 200 yards???). It would be very plausable for a kayak
to get caught on the wrong side. It would be downright stupid for the
kayak not to make for shore.

The kayak must not impede the ship, and the ship must travel at a safe
speed.

How can anyone claim that the ship is excused her obligations, but that the
kayak will be shown no mercy at all?

Jeff has suggested that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards
commercial vessels, and therefore he says that the ship may proceed at an
unsafe speed, whereas the kayak should stay where he is until the fog
clears.





A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it
won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is*
breaching
rules.

The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to
avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as
responsible to avoid collision as is the ship.

I agree. However, the kayak is not in breach of the rules until it
actually "impedes" a large vessel in a TSS.

Jeff has argued that the kayak is in breach because it cannot "guarantee"
that it will not impede.




What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to
make

it

before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?

Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same.
.... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more
visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their
shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship.

I agree.


snip
Which courts? Are they "International" courts?

Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue
..... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular
nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international"

It was late! I don't believe that national courts can reach conclusions
that affect the interpretation of the CollRegs in other jurisdictions(sp?).
Jeff has mentioned a local court a few times, and I don't see how that has
any bearing on the subject. Nevertheless, I would be willing to read, and
comment on, the case if someone provides a link.


Sorry about the lengthy answer. You'll have to ask fewer questions next
time!!!


Regards


Donal
--