"Donal" wrote in message ...
"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"?

Look it up in your on-shore yachtmaster guide.


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

Gee Lanod.........on my boat thats all the same person.

Does it take 3 yachtmasters to navigate a boat?

Joe
MSV RedCloud






Regards

Donal
--

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"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.


100% correct.


Let's wait and see what Joe's answer is.



Regards


Donal
--

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
"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"?

Look it up in your on-shore yachtmaster guide.


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

Gee Lanod.........on my boat thats all the same person.

That is exactly what I thought!

Try to imagine a boat where the examiner is sitting in the cockpit, along
with the helmsman. Now imagine that the navigator is down below, with his
charts. The ports (windows) are covered.

Why can the navigator not do some navigation?

Regards


Donal
--

Capt. Mooron wrote:



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



Wasn't quite that big, they only had three barns full of lights,
blowers, pipes, driers, heaters, insulation, filters......

A few miles north of Kingston and about two weeks earlier.

Cheers
Marty

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"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."

I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the
CollRegs.



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.



snip
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.

I don't go into London any more. I got a parking ticket for being 3
minutes late, about 10 years ago. I haven't been back since.






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.

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors
had the same idea.

In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car
behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the
actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was
reached.

After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver
is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the
accident. (this is *UK* law).

At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS.

I believe that you know this, as well as I do.







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?

Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying
that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within
sight of their victim in the TSS.


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).

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that
commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common
sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever
reason, should not be impeded.

It's common sense. No more, no less!







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?

My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be
able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being
there".


What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then
the
ship might well be held blameless.


Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.
Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then
you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to
make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog.


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.

And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also 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.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast.

Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day.

Stranger things happen at sea.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I'd still like to see a link that describes any court overruling the
CollRegs.


I haven't found a good source to "free case studies" yet. I have posted a link
to the Canadian Safety Board's ruling that 14 knots was a safe speed in zero
visibility, and I posted a full page excerpt from the standard text on the
topic. I'll repeat the essential part:

"Judicial interpretation has, in the history of the rules, performed three
important functions. First, it has determined the legal meaning of certain
phrases not defined in the rules themselves, such as ... proper lookout, special
circumstances, immediate danger, ordinary practice of seamen, and risk of
collision; it is in accordance with the meanings thus established that these
terms are construed in collision cases. Second, it has filled certain gaps in
the rules, sometimes modifying the statute to do this. ... Third, judicial
interpretation has been used not only to eliminate the old Pilot Rules found
contradictory to the old Inland Rules, but to reconcile occasional
inconsistencies or conflicts in the latter."

You can chose to believe this is incorrect - maybe its time you did your own
research.

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.

Yes, I have claimed that the CollRegs require that the ship should be able
to stop. I've also said that the ship may maintain steerageway.

But the two are contradictory. If you believe both are the law, then its OK to
break the law. This sounds rather hypocritical.


I take a pragmatic approach to the CollRegs. I believe that the authors
had the same idea.

In a road accident, if a car hits another car from behind, then the car
behind is 100% at fault. If a similiar event occurred at sea, then the
actions of the boat that got hit would be examined before a verdict was
reached.

After an accident, the police will beathanalyse the drivers. If one driver
is found to be over the limit, then he will be 100% responsible for the
accident. (this is *UK* law).

At sea, there is **no** right of way. ...... not even in a TSS.

I believe that you know this, as well as I do.


What's the point to all this? How about this - a pedetrian dashes across the
highway at night wearing black cloths and gets hit by a truck. Who's to blame?



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?

Why do you have a difficulty with this concept? After all, you are saying
that ships do not have to be able to stop, or take avoiding action, within
sight of their victim in the TSS.


Again you're being hypocritical. You've insisted many times that the rules are
paramount; now you're saying one can pick which to follow.

There are certainly many situations not explicitly covered in the rules. This
is where Rule 2 comes in. However, fog is not a very unusual condition, and it
was well anticipated by the rules. The writer deliberately left the meaning of
"safe speed" for the courts to decide base on individual situations. These
rulings become guidelines for the future.

The situation we're discussing is not a case where the rules must be violated;
it is a case where the courts have ruled that steerageway should be maintained,
and even higher speeds are permissible with good radar. In doing so, the courts
have conceded that the kayak would be a severe risk if it cross a shipping lane
in thick fog.

I repeat again what you ignored the first time:
Maybe you should consider that the courts have, in affect, modified the law so
that its now something different from what you think.



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).

I'm saying that there is no intrinsic bias. The CollRegs do not imply that
commercial vessels have more rights than other vessels. They use common
sense, and stipulate that ships that are confined to channels, for whatever
reason, should not be impeded.

It's common sense. No more, no less!


It may be common sense, but its also the law. Are you claiming the rules aren't
needed, because its all "common sense"?



The ship would have a significant part of the blame. But what's your
point?

My point is that the ship also has responsibilities. The master won't be
able to defend himself by saying that "The kayak had no business being
there".


popbably not.


What if the ship was doing 6 knots and had two lookouts on the bow? Then
the
ship might well be held blameless.


Not quite blameless, but certainly they would get off much more lightly.

Why not blameless? Where do you find fault?

Nevertheless, if you rewind back to the beginning of this discussion, then
you will realise that you have just made the point that I was trying to
make..... A ship should always have a lookout in fog.

I never denied it - I've claimed it is an absolute requirement from the
beginning.


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.

And the ship, by virtue of the collision, is also in violation.

That is a myth. It is true that in most cases the courts have found a way to
share the blame but its is certainly not true that a collision implies that both
vessels must share blame. In fact, in a number of cases, both vessels have been
held blameless.



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.

Really! The CollRegs do not mention the word "business". That has
absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Hypoocrit again! You just cited "common sense," implying that it overrules the
law!

I never said that I meant it was "illegal" or "in violation of the rules" to be
there, I simply said he had no business being there. As in, it would be foolish
and foolhardy. "Common sense" say the kayak will be chum and the ship should
be blameless; are you saying that's the law?

It is true that a ship could be going too fast, and without a lookout, but I
also claim it could be going at a "safe speed" (as defined by the courts) and
have a "proper lookout" and would still be unable to stop in time to save the
kayak. The kayak, however, is putting itself in a position where it is very
likely it almost certainly would violate the rules if there was an encounter.
Even in clear weather, if the kayak is relying on the ship avoiding it with a
crash stop, its in violation.




Fog *can* set in when it is not forecast.

Fog *does* happen when the forecast says that it will be a clear, sunny day.

Stranger things happen at sea.


Well, I could say "not very often," but inevitably this happens. However, that
becomes the risk that the kayak takes. As I've said, I would have some
sympathy if it were a 100 yard channel, where the kayak could pick a promising
moment to make a dash. However, a Channel crossing with its 5 mile lanes is not
a proper place for a kayak. You keep asking me for links to court cases; how
about if you post links about Channel crossings in kayaks?

Frankly. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It seems like you
just want to go around in circles. First you claim the letter of the law is
the most important thing. Then you say the law is contradictory and you're free
to do whatever, then you say the law is simply common sense. You falsely
assumed I disagreed with your lookout issue, and therefore assumed that
everything I've said is fallacious. However, you've failed to show me wrong at
any point.

Jeff, you're wasting your time.
Donal, is the UK version of Neal .... he knows the words to the rules,
but doesn't comprehend the intent. He's just shown, in another thread,
that he's also not a "boat handler" around the docks.
I'll refrain from commenting on the Yachtmaster requirements, as I know
nothing about them, and I think John E. covered that ground.

otn

I half agree - but would you rather be reading bobadilgayganzyhorvathbb drivel?

This latest tack of Donal's confirms what we've long suspected - most people
know some of the rules, and then make up the rest based on what seems to be
"common sense" to them.

jeff


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jeff, you're wasting your time.
Donal, is the UK version of Neal .... he knows the words to the rules,
but doesn't comprehend the intent. He's just shown, in another thread,
that he's also not a "boat handler" around the docks.
I'll refrain from commenting on the Yachtmaster requirements, as I know
nothing about them, and I think John E. covered that ground.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:
I half agree - but would you rather be reading bobadilgayganzyhorvathbb drivel?

G That parts easy ..... I don't.


This latest tack of Donal's confirms what we've long suspected - most people
know some of the rules, and then make up the rest based on what seems to be
"common sense" to them.

I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a
problem with the intent.
I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and
giving perspective from different opereators and vessel types.
However, after a point............

otn

"otnmbrd" wrote in message

| I would describe it as .... many know the words to the rules but have a
| problem with the intent.

So seemingly you are inferring that no one but you has a grasp on the intent
of the COLREGS???
Crap.... I thought it was to keep boats from hitting each other. Are you
implying that everyone but commercial large vessel traffic should be subject
to the strictest definitions of the rules?


| I find most of these threads a valuable tool for defining intent and
| giving perspective from different operators and vessel types.

Well you know my views.... large commercial vessels should be strictly
regulated, the regulations should be enforced with an iron fist. You whine
about smaller vessels not adhering to the rules while dumping bilge water
and oil as well as being the biggest contributor of garbage dumped at
sea.... not to mention the sorry record for container loss. Unmanned
bridges, unseaworthy vessels and poorly trained foreign crews are the least
of the problems caused by the current status of the shipping industry at
sea.

How dare you even begin to preach rules and comprehension when your industry
so consistently fails to abide by rules you claim to have a better
understanding of!!

| However, after a point............

Yeah... after a point it becomes clear that you fail to comprehend the
basics. It's NOT Your Ocean! You only use it just like we do. You don't have
more of a right nor less of a responsibility. I would say that on a whole
the smaller vessels have a better comprehension of their responsibilities
and a better track record of adherence to the regulations imposed!......

CM