"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1

The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to
stop.
However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for
anything
it sees
visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.

So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs????


Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the
courts has
been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts'
decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this
yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law
intends; your way is just making it up.

I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"?

The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the
conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this
means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions.





You seem to be saying the ship would be at fault in the analogous
situation.


[sigh] I haven't said that at all. Really. Honestly.

I think that you have read things into my comments that were not there.

The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the
ship
might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout.


As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk.

Exactly!

If the ship doesn't keep a proper lookout, then he is as culpable as a drunk
driver!





As far as I can see, you are continuously assuming that the
CollRegs
are
biased in favour of the commercial operator. In fact, you recently
said
as
much. Shen agrees with you, and otn is almost convinced that you
are
correct. Joe is absolutely certain.


No I didn't say that. I said that because of Rules 9 and 10, in most
meetings
of large and small vessels, the large vessel is favored. Do you deny
this?


Of course.
You're assuming that most meetings of large and small vessels occur in
TSS's
or narrow channels. This is arrant nonsense!


Its the practical truth almost everywhere I've been. Certainly in terms
of
numbers, the vast majority of small boats would generally only encounter
large
ships in a narrow channel or shipping lane. Most of the exceptions I can
think
of would be medium sized ferries or barges that are on secondary routes.
Even
then, most of the encounters would be in the harbors that would be narrow
channels for the larger ship.

I can only think of a handful of times where I felt I was clearly the
stand-on
vessel with respect to a large ship; compared to hundreds of times I've
been
obligated "not to impede."







Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking
about
shipping
lanes and TSS's?

Why, then, must power give way to sail?

In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the
sailboat is
favored.


In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not?


Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18,
which
starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require."
And it
isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or
RAMs.
And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must
give
way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are
constrained.

I'm impressed by your determination to display such intrangisence in a
public forum.

As a general rule, power must give way to sail. This applies unless
special circumstances apply. These "special" circumstances include "narrow
channels" and "Traffic Seperation Schemes".

In the other 99.99% of the seas, the CollRegs grant a superior status to
sailing vessels.






Didn't they teach you anything in that class? Did you really take it, or
was
this another "practice" thing with your friends?

The CollRegs are the "IMO CollRegs". ie the "International"
Maritime
Organisation's CollRegs. US courts have no right at all to set
precedants.


Perhaps you should do some research. You keep making things up
because
they
sound nice. Here's a comment by a US court:

"The paramount importance of having international rules, which are
intended to
become part of the law of nations, understood alike by all maritime
powers, is
manifest; and the adoption of any reasonable construction of them by
the
maritime powers ... affords sufficient ground for the adoption of a
similar
construction ... by the courts of this country."

I read that paragraph three times. It doesn't make any sense. You
need
to re-word it.

Any sentence that contains more than 23 words is going to prove
difficult to
understand.


Maybe this is why you have so much trouble with the ColRegs - too many big
words. They're simply saying because its important to have common
international
laws, the courts of one country should adopt the rulings of other
countries.

So you weren't able to translate the sentence into simple English?






Believe what you want. I given a number of quotes and case references
that
explicitly say that a "safe speed" in thick fog can be higher than
zero,
and
that it can be higher with good radar. I've quoted commentary that
specifically
says it is the courts role to do this, and skippers are required to
appreciate
the rulings. You can call this "defining terms" or "filling in gaps"
or
"augmenting" or whatever you want, but it is the way maritime law
works.

The bottom line is that the real rules is not what you think the
ColRegs
say, it
is what the courts say it means.

The US courts?

Really, you are being a bit thick!


Donal, its clear you have no interest in actually learning this stuff.

Untrue!


If you
did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's.
Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including
quotes
indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author
of
Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you
can go
and learn something.

That statement only proves that you are absolutely convinced that you are
right.

I don't understand why you should be completely right, and I should be
completely wrong.

After all, I didn't ask a daft question like "Where does it say .....
[etc]".











No.

I'm claiming that the CollRegs contain an enormous amount of common
sense.

You are saying that the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards big
ships.

As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the
large
one?
That's a bit of a "bias."


Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by
TSS's,
or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power
had
to give way to sail.


So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point?

Really.

TSS's do not cover the majority of cruising grounds. That is just plain
stupid!

TSS's cover less than 10% of the area that I sail in .... in fact they cover
even less!







Big ships are usually powered by engines.
The CollRegs say that power gives way to sail.

You haven't read the rules lately, have you?

I don't need to. I understood them the first time around.

Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years,
have you?
And it shows!!

Cheap shot, Jeff. I had a very good Teacher.

I think that you were taught by a power boater!




It looks like the CollRegs have an intrinsic bias towards the rights
of
sailing vessels.

Go back and read the rules. Find the rule that says "power gives way
to
sail."
Then tell us how this applies in TSS's, Narrow Channels, or in the
fog.

I think that I've already answered this stupid question.

If you disagree, then ask again, and I will give a detailed answer.

You've said you don't think its important since there are few TSS's. Its
really
one of the dumber things you've said.

Or were you refering to where you said you haven't read them lately?

Unhelpful comment.

Don't you think?





Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you
could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.

Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a
little
child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame";
please
site a
good reference that backs that up.

OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the
Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the
blame.

If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would
give him 100% of the blame.

Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't
get it
started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll
give
you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the
"Inevitable
Accident":

"There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the
surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both
vessels
are at fault."

As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases
where
one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling
that I
found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant
disappeared
from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered
it to
Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run.
Scully was
found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights.

http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc



I'm getting "Page cannot be displayed".

Is there something wrong with the link? I've tried it 4 times.





snip
What the hell has the word "business" got to do with a discussion
about
the
rights of vessels at sea under the CollRegs?


What the hell do the ColRegs have to do with a discussion of stupidity
on
the
water? I didn't raise this as a ColRegs issue in the beginning. You
keep
trying to make me defend it from a ColRegs point of view.

Of course, we could take this from the viewpoint of Rule 2, but that
seems
rather subtle for you.

Sorry, are you referring to part b) of rule 2. No you are not! As
always
you are incredibly selective in your use of the CollRegs.

Rule 2, Part *b*

"(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be
had to
all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special
circumstances,
including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a
departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. "

In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be
crossing
his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed.

In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he
cannot avoid hitting a small vessel.

Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own
limitations?
How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at
bare
steerageway?

I know about the kayak's limitations. The kayak will be able to keep a
lookout and make sure that it can stop before it collides with anything, as
long as the helmsman keeps an eye on thr mirror. If he hears a fog horn,
then he will be able to stop until it passes.





Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be
compliant
with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"?
Frankly,
you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling!

I'm saying that if the ship observes the letter of the law, then he will
stop. However, all users of the sea recognise that ships keep moving in
fog.



The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under
2(a),
since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT
the
"ordinary practice of seamen."

Neither is travelling at 25 kts in the same conditions.

Once again you are being selective.







snip

I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty
action.
You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago
that
the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another
vessel.

Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet.

You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he
would
not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked
me
to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a
large
vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the
CollRegs
because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship.


Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the
inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick
that
until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence"
the law
had not been broken.


Then you were completely wrong. By your own admission, no violation takes
place until the kayak acytually *impedes* a ship.



Once again, you're just making up nonsense to try to prove I'm wrong, but
you've
failed misreably at every turn.


troll I'm pleased that I've succeeded in educating an ignorant
powerboater. /troll

Weren't you a powerboater? I think you should try to educate yourself
first.

Yes, I was. That is why I can see both sides of the arguement so clearly.





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,

I don't think that is 100% true.

Why did you ask me to prove that a radar lookout was not adequate?


When did I say that?

Jeff, really! You're a bigger troll than I am.

You asked where the CollRegs forbade the exclusive use of Radar as a
means
of keeping a lookout.

Back to the Cowardly Lying, again. What a loser you are. All you've
done here
is shown you have no real knowlege of the rules. Neal would have one word
for
you: Putz!


Oh dear!

You *did* ask where the CollRegs forbade the use of Radar as the only
method of keeping a lookout.



Regards



Donal
--

Donal wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message news:bv1oug$h8f$1

The ship has an obligation keep a proper lookout and to be prepared to

stop.

However, it is not obligated to go so slow that it can stop for

anything

it sees

visually. To do so would be even more dangerous.

So, you can see the contradiction in the CollRegs????


Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the

courts has

been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts'
decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this
yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law
intends; your way is just making it up.


I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"?

The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the
conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this
means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions.


Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop
your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a
result...

Cheers

"MC" wrote in message -
Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop
your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a
result...


The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the
appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG
tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Nor is it
appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS.

I disagree. A safe speed can be zero and that is why the sound signal is
changed to reflect that. Suppose your radar set is broken???????

Cheers


Jeff Morris wrote:

"MC" wrote in message -

Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop
your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a
result...



The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the
appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG
tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Nor is it
appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS.

"Donal" wrote:
Well, this is a point where we disagree. The interpretation of the
courts has
been that "safe speed" is not necessarily "stopped." I use the courts'
decisions, so I see no contradiction. You are choosing to interpret this
yourself and you claim there is a contradiction. My way is what the law
intends; your way is just making it up.

I'm confused. What exactly do you think that I am "making up"?


You stated that the are times when its impossible to satisfy all of the
obligations of the Colregs, and thus each master must decide the proper course
of action. I've been trying to say that the courts have given guidance in many
of these matters, and its the obligation of the master to appreciate these
opinions.


The CollRegs say that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed, (given the
conditions). I assume that vessels must maintain steerageway, even if this
means that they are going faster than would be safe, given the conditions.


So you're saying that its OK to proceed at a speed where it might be impossible
to stop for something spotted visually?


The only difference between the pedestrian and the kayaker, is that the
ship
might share some of the blame if it didn't have a proper lookout.


As might a truck driver if he were speeding or drunk.

Exactly!

If the ship doesn't keep a proper lookout, then he is as culpable as a drunk
driver!


So if a ship kept a proper lookout, even if the fog was too thick for anything
to be seen, it would be OK?


Why
do you think I stipulated from the beginning that we were talking
about
shipping
lanes and TSS's?

Why, then, must power give way to sail?

In many (but certainly not all) meetings between power and sail, the
sailboat is
favored.


In fact, it is a general rule that "power gives way to sail", is it not?


Only for those with a simplistic view. It is only mentioned in Rule 18,
which
starts by saying "except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require."
And it
isn't in affect in the fog. Nor does it apply with vessels fishing, or
RAMs.
And in some locales, with ferries. So yes, small power boats usually must
give
way to sail, but its clear that large ships are favored when they are
constrained.

I'm impressed by your determination to display such intrangisence in a
public forum.

As a general rule, power must give way to sail. This applies unless
special circumstances apply. These "special" circumstances include "narrow
channels" and "Traffic Seperation Schemes".

In the other 99.99% of the seas, the CollRegs grant a superior status to
sailing vessels.


"Superior status"? I'm not sure I'd use those words, but what's you point? In
the majority of places where small vessels and large ships meet, the large ships
are favored by the rules. That's the simple truth, and you know it.


snip part of discussion that was too complicated for Simple Donal



If you
did, you'd go to a library and find the British equivalent of Farwell's.
Frankly, I've done my best showing you the way its done here, including
quotes
indicating they think its the same in other countries. And the co-author
of
Farwell's is Royal Navy! You can live in ignorance if you chose, or you
can go
and learn something.

That statement only proves that you are absolutely convinced that you are
right.

I don't think I've said anything that taken in its context, was wrong. Maybe
that's why you keep reverting to lying about what I said.


I don't understand why you should be completely right, and I should be
completely wrong.

The problem is, you've always assumed my comments about "lookouts" were in
support of Joe, which was certainly not true. And you've assumed that my
comment that a kayak "has no business" being in a TSS in the fog was an opinion
about the law, which was also not true.

When you start your arguments on faulty premises, you usually end up in the
wrong.


After all, I didn't ask a daft question like "Where does it say .....
[etc]".


But the odd thing is, you never did answer the question. You've even come
around to agreeing with me. But you're either too dense to see it, or too
stubborn to admit it.

You've admitted that if a lookout is maintained, it OK to continue at a speed
that will be too fast to stop in time to avoid a collision with something
spotted visually. How is this different from running essentially on radar
alone?

As in, the small vessel "shall not impede that safe progress" of the
large one? That's a bit of a "bias."


Only in the tiny percentage of the ocean's surface that is covered by
TSS's,
or "narrow channels". On the other 98% of the ocean's surface, power
had to give way to sail.


So? That's not where the boats are, so what's your point?

Really.

TSS's do not cover the majority of cruising grounds. That is just plain
stupid!

I'll admit I'm not familiar with British waters, but there are very few parts of
the US East Coast where large ships are not "confined" to narrow channels or
TSS's. Chesapeake Bay, for instance, has a channel running its full length.
The vast majority of the large ships stay in this channel, and its branches, and
are thus favored by the rules. This is repeated in virtually all the cruising
grounds on the East Coast. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of small
boat sailing, and cruising takes place in waters that large ships can't get
close to; and most places where they might meet the large ships are in "narrow
channels" as refered to by rule 9. I haven't mentioned "Constrained by Draft"
since CBD is not included in US Inland rules, but this is another rule that
favors large ships.



TSS's cover less than 10% of the area that I sail in .... in fact they cover
even less!


Portmouth Channel doesn't count as a "Narrow Channel"? I don't see your point
about "surface area" - all that counts is where are the likely meetings, and
which vessel is favored.

Now we're getting down to it. You haven't read them in 14 year years,
have you?
And it shows!!

Cheap shot, Jeff. I had a very good Teacher.

I'm exercising great restraint here ...

I think that you were taught by a power boater!

I've had many teachers over the years. I still have my copy of the rules from
before the ColRegs were written. However, over here, "professional" licenses
focus almost entirely on power boats. BTW, my most recent teacher was
formally the master of the U.S. Coast Guard Barque Eagle.

However, the only real difference we've had over the rules is the role the
courts play in the interpretation. I've maintained that the courts have an
active role in interpretation, and that masters are bound by their decisions.
I base this on reading such texts as Farwell's, and court opinions.



Very weak. Your arguement would have much more credibility if you
could
cite a case where one party was held 100% to blame.

Do your own research. Buy a book. I'm sick of leading you like a
little
child
by the hand. You claim all collisions result in "shared blame";
please
site a
good reference that backs that up.

OK, I'll toss out a case - the sailboat that got becalmed in the
Chesapeake and
forced a freighter to run aground was, I believe, given 100% of the
blame.

If he had a working engine, and didn't use it on principle. then I would
give him 100% of the blame.

Their problem was that the key was broken in the engine and they couldn't
get it
started. Actually, I couldn't find where this case went to court, so I'll
give
you two things. First, a quote from Farwell's in the chapter on the
"Inevitable
Accident":

"There are numerous collisions where only one vessel is at fault, but the
surprising fact to the uninitiated is that in the majority of cases both
vessels
are at fault."

As I stated before, shared blame is most common, but there are many cases
where
one vessel is 100% to blame. here's a link to an appeal court's ruling
that I
found interesting. The sailboat, Coyote, is the vessel Mike Plant
disappeared
from when the keel fell off. His fiancée inherited the boat and chartered
it to
Dave Scully, who bumped it into a fishing boat on a qualifying run.
Scully was
found 100% at fault, for not having a lookout or proper lights.

http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRLFE0D.tmp/1/doc



I'm getting "Page cannot be displayed".

Is there something wrong with the link? I've tried it 4 times.


Sorry - that's one of those links tat's only valid for a a few hours. Try:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf

In other words, Jeff, a big ship shall be aware that a kayak may be
crossing
his path, and he should travel at an appropriate speed.

In other words, a big ship "has no business" travelling so fast that he
cannot avoid hitting a small vessel.

Talk about selective! How about the kayak being aware of its own
limitations?
How about the kayak being aware of the stopping distance of a tanker at
bare
steerageway?

I know about the kayak's limitations. The kayak will be able to keep a
lookout and make sure that it can stop before it collides with anything, as
long as the helmsman keeps an eye on thr mirror. If he hears a fog horn,
then he will be able to stop until it passes.


The mirror??? Good Grief!



Now, are you arguing again that the ship must stop completely to be
compliant
with 2(b)? Or are you saying its OK to knowingly "break the rule"?
Frankly,
you don't know what you're saying; you're just babbling!

I'm saying that if the ship observes the letter of the law, then he will
stop. However, all users of the sea recognise that ships keep moving in
fog.


As do the courts.



The kayak has a huge problem under 2(b), but an even bigger one under
2(a),
since crossing a shipping lane in the fog in a tiny boat is definitely NOT
the
"ordinary practice of seamen."

Neither is travelling at 25 kts in the same conditions.

Once again you are being selective.


Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I said, when
you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong.

I've only said that its possible for the ship to be traveling within the
guidelines endorsed by the courts and still not be able to see the kayak in time
to stop. In such a situation, however, the kayak is clearly not compliant with
its basic obligation.


I never said is was a legal opinion. I said it was a foolhearty
action.
You
keep trying to relate this to the ColRegs. I said several weeks ago
that
the
kayak may not be breaking any rule until it actually "impedes" another
vessel.

Tsk, tsk. Backtracking is not allowed on Usenet.

You repeatedly suggested that the kayak could not guarantee that he
would
not impede a commercial vessel in the TSS. In fact you repeatedly asked
me
to explain how the kayak could guarantee that he would not impede a
large
vessel. Furthermore, you said that the kayak was in breach of the
CollRegs
because he could not guarantee that he would not impede a large ship.


Sorry, that's not what I said. I did say he shouldn't do it, becuase the
inevitable result was a violation, but I agreed specifically with Rick
that
until a ship is actually "impeded" or there was some other "consequence"
the law
had not been broken.


Then you were completely wrong. By your own admission, no violation takes
place until the kayak acytually *impedes* a ship.


As where am I wrong? I didn't say the kayak was breaking a law. I said "he had
no business being there." NOT illlegal, just STUPID! Why is this concept so
difficult for you? You really aren't very bright, are you?



Oh dear!

You *did* ask where the CollRegs forbade the use of Radar as the only
method of keeping a lookout

Donal, the cowardly liar comes out again!!

You've given up entirely so your only recourse is to lie about what I said.

You're just a cheap troll, Donal. You started down this path based on faulty
assumptions about what I said, and now you're too much of a coward to admit you
were wrong about that.

If my radar was broken, a safe speed might well be zero. All I'm saying is that
thick fog does not require that all shipping must stop everywhere. At least,
that's not the way the courts have interpreted it.

Are you claiming that is a sailboat is crossing a shipping lane and fog closes
in they should drop their anchor immediately? Should they drift randomly?




"MC" wrote in message
...
I disagree. A safe speed can be zero and that is why the sound signal is
changed to reflect that. Suppose your radar set is broken???????

Cheers


Jeff Morris wrote:

"MC" wrote in message
-

Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop
your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a
result...



The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the
appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG
tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas. Nor is it
appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS.

Jeff Morris wrote:
If my radar was broken, a safe speed might well be zero. All I'm saying is that
thick fog does not require that all shipping must stop everywhere. At least,
that's not the way the courts have interpreted it.

Are you claiming that is a sailboat is crossing a shipping lane and fog closes
in they should drop their anchor immediately? Should they drift randomly?

A TSS, narrow channel, and sea lane (or shipping lane), can be three
different things. Anchoring may be an option. Drifting, may be an
option, though vessels should avoid anchoring in a known TSS lane.




"MC" wrote in message
...

I disagree. A safe speed can be zero and that is why the sound signal is
changed to reflect that. Suppose your radar set is broken???????

Cheers


Jeff Morris wrote:


"MC" wrote in message

-

Sorry, a point of information. The regs are clear. You may have to stop
your vessel in restricted vis. The sound signal may even chnage as a
result...



The regs are not that clear. Stopping (or not leave dock) may be the
appropriate action in many cases. However, it is not appropriate for an LNG
tanker to stop engines and drift if there's fog on the high seas.

Not necessarily so .... not apt to happen, but not necessarily so.

Nor is it
appropriate to anchor in a narrow channel or TSS.

Anchoring in a narrow channel, is done (preferably off to the side).
Anchoring in most TSS, is not done, but can/may be if conditions warrant.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:

If my radar was broken, a safe speed might well be zero. All I'm saying is that
thick fog does not require that all shipping must stop everywhere. At least,
that's not the way the courts have interpreted it.

Are you claiming that is a sailboat is crossing a shipping lane and fog closes
in they should drop their anchor immediately? Should they drift randomly?




If they are safe speeds for the vessel in those condions and places then
yes. Otherwise no. You see the COLREGS does cover it...

Cheers

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I
said, when
you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong.

Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me?





Regards


Donal
--
BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do
justice to it.

You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only
briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. 25 knots would seem excessive if
there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is
largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is
considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small
boat not visible on radar is rather slim.

I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to
steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. This is certainly frowned
upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have
trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread,
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat.

-jeff


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I
said, when
you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong.

Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me?





Regards


Donal
--
BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do
justice to it.