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

So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, 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. How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes 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, 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.



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?

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



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.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

First, I would like to explain that I use different computers to read the
ng. I haven't replied to this before, because I didn't see it.
Anyway, there are some reasonable questions posed, so I will answer them.



"Donal" wrote in message
...

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it
would
clear at dawn (4 am).


You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I
think
you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is.

Well, it was questionable. However the forecast was quite clear. The
fog (mist) was definitely scheduled to lift at dawn. We were leaving St.
Vaast, which meant a 2-3 hour run up the coast, followed by 4 hours before
we were going to hit the "lanes". So we felt completely safe in deciding to
go. 5 boats were involved in this discussion, and one of them had a radar.

As it turned out, the fog didn't lift by the time that we hit the lanes.
Would you really have turned back? We all had work to go to the next day.






I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of
going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.


I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and
before we
got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I
had the
radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes.

Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We
had
gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would
hold off
until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we
left
during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of
Outward
Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig,
used by
the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not
stay that
night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have
had a
serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on
the
"main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside,
where they
only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he
took the
"main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to
navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have
to
do this every time that I go out.


Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards
wide,
but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see
kayaks out
there?

I'm not sure about the width of the harbour entrance .... maybe 150 yds.

The Island must be 2 miles, (20 minutes to Wooton). However, I usually
sail across, and I am going to a particular destination. It may well be a
mile at the narrowest point. My charts are on the boat, but I really think
that the distance is more like 2 miles.


There are all sorts of vessels out there. That includes kayaks, jet-skis,
kite-surfers, 12 ft fishng boats, row boats, ferries, hovercraft, etc.

I guess that I see kayaks there, about three times each season.






TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said
"people do
it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion

Hmmm. I can't say that.



..


That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know
that
it is true.

Of course its true. But what's the point?


You seem to be saying that big ships can proceed as if there weren't any
kayaks in the vicinity. I disagree.






For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in
thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to
identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has
probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of
tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're
even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease
in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have
never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a
kayak


This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with
"appropriate"
vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on
radar
(or visually, until its too late),

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



and you say the small boat doesn't have the
resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the
encounter in the first place.

Ahem...........

The big boat also has the resources to avoid the collision, does it not?

The CollRegs do *NOT* presume that size has the advantage. Do they?





Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not
be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to
avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However,
in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid
a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or
not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?

In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've
frequently
seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be
crossing,

Not in fog, you haven't!

such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or
trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the
skipper
is in the head!

Good assumption.









And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of
the
ship's crew!

Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should
spring
for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in
practice
has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships
gotta do.
We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its
really
the needs of society and global economics that are running the show.


Ahhhh. Are you suggesting that the CollRegs are biased towards the
commercial operater?

I think that you are mistaken.


I'll read the rest tomorrow. It's getting late.



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote ...

We all had work to go to the next day.

Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs?

SV

Wow, I'm amazed that someone else is still following this thread! I guess we'll
have to keep it going!
--
-jeff www.sv-loki.com
If you can't say something nice, say something surrealistic. -Zippy




"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote ...

We all had work to go to the next day.

Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs?

SV

Jeff Morris wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed that someone else is still following this thread! I guess we'll
have to keep it going!
--

Probably more than you realize, it's been quite entertaining, thank you!

Cheers
Marty

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote ...

We all had work to go to the next day.

Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs?

No, absolutely not.

In the same way, the big ships *should* go slower than they do.


Regards

Donal
--

"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
--

Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the issues.

First, you've implied repeatedly that the ColRegs are the "final word" on the
law. This is simply not so; the courts have the final say. There are a number
of issues that are left entirely to the courts, including the meaning of phrases
such as "proper lookout" and "safe speed." Attempting to intuit the exact
meaning of these phrases (as well as many other aspects of the ColRegs) without
considering the applicable court decisions is futile. For reference, see my
extract of Farwell's a couple of weeks ago, or I can repost.

Second, you've claimed that a safe speed is one that permits stopping when a
hazard is spotted visually. Again, this is not so. Perhaps a bit of history:
The old version of the rules used the phrase "Every vessel ... shall, in the
fog, ... go at a moderate speed". There were various versions of the meaning
of "moderate speed," but the common one was "the speed at which the stopping
distance is half the distance of the visibility." The new rules, however,
wanted to address the much higher speeds vessel were achieving, and the use of
radar, and so they replaced "speed to be moderate in fog" with "safe speed at
all times." However, there is little mention in the rules of what a "safe
speed" actually is, that has been left to the courts. While the concept of
"moderate speed" may still apply in crowded harbors, especially without radar,
the courts have ruled that a "safe speed" may be higher in open water, dedicated
shipping lanes, etc. They have also been clear the slowing down below
steerageway is in itself unsafe, so there are numerous cases where the safe
speed was deemed to be 6 to 20 knots, depending on a variety of conditions. In
the case I cited, the investigating body (the Canadian Transportation Safety
Board) ruled that in zero visibility, the ferry doing 14 knots, but which slowed
to 10 as the risk of collision increased, was traveling at a safe speed; the
fishing boat however was going too fast at 8 knots, because of the poor quality
of it radar and watch. BTW, this incident was in a protected channel, near
shore, conceivably where a kayak could have been.

The implication of your claim is that in zero visibility all large ship traffic
should stop. We know this does not happen, but even so, would it be safe? For
the ship to drift would be completely unsafe. Anchoring in a TSS is strongly
frowned upon, and may be impossible. It is pretty clear that slowing below
steerageway, perhaps 6 knots, would be both impractical and unsafe. And what is
the stopping distance at 6 knots? For a large ship it would like be hundreds,
perhaps 1000 yards or more. In fact, in the minute it takes to "reverse
engines" it would travel 600 feet - a distance the could easily exceed
visibility. It would seem pretty clear that the courts are willing to permit
a vessel to travel faster that what in the old days would be considered a
"moderate speed."

You've questioned whether the ColRegs are "biased" towards larger ships - I
claim the answer is, in some ways, yes! Consider that Rules 9 and 10 are
essentially a litany of situations where smaller vessels "shall not impede"
larger ones. In fact, vessels are advised to avoid crossing a TSS, and, if not
using a TSS, should avoid it by as large a margin as possible. When you
consider that in most harbors that large ships visit they come in from well
offshore in a TSS, and then enter Narrow Channels, its clear that they are
favored by the rules in almost every situation.

This brings us to the situation that started this - the kayak in the fog in the
shipping lane. There is an aspect of this that I don't think you've every
addressed: the kayak "shall not impede the safe passage" of the large vessel in
the TSS. This would be a difficult task for the kayak even in good visibility;
it would seem completely impossible to fulfill this obligation in the fog.
Yet, you've insisted it has every right to be there, and that it is the
obligation large ships to avoid the kayak, including stopping if there exists
the remote chance that there could be a kayak in the vicinity. Why is it that
the kayak has every right to completely ignore its responsibilities?


--
-jeff www.sv-loki.com
"I like sailing because it is the sport which demands the least energy" Albert
Einstein




"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

First, I would like to explain that I use different computers to read the
ng. I haven't replied to this before, because I didn't see it.
Anyway, there are some reasonable questions posed, so I will answer them.



"Donal" wrote in message
...

No, I mean that fog can appear when you don't expect it to? Equally, it
sometimes fails to dissappear when the forecast says it will.

The worst pea-soupers that I have found myself in were both unexpected
according to the forecast. On one occasion, I set off at 2 am. The
shipping lanes were about 7 hours away, and the forecast said that it
would
clear at dawn (4 am).


You're not describing a venture that I think a kayak should embark on. I
think
you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say it is.

Well, it was questionable. However the forecast was quite clear. The
fog (mist) was definitely scheduled to lift at dawn. We were leaving St.
Vaast, which meant a 2-3 hour run up the coast, followed by 4 hours before
we were going to hit the "lanes". So we felt completely safe in deciding to
go. 5 boats were involved in this discussion, and one of them had a radar.

As it turned out, the fog didn't lift by the time that we hit the lanes.
Would you really have turned back? We all had work to go to the next day.






I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to
cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of
going
out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

Visibility can change from 500m to 50m in a couple of seconds.


I've been there. Last summer we weighed anchor with 3 miles vis, and
before we
got 1/4 mile it was down to 50 yards. Fortunately, it felt "ripe" so I
had the
radar warmed up - we had 2 close encounters within 5 minutes.

Actually this was a case that would support your claims fairly well: We
had
gone out the day before because the forecast said the bad weather would
hold off
until late the next day, but it had already closed in by morning, so we
left
during the first break. Where we had been anchored was a hangout of
Outward
Bound "pulling boats" - a 30 foot open rowboat with a modest ketch rig,
used by
the local camp for overnight "character building" trips. They did not
stay that
night, but if the had, and had they taken our route back, they would have
had a
serious problem. Thinking about it however, I've hardly ever seen them on
the
"main channel" side of the harbor, they usually stay on the backside,
where they
only have to cross a couple of secondary channels. The only reason he
took the
"main channel" route is that we couldn't pass under a bridge.

Well, if I want to visit the "Island Harbour" marina, I have to
navigate
three shipping lanes.

I have to go alongside the main shipping channel at Portsmouth Haatbour
entrance, and then I have to cross two major channels. In fact, I have
to
do this every time that I go out.


Looking at the chart, the Portsmouth Channal seems only a 100 or so yards
wide,
but the hop over to the Island is over a mile. How often do you see
kayaks out
there?

I'm not sure about the width of the harbour entrance .... maybe 150 yds.

The Island must be 2 miles, (20 minutes to Wooton). However, I usually
sail across, and I am going to a particular destination. It may well be a
mile at the narrowest point. My charts are on the boat, but I really think
that the distance is more like 2 miles.


There are all sorts of vessels out there. That includes kayaks, jet-skis,
kite-surfers, 12 ft fishng boats, row boats, ferries, hovercraft, etc.

I guess that I see kayaks there, about three times each season.






TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them.

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

Well, how many kayaks do you see out there? In the fog? If you said
"people do
it every weekend" that might shed new light on the discussion

Hmmm. I can't say that.



.


That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.

This is all correct, but you're leaving out several key issues.

No, I am not leaving out anything.

The CollRegs place a duty upon every vessel to avoid collisions at all
times. Don't make me look it up - you know that it is true, and I know
that
it is true.

Of course its true. But what's the point?


You seem to be saying that big ships can proceed as if there weren't any
kayaks in the vicinity. I disagree.






For instance,
what speed are you claiming is appropriate for a ship in a TSS in
thick
fog?
You've already said that most vessels go 12 knots, many do 18 in your
experience. 12 knots is 20 feet/second, so in time it takes to
identify
the
hazard, report to the helm, "put on the brakes" etc, the ship has
probably
already run over the kayak. If we add in the stopping distance of
tanker,
its
hard to see how a large ship can take any effective action if they're
even
going
at minimum steerageway. So are you requiring that all traffic cease
in
thick
fog because of the possibility of a kayak?

Well, if you want to be totally pedantic about the interpretation of the
CollRegs, then the big ships should come to a halt. However, I have
never
advocated such a course of action. My understanding is that everybody
should behave as if there were other boats out there, and behave
accordingly. Thus, when Peter is whizzing about the Antarctic, I don't
think that he should be worried aabout the possibility of meeting a
kayak


This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with
"appropriate"
vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on
radar
(or visually, until its too late),

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



and you say the small boat doesn't have the
resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the
encounter in the first place.

Ahem...........

The big boat also has the resources to avoid the collision, does it not?

The CollRegs do *NOT* presume that size has the advantage. Do they?





Mind you, I'm not claiming the ship should not post a lookout, or not
be
prepared for the possibility, or not make all possible efforts to
avoid
the
collision; to do so would be both reprehensible and illegal. However,
in
practice, these efforts would likely (often, at least) be futile. To
claim its
OK for the kayak to be there because large ships have a duty to avoid
a
collision is meaningless.

I've never said that. I've said that the kayak might be there.

In reality, it doesn't really matter if the kayak might be there, or
not.


The big ships should still obey the CollRegs by posting appropriate
lookouts.

Perhaaps you are suggesting that ships can ignore the CollRegs because
kayaks have no business in the lanes, in fog?

In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've
frequently
seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be
crossing,

Not in fog, you haven't!

such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or
trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the
skipper
is in the head!

Good assumption.









And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

Who cares? I thought that we were discussing the responsibilities of
the
ship's crew!

Why? Farwell's talks about that better then we ever will - you should
spring
for a copy! Frankly, I think its a bit futile to claim that a kayak in
practice
has the same "rights" as ships in the open ocena. Ships do what ships
gotta do.
We talk about them as though everything is dictated by ColRegs, but its
really
the needs of society and global economics that are running the show.


Ahhhh. Are you suggesting that the CollRegs are biased towards the
commercial operater?

I think that you are mistaken.


I'll read the rest tomorrow. It's getting late.



Regards


Donal
--

The COLREGS summed up..... smaller gives way to bigger in all
circumstances!

CM

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
| Rather than go at this line by line, I'll try to summarize a few of the
issues.
| snipped Yada Yada Yada

"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