I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you
idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not
read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss.
Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout.
Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your
language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case,
allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how
Rule 5 defines 'proper'.
"A proper look-out is defined by every vessel
at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as
well as by hearing as well as by all available
means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances
and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of
the situation and of the risk of collision."
Jumpin' Jehosaphat, but you people are retarded!
CN
OzOne wrote in message news
Define 'proper'.
Is it a lookout for every minute while underway,
or sufficient to avoid an incident.
Radar and active warning devices were more than capable of waking the
skipper in the event of an approaching vessel in plenty of time to
keep a lookout properly to avoid any incident.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:23:31 -0500, Capt. NealŪ
scribbled thusly:
BBob, you're as stupid as Vito.
Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out.
Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . .
Rule 5
Look-out
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well
as by all available means appropriate in the
prevailing circumstances and conditions so
as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision."
Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even
a Bobsprit clone might understand.
"A proper look-out is defined by every vessel
at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as
well as by hearing as well as by all available
means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances
and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of
the situation and of the risk of collision."
I hope this helps.
CN
wrote in message ...
On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan"
wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan"
The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a
proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to
adjucate on a case by case basis.
In that case there must be some prior cases.
I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence.
I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one
has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and
listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for
someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that
the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it
would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you
have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is
neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the
colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your
watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case,
would determine whether or not the watch had been proper.
BB
Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.