"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

"Joe" wrote in message | 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.

Cripes Joe...... what would you guys think of my favourite pastime of
sailing at night with no running lights and CRT Radar only?

Anyone with a clue about radar can assume a total "cloaking device" and sail
in blind fog without too much worry. I often shut down all ancillicary
electronics and turn my boat into a "black-out" to sail along at night on
radar alone. My screen is well forward in the cabin and can be clearly seen
from the cockpit. I often use the Autohelm remote control and radar in
conjunction to make night sailing like a video game. If another boat is
approaching I "light-up" with every light on board [ if it suits me to make
an impression]. It scares the hell out of most other boats.

I've sailed by a friend of mine at night in a storm at 0230hrs.... who said
afterwards the I looked for all intents and purposes like a ghost ship
sailing out of an evening fog bank.... by him and into the night. He says he
saw the sails materialize first ... .....and then the boat. He claims it was
a silent and awesome sight to see me pass him so quietly.

You guys are arguing an idiot's point! I'll sail my vessel as. when and how
I please. You won't tell me what when or how! I don't care how good you
think you are..... I'm the Captain! **** the COLREGS! I'll stay out of the
way of faster and bigger vessels or let them know where I am when it suits
me.

CM

Capt. Mooron wrote:




Anyone with a clue about radar can assume a total "cloaking device" and sail
in blind fog without too much worry. I often shut down all ancillicary
electronics and turn my boat into a "black-out" to sail along at night on
radar alone.

Stops those pesky *******s from the RCMP from stopping you when you're
bringing in a couple of hundred kilos of BC bud eh?

My nephew just got his butt arrested during a raid at a million dollar
grow-op, he was the chief horticulturist. Claimed he grew the best
weed in Canada, but I wouldn't know anything about that ;-o .

Cheers
Marty

"Joe" wrote in message
m...

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,
Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"?

Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the
helmsman, or the skipper?



Regards

Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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.

I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has overruled
the CollRegs?

I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to interpret.


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.

I've no idea what Farwell's is.



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.

I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain steerageway.
I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I don't
complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother to
sound their fog horns.


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.

I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually 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.

My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that
would create a very dangerous 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.

I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that you
want to see. I'll try again.

Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in a
TSS.

Visibility 200 yards.

Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn.

Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the
witnesses).

How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame?

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?

It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it
will get caught in fog.


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
m...


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,
Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"?

Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the
helmsman, or the skipper?



Regards

Donal
--


That's easy ... the skipper .... the navigator only advises, eg kinda
like a pilot.

otn

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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.

I would like to see any links that you can find where a court has overruled
the CollRegs?

I may be wrong, but I would expect that the courts are trying to interpret.

There are relatively few case of the courts "overturning" the current law, but
that is because they were carefully crafted to be consistent with earlier
rulings. In the past many rules were nullified becuase there were many
inconsistencies in the various local "pilot rules."

However, the modern rules do have things like the requirement for a lookout even
while at anchor or in a slip - the courts have ruled that isn't really needed.

Also, the concepts "safe speed" and "ordinary practice of seamen" are left
completely in the courts to decide, case by case.




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.

I've no idea what Farwell's is.


"Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road" was the standard text on the rules in
this country for much of the last century. Its out of print now, but I'm not
sure what has replaced it - its still the most common reference used.

Actually, I think I got my copy of the previous edition at Foyle's, in Charing
Cross.




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.

I've already said that I think ships have a duty to maintain steerageway.
I've also said that they seem, on average, to slow to about 12 kts. I don't
complain about this. I do complain about the ones that don't bother to
sound their fog horns.


At bare steerageway, it is rather unlikely that a ship can stop for a kayak, yet
you've claimed it is its duty to be able to do that.


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.

I've been trying to point out that it can be impossible to simultaneously
obey all the rules. I haven't said that the ships should actually stop.


So what are you saying - its not required to obey the law? Maybe you should
consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so that its now
something different from what you think.


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.

My opinion is that ships should not be impeded in channels because that
would create a very dangerous situation.

Again, what are you saying - the rules don't count because they make too much
sense? You asked if the rules are biased towards large ships - the answer is
clearly "yes." In most of the possible situations the rules say the small boat
must not impede the large ship. That is the rule; it doesn't need your
blessing, it doesn't even have to make sense (though I agree that it does).




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.

I think that I have answered it. I just haven't given the answer that you
want to see. I'll try again.

Imagine that a collision occurrs between a container ship and a kayak in a
TSS.

Visibility 200 yards.

Ship, under Radar alone, speed 20 kts, not sounding fog horn.

Kayak, crossing TSS at right angles, in company with other kayaks (the
witnesses).

How do you think that the courts would apportion the blame?

The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your point?
What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then the
ship might well be held blameless. I've always agreed that if there was
anything the ship could have reasonably done that would have reduced the risk,
it could have some serious legal exposure. However, the kayak, simply by his
proximity to the ship is in violation.



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?

It doesn't have the right to ignore its responsibilities. Sometimes it
will get caught in fog.


Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically transported to
the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there, at a
time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that.

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
| Stops those pesky *******s from the RCMP from stopping you when you're
| bringing in a couple of hundred kilos of BC bud eh?

They can't stop what they can't see..... ;-)

|
| My nephew just got his butt arrested during a raid at a million dollar
| grow-op, he was the chief horticulturist. Claimed he grew the best
| weed in Canada, but I wouldn't know anything about that ;-o .

Was that the big Brewery Bust??? Crap that was awesome! They should give
those guys a Government contract and let them hire staff!


CM

"Donal" wrote in message

| Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the
| helmsman, or the skipper?

The Helmsman..... which could be the Captain or the Navigator depending on
the circumstance or watch.

CM

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

| Now we're back to the beginning. The kayaker was not magically
transported to
| the middle of the English Channel, he has deliberately chosen to be there,
at a
| time that had a potential for thick fog. He has no business doing that.

Jeff for cripes sake..... a friggin Kayaker??!!! That's the equivalent of
a log with a person dog paddling it!

It's a no brainer... the kayaker is dead and good riddance.... unless it's a
cute babe and then I'll have to take issue with any vessel putting her in
harm's way! Especially if it's a naked babe in a see-through kayak!

Crap it's been a long stint up North and this rum is going down entirely to
well! ;-)

CM