"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
politician

(repeat above)

I play devil's advocate, occasionally.
I have learned to truly detest almost all politicians in the last couple of
years.

G No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout ....
other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when
available.

I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm,
or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm
quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar,
and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout
would be useless because his boat is too noisy.



"Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least
we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to
listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds
around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to
and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather
is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to.

I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make
no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the
lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the
VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a
lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you?

.... more on VHF later.


Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with
possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of
VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out

I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong
vessel.



or
backed up with information from the radar,

I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am
about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio
contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel.
You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have
spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you
are actually talking to a third vessel.

or other sources, as to it's
feasibility.
Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly.

Now you are really trying it on.









Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had
dissappeared. Here is another location.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf

I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I
can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are
making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the
use of radar, without a proper plot ....
i.e., if you don't back up the
basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you
are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF
communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee.

So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):-

"Marine
Superintendents would be well advised to
prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct
their officers to comply with the Collision
Regulations."


That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it?
(BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.)







snip
No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.



Addressed????

Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a
boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at
least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your
actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels
made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up
that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe.

I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely
certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on
the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate
with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking
to the right vessel.


BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about
VHF communication for "passing agreements".


Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound
like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international
safety standards.


Regards


Donal
--