And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that you can maintain a proper lookout with radar
alone?


Thats what I'm claiming Donal. I would not suggest it running a
strange river for the first time, but if you have navigated the same
area many times and you know it like the back of your hand then you
can safely run it with a quality fine tuned radar.

Emmmm... Aren't we discussing the Coll Regs? The International Rules for
the avoidance of Collisions??

I don't see how "familiarity" with a particular stretch of water can help
you avoid a collision.



So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog.

Or are you claiming that local knowledge is not an advantage in the fog? Such
knowledge would certainly help one to keep the boat on a proper course, in its
proper place in a channel.

The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.


--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs,
Rule 7(c)

And ???????
 

One was from Ft. Myers, the other from Marco Island.

I'm not sure these are the same boats or schedules, but it definitely shows its
plausible. I think "Whale Watcher" was involved, but I don't recall "Captain
Red." Also, I thought the Ft. Myers boat started an hour earlier, but they
arrived at the same time.

http://www.vacationkeywest.net/key-west-ferry/

The initial newspaper reports made it sound like the ferry ran down a fishing
boat - this was not the case. The fishing boat was running full speed in thick
fog and hit the side of the ferry.



"Roy G. Biv" wrote in message
om...
Jeff,

what two ferries run that area and would have a schedule placing them
running side by side?

I reported what I read in the newspaper. . .



"Jeff Morris"


As it happened, I was in Key West when this occurred. The story, as I heard
it,
was that the small fishing boat was tracked on radar by two ferries which
were
traveling roughly side by side. They were in contact with each other but
could
not raise the small boat, which was approaching at over 25 knots. The
danger
signal was sounded by a ferry, but its not clear it was heard by the small
boat.
It passed behind the near ferry and plowed into the second at speed.

I forget the final resolution of the incident - typically fault is shared in
cases of collision, but its hard to find fault with the actions of the
ferries
in this case.

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message ...
"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
m...
(Roy G. Biv) wrote in message news


Yeah, I recall a ferry smashing into the dock in the clear daylight
not so long ago in NY. Accidents happen.

They failed to maintain a proper lookout with radar. Has nothing to
do with safe speed, the jerk you talked about most likely would of ran
someone over at 3 knots.

Are you claiming that you can maintain a proper lookout with radar
alone?


Thats what I'm claiming Donal. I would not suggest it running a
strange river for the first time, but if you have navigated the same
area many times and you know it like the back of your hand then you
can safely run it with a quality fine tuned radar.

Emmmm... Aren't we discussing the Coll Regs? The International Rules for
the avoidance of Collisions??

on a dark night can you walk to your bathroom without smaking into
the walls?
Well maybe I mean most normal people have a memory that they use to
their advantage, I can see how this will not apply to you.


I don't see how "familiarity" with a particular stretch of water can help
you avoid a collision.

I know you cant, thats because your always lost.





I've done it a
thousand times. Nothing to it. If it's fog bound in an area I'm not
familiar with I usually wait and follow someone that knows the area.

Jeeeze! I'm only an amateur, but one of my basic rules is "NEVER Follow
Anybody" - they might be as lost as you are!

Thats because you are an amateur, you not smart enough to figure out
if someone in front of you runs aground that not the best way to go.

I think you missed the point of talking to everyone you meet on the
radio. If you do that you might be able to figure out that they know
the local area better than you do. But since you never go anywhere new
to you, I guess this is a experience you will never have to do in real
life.




You are the perfect example of the weekend warrior that has no clue.
Take you boat out every day for a year and study every dock,
bend,tank, slip, strem,ect on your radar, add those details to your
charts, including the names of every dock. Study your local area and
you will be able to do the same without a problem.

And yet you claim that you are happy to follow somebody else when you are in
unfamiliar waters??? (See above).
Following people who "know the area" is the best way of running aground that
I have come across.


Read the above. Locals are one of your best sources of recent
knowledge. Back in Mark Twains day on the mississippi they use to tie
wooden Kegs or barrels at diffrent areas of the river. Inside these
barrels the skippers would leave notes to each other about shifting
sand bars, snags, currents and anything that has changed locally.
Today we have what is called the LOCAL notice to mariners that is
compiled mostly by LOCALS that see things that change from what
printed on charts. Perhaps your to macho to talk to a local and ask
for quideance, Im not.




Joe,
You are a menace! It is obvious that you shouldn't be allowed to sail
anywhere.

Donal your a idiot with very limited knowledge of how to go anywhere
except on a crystal clear day with up to date charts and channels that
are very well marked. Its odvious you would be laughed off any
proffesional fleet.

I have several million miles under my belt on all types of keels, and
you?


Regards


Donal
--

Back at you Lanod

Joe

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2.

The problem is with those who think that some another vessel has no
business being there and act as if it is not their responsibility to
take into account the possibility of meeting such a vessel in dense fog.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

The operator of that small boat without radar may be foolish or even
foolhardy, or not, but the fact is that boat and operator have as much
"business" being there as you or the QE2.

The problem is with those who think that some another vessel has no
business being there and act as if it is not their responsibility to
take into account the possibility of meeting such a vessel in dense fog.

So you claim that a plastic kayak with stealth coating, no radar or reflector,
has every right to travel in shipping channels in pea soup fog? That sounds
like stupidity to me. Or are you simply claiming that everyone has a right to
commit suicide?

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

So you claim that a plastic kayak with stealth coating, no radar or reflector,
has every right to travel in shipping channels in pea soup fog? That sounds
like stupidity to me. Or are you simply claiming that everyone has a right to
commit suicide?

Regardless of what you think about the mental capacity of the operator,
that kayak has every right to be there. It might sound like stupidity
but stupidity is legal. If you run down the kayak you will be held at
least partially responsible for the collision. Like it or not.

Be careful when you start asking for pecking order rights to use the
waterways. You might end up further down the list than you would prefer.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that you can maintain a proper lookout with radar
alone?


Thats what I'm claiming Donal. I would not suggest it running a
strange river for the first time, but if you have navigated the same
area many times and you know it like the back of your hand then you
can safely run it with a quality fine tuned radar.

Emmmm... Aren't we discussing the Coll Regs? The International Rules
for
the avoidance of Collisions??

I don't see how "familiarity" with a particular stretch of water can
help
you avoid a collision.



So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog.

Or are you claiming that local knowledge is not an advantage in the fog?
Such
knowledge would certainly help one to keep the boat on a proper course, in
its
proper place in a channel.

No! I'm claiming that "local knowledge" does not mean that you may travel
at anything more than a safe speed!

25 kts in thick fog is NOT safe, if there is even the slightest possiblity
of an encounter with another craft.



The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

Wow! I'm almost speechless (but not completely)!

Jeff, I would like to ask if the Coll Regs place any duty on a boat to be a
good reflector?

Do the Coll Regs place any duty on a vessel to keep a look out for other
vessels?




"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information"
ColRegs,
Rule 7(c)


I think that is what I was saying!!




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
om...
What about a tree trunk the size of a car? Any running lights on it,
How about a bouy, not all are lit. Hows about the typical weekend
warrior who forgot to turn on his running lights, hows about a rocky
jettie, how about a tow line and the million other things you can not
see on a pitch black night?

Are you really claiming that it is easy to avoid hitting a tree trunk at
25
kts?

Yes, if you see it on radar a mile ahead of you, its not a problem.
^^ IF?????

"IF" you see it on radar??????? What about IF you DON'T see it on radar?

[sigh]


I
will admit Ive struck enough submerged logs the the owner of one
crewboat I ran hung so many destroyed propellers on his beach house
that he named it the broken wheel ranch. Thats just part of the job
and should be expected on a high speed boat running the rivers of LA.

Are you saying that you think that it is easier to miss a buoy at 25
kts than at 4 kts??

Its very easy to miss a bouy if you can see it on radar, and most

There you go again! Another "IF" ????????


bouys and day shapes are designed to be seen on radar, big suprise
huh? If you get really good at radar you learn the ranges for the
ports you run. We had color radars on the MV Comet I ran and you could
assign diffrent colors for the height of objects. So lining up the
ranges was a piece of cake. You do know what range marker are huh?

Yes.




Regards



Donal
--

And ???????
 

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

Are you claiming that you can maintain a proper lookout with radar
alone?


Thats what I'm claiming Donal. I would not suggest it running a
strange river for the first time, but if you have navigated the same
area many times and you know it like the back of your hand then you
can safely run it with a quality fine tuned radar.

Emmmm... Aren't we discussing the Coll Regs? The International Rules
for
the avoidance of Collisions??

on a dark night can you walk to your bathroom without smaking into
the walls?

Usually ..... [not always ... though].

I've never ****&d into the wardrobe (yet).

Well maybe I mean most normal people have a memory that they use to
their advantage, I can see how this will not apply to you.

Ahaaaa! Are you claiming that you can *remember* where the small boats
were? Is that why you don't need to keep a lookout?





I don't see how "familiarity" with a particular stretch of water can
help
you avoid a collision.

I know you cant, thats because your always lost.

Now, now, Joe! Your neck is displaying its colour again!







I've done it a
thousand times. Nothing to it. If it's fog bound in an area I'm not
familiar with I usually wait and follow someone that knows the area.

Jeeeze! I'm only an amateur, but one of my basic rules is "NEVER
Follow
Anybody" - they might be as lost as you are!

Thats because you are an amateur, you not smart enough to figure out
if someone in front of you runs aground that not the best way to go.

No, Joe! That's because I have seen what happens when people follow
locals.




I think you missed the point of talking to everyone you meet on the
radio. If you do that you might be able to figure out that they know
the local area better than you do. But since you never go anywhere new
to you,

ahem I think that your [red] neck is showing again!

I have posted many accounts of *new* experiences here over the past few
years.

I guess this is a experience you will never have to do in real
life.

Don't guess. You aren't very good at guessing.

And yet you claim that you are happy to follow somebody else when you
are in
unfamiliar waters??? (See above).
Following people who "know the area" is the best way of running aground
that
I have come across.


Read the above. Locals are one of your best sources of recent
knowledge.

Joe, are you rreally stupid enough to believe that locals can relieve you of
your duty to keep a lookout in thick fog?



Back in Mark Twains day on the mississippi they use to tie
wooden Kegs or barrels at diffrent areas of the river. Inside these
barrels the skippers would leave notes to each other about shifting
sand bars, snags, currents and anything that has changed locally.


We are talking about keeping a lookout for other vessels! Even in Mark
Twain's day, people weren't stupid enough to document the positions of small
vessels in small wooden kegs.


Today we have what is called the LOCAL notice to mariners that is
compiled mostly by LOCALS that see things that change from what
printed on charts. Perhaps your to macho to talk to a local and ask
for quideance, Im not.

Local notices to Mariners would be effin clever if they were able to tell
you where small craft were sailing.

We're talking about "keeping a lookout" in this thread.




Joe,
You are a menace! It is obvious that you shouldn't be allowed to sail
anywhere.

Donal your a idiot with very limited knowledge of how to go anywhere
except on a crystal clear day with up to date charts and channels that
are very well marked. Its odvious you would be laughed off any
proffesional fleet.

I have several million miles under my belt on all types of keels, and
you?

I dunno! About 15,000, I guess.

Perhaps I learn as much in one mile, as you do in 1000 miles.


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

So you claim that a plastic kayak with stealth coating, no radar or
reflector,
has every right to travel in shipping channels in pea soup fog? That sounds
like stupidity to me. Or are you simply claiming that everyone has a right
to
commit suicide?

Regardless of what you think about the mental capacity of the operator,
that kayak has every right to be there.

I'm not so sure of that. Rule 19 is pretty clear that any movement may be
inappropriate, and vessels have been held completely at fault for leaving the
dock without radar.

It might sound like stupidity
but stupidity is legal. If you run down the kayak you will be held at
least partially responsible for the collision. Like it or not.


If the kayak crosses paths with a tanker in the fog, I doubt the tanker would be
assigned any fault.

Be careful when you start asking for pecking order rights to use the
waterways. You might end up further down the list than you would prefer.

I haven't asked for any rights. There are no rights in the ColRegs, only
responsibilities. And the kayak isn't in any pecking order. And the pecking
order doesn't apply in the fog. The pecking order only applies "when in
sight" - if a vessel choses to be invisible, it doesn't have "pecking order
rights."

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility. And yet many vessels maintain their normal
schedule in thick fog.

Or are you claiming that local knowledge is not an advantage in the fog?
Such
knowledge would certainly help one to keep the boat on a proper course, in
its
proper place in a channel.

No! I'm claiming that "local knowledge" does not mean that you may travel
at anything more than a safe speed!

25 kts in thick fog is NOT safe, if there is even the slightest possiblity
of an encounter with another craft.

I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and even
that would often be considered excessive). But there are no fixed rules for
this. I'm sure the Bar Harbor Fast Cat Ferry doesn't slow much in the fog, and
there is a chance some idiot is crossing the Bay of Fundy in his sea kayak.

There's always "the slightest chance," someone could be rowing across the
Atlantic. Should all traffic stop because of a slight possibility?





The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

Wow! I'm almost speechless (but not completely)!

Jeff, I would like to ask if the Coll Regs place any duty on a boat to be a
good reflector?

Absolutely. Positively. Meditate on Rule 2 for a while. Every seaman would
agree its folly to cross a shipping lane in the fog in a stealth kayak.



Do the Coll Regs place any duty on a vessel to keep a look out for other
vessels?


Of course. How does a vessel without radar do this in the fog?




"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information"
ColRegs,
Rule 7(c)


I think that is what I was saying!!


No. You're ignoring reality. You're claiming that all large vessels should
never proceed in the fog, because there's a chance of running over an invisible
kayak in the middle of the ocean. You're taking a situation with a huge amount
of gray area and trying to make it black and white; that's not the way the world
works.

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

I'm not so sure of that. Rule 19 is pretty clear that any movement may be
inappropriate, and vessels have been held completely at fault for leaving the
dock without radar.

Well, I am not going to get into a Nilesque ****ing match over how many
angels can dance on a copy of the COLREGS but if you run over the
kayaker, chances are extemely high you will not be a happy boater.

The kayaker was using all his resources. Were you? Why didn't you have a
lookout on the bow? Why were you going so fast? Only a half knot?, well,
since you didn't have time to turn you were going too fast then weren't
you? You will hear that at the hearing and the lawsuits later. So would
that tanker captain if he or she ran over a kayaker in those conditions.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Well, I am not going to get into a Nilesque ****ing match over how many
angels can dance on a copy of the COLREGS but if you run over the
kayaker, chances are extemely high you will not be a happy boater.

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night in black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That doesn't change
who's right.



The kayaker was using all his resources. Were you? Why didn't you have a
lookout on the bow? Why were you going so fast? Only a half knot?, well,
since you didn't have time to turn you were going too fast then weren't
you? You will hear that at the hearing and the lawsuits later. So would
that tanker captain if he or she ran over a kayaker in those conditions.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak has the
right to cross in front of a tanker? You're trying to apply a relative standard
in an absolute way.

And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40 knots in the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong. You're claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases. "Using all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

-jeff

And ???????
 

"Donal"

Let me see if I can splain this to ya Lanod were you might understand.

Look at the back of your hand. Do you know what it looks like?
Now take a red marker and put a dot on the back of your hand.
Now if you look at your hand again and there is a red dot on it will
you know that the back of your hand looks diffrent?

Same as a radar picture of a familiar channel, river, ect... that has
a new red dot on it, you can assume that is something like a boat in
the fog so you try to talk to them and make passing agreements, if
they do not talk you creep up and very carefully go around them.

Now if you see Capt Neals hand and it has a dot on the back are you
going to know if it was there before? Now if you do not ask him you
will never know.

Same thing you can do following a local, you can get on the radio and
ask is that dot I see on radar suppose to be there. Most likey he will
know. Thats because he has seen that picture a hundred times. He is
familiar with it and you are not. OK.....understand?

You may not understand how to maintain a proper watch by radar and
radio. But it can be done very safely, with local knowledge and an
understanding of the limits and abilitys of the tools you use.

Joe

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night in black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That doesn't change
who's right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak has the
right to cross in front of a tanker?

No, I am saying that the guy who runs over the kayak will be found in
the wrong to some degree.

Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.

And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40 knots in the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong. You're claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases. "Using all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area.

You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes with
the job.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night in
black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That doesn't
change
who's right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its
illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak has the
right to cross in front of a tanker?

No, I am saying that the guy who runs over the kayak will be found in
the wrong to some degree.

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses an oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?



Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.

What do you mean?


And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40 knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong. You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases. "Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area.


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.


Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses an oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.


What do you mean?

I mean the kayaker has the same right to displace that water as the
tanker operator. They must both adhere to the rules applicable to those
waters and their operation upon them.


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.

I am simply stating the facts that should be obvious to anyone who is in
command of a vessel on navigable waters.

You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes with
the job.


I'm glad you agree with me.

You don't need my agreement to be correct. I also believe that while
tradition and job security may dictate some coonass going like a bat out
of hell down the Atchafalaya or the HSC in zero visibility tradition
won't hold water in the hearing room or in court afterwards. Job
security ends at the point of impact.

Rick

And ???????
 

Got to agree with Joe on this issue of remembering outlines/picking
differences. I could spot game faster than any of my friends when
hunting on my place even when they had a lot better eyesight - because
*I knew what that paddock looked like* - every stump, tree & rock. Any
new object was an animal and then it was just a matter of determining
if it could be shot or not.

PDW

In article , Joe
wrote:

"Donal"

Let me see if I can splain this to ya Lanod were you might understand.

Look at the back of your hand. Do you know what it looks like?
Now take a red marker and put a dot on the back of your hand.
Now if you look at your hand again and there is a red dot on it will
you know that the back of your hand looks diffrent?

Same as a radar picture of a familiar channel, river, ect... that has
a new red dot on it, you can assume that is something like a boat in
the fog so you try to talk to them and make passing agreements, if
they do not talk you creep up and very carefully go around them.

Now if you see Capt Neals hand and it has a dot on the back are you
going to know if it was there before? Now if you do not ask him you
will never know.

Same thing you can do following a local, you can get on the radio and
ask is that dot I see on radar suppose to be there. Most likey he will
know. Thats because he has seen that picture a hundred times. He is
familiar with it and you are not. OK.....understand?

You may not understand how to maintain a proper watch by radar and
radio. But it can be done very safely, with local knowledge and an
understanding of the limits and abilitys of the tools you use.

Joe

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...
So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone? Of
course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if

25 kts in thick fog is NOT safe, if there is even the slightest
possiblity
of an encounter with another craft.

I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and
its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and
even
that would often be considered excessive). But there are no fixed rules
for
this.

What do you mean by "no fixed rules"??

AFAIK, there are very strict rules that govern the behaviour of vessels in
fog.

Are you suggesting that big ships are exempt from the Coll Regs?


I'm sure the Bar Harbor Fast Cat Ferry doesn't slow much in the fog,

My copy of the Coll Regs does not mention the "Bar Harbour Fast Cat Ferry".
I was under the impression that the Coll Regs were more authoritive than
your local ferry's skipper.




and
there is a chance some idiot is crossing the Bay of Fundy in his sea
kayak.


I don't believe that "idiocy" is an issue when trying to determine "stand
on" status. Am I wrong?



There's always "the slightest chance," someone could be rowing across the
Atlantic. Should all traffic stop because of a slight possibility?

Read the Coll Regs. I believe that the issue is covered.

A row boat has the same right as an oil tanker to use the Atlantic. The
Coll Regs were designed to make it safe for both of them.









The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. They have no business being out in fog.

Wow! I'm almost speechless (but not completely)!

Jeff, I would like to ask if the Coll Regs place any duty on a boat to
be a
good reflector?

Absolutely. Positively. Meditate on Rule 2 for a while. Every seaman
would
agree its folly to cross a shipping lane in the fog in a stealth kayak.


Where can you buy one of these "stealth kayaks"?

Are you so far out on this limb that you are having to use the concept of
fictional craft to back up your position?

I haven't bothered to look at Rule 2, .... because your position seems
ludicrous. I have read the Coll Regs in the past, and I believe that each
vessel has a duty to keep an adequate lookout.


You seem to be suggesting that vessels have an obligation to be seen!!!






Do the Coll Regs place any duty on a vessel to keep a look out for
other
vessels?


Of course. How does a vessel without radar do this in the fog?

By travelling slowly ... and keeping a lookout. If the fog is very thick,
then the vessel travels *very* slowly.







"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information"
ColRegs,
Rule 7(c)


I think that is what I was saying!!


No. You're ignoring reality. You're claiming that all large vessels
should
never proceed in the fog, because there's a chance of running over an
invisible
kayak in the middle of the ocean. You're taking a situation with a huge
amount
of gray area and trying to make it black and white; that's not the way the
world
works.


You raised the issue of "scanty information".

In thick fog, a skipper has scanty information.

The Coll Regs suggest that you should post a lookout, and that you should
slow down to a safe speed in fog.

Why do you have a problem with this?
It's all very simple. DO NOT travel at a speed where poor visibility
means that you cannot take the necessary avoiding action.



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Got to agree with Joe on this issue of remembering outlines/picking
differences.

I don't disagree that one can become familiar with a coastline/river from
the radar picture.

I disagree with the proposition that a Radar watch(at 25 kts) can be
considered " an effective lookout".

Most people agree that you need to post a lookout on the bow in thick fog,
and that you need to be going slowly enough to respond to a warning from the
bowman.

Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, and if the family of a fool that runs across a highway at night
in
black
clothes has a good lawyer, I'd be an unhappy driver, also. That
doesn't
change
who's right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.


So, are you claiming that because a kayak could be found anywhere, its
illegal
for any vessel to ever proceed in the fog? Are you saying the kayak
has the
right to cross in front of a tanker?

No, I am saying that the guy who runs over the kayak will be found in
the wrong to some degree.

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?


Read the Coll Regs!

Perhaps you think that they don't apply?





Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.

What do you mean?

He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker.

Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing situations
between Tankers and kayaks?



And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40
knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong.
You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases.
"Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area.


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


No, he isn't.
You seem to be saying that the kayak has no rights at all.





You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Ahhh! Good. You realise that the kayak will sometimes be the "stand on"
vessel!



Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

I'll admit that 25 knots does seem excessive in a lot of situations, and
its
rather unlikely that I would be going over 7 or 8 knots in thick fog (and
even
that would often be considered excessive). But there are no fixed rules
for
this.

What do you mean by "no fixed rules"??

Do the ColRegs mention a speed limit? The only say a "safe speed." It is up to
the captains, local authorities and,with hindsight, the courts, to determine
what a safe speed is in a given situation.


AFAIK, there are very strict rules that govern the behaviour of vessels in
fog.

That's the problem. You don't know, but you're assuming there are such rules.
I thought you took the YachtMaster course - what did they teach you there?


Are you suggesting that big ships are exempt from the Coll Regs?

Now you're talking like an idiot. You're assuming there are fixed speed limit
somewhere in the ColRegs, and I'm advocating ignoring them.



I'm sure the Bar Harbor Fast Cat Ferry doesn't slow much in the fog,

My copy of the Coll Regs does not mention the "Bar Harbour Fast Cat Ferry".
I was under the impression that the Coll Regs were more authoritive than
your local ferry's skipper.


You're blithering again. Why do you claim the ferry ignores the ColRegs? I
mention this particular vessel because its speed and route has been studied
carefully. And it travels regularly in the fog.




and
there is a chance some idiot is crossing the Bay of Fundy in his sea
kayak.


I don't believe that "idiocy" is an issue when trying to determine "stand
on" status. Am I wrong?


How is "standon status" involved here? Are you claiming that a kayak is
"standon" in the fog? What DO they teach you in YachtMaster class?



There's always "the slightest chance," someone could be rowing across the
Atlantic. Should all traffic stop because of a slight possibility?

Read the Coll Regs. I believe that the issue is covered.

Yes it is:

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the
owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences ...
of the neglect of any precaution which
may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case.

This means, amongst other things, that stupid behaiviour is frowned upon.

A row boat has the same right as an oil tanker to use the Atlantic. The
Coll Regs were designed to make it safe for both of them.


Sure. If it takes the same precautions. Radar. Radar reflector. Full time
watch. Frankly, I think long distance single handers are clearly breaking the
rules.




Absolutely. Positively. Meditate on Rule 2 for a while. Every seaman
would
agree its folly to cross a shipping lane in the fog in a stealth kayak.


Where can you buy one of these "stealth kayaks"?

Well, this is all a bit hypothetical. You started it questioning if the ColRegs
require a radar reflector.


Are you so far out on this limb that you are having to use the concept of
fictional craft to back up your position?

I haven't bothered to look at Rule 2, .... because your position seems
ludicrous. I have read the Coll Regs in the past, and I believe that each
vessel has a duty to keep an adequate lookout.

Jeez Donal, is this another case of "I don't know the rules but they must say
what I think is right"?



You seem to be suggesting that vessels have an obligation to be seen!!!

Well Golly! I think you're finally catching on!!! The court's have ruled over
and over again that a vessel forfeits its rights (I know this isn't the right
way to say this) if it doesn't show proper lights, or sound the proper signals.
They have also held that its OK travel at some speed if a proper radar watch is
maintained. They have also held that vessels shouldn't leave dock, or cross
channels if they don't have radar. Frankly, I don't know of a case where
someone was held at fault for not having a reflector, but perhaps no one has
been dumb enough to do it; or never got very far in a law suit.









Do the Coll Regs place any duty on a vessel to keep a look out for
other
vessels?


Of course. How does a vessel without radar do this in the fog?

By travelling slowly ... and keeping a lookout. If the fog is very thick,
then the vessel travels *very* slowly.


You mean like not crossing a shipping lane?








"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information"
ColRegs,
Rule 7(c)


I think that is what I was saying!!


No. You're ignoring reality. You're claiming that all large vessels
should
never proceed in the fog, because there's a chance of running over an
invisible
kayak in the middle of the ocean. You're taking a situation with a huge
amount
of gray area and trying to make it black and white; that's not the way the
world
works.


You raised the issue of "scanty information".

In thick fog, a skipper has scanty information.

The Coll Regs suggest that you should post a lookout, and that you should
slow down to a safe speed in fog.

Why do you have a problem with this?
It's all very simple. DO NOT travel at a speed where poor visibility
means that you cannot take the necessary avoiding action.

I never said you shouldn't have a lookout. I've only claiming that radar
permits a vessels to maintain a higher speed. And that it is accepted practice
to do this in certain locals. And that vessels that are poor radar targets
should avoid these locals.

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses an oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep evading the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?


Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.


What do you mean?

I mean the kayaker has the same right to displace that water as the
tanker operator. They must both adhere to the rules applicable to those
waters and their operation upon them.


In other words, you don't know.

You're claiming that the kayak has the right to travel in a VTS in thick fog?
I think not.



In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.

I am simply stating the facts that should be obvious to anyone who is in
command of a vessel on navigable waters.

In other words, you don't know.

Have you advised kayakers that that have a right to cross large ships in the
fog? Do you tell kids to play in the street?


You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes with
the job.


I'm glad you agree with me.

You don't need my agreement to be correct. I also believe that while
tradition and job security may dictate some coonass going like a bat out
of hell down the Atchafalaya or the HSC in zero visibility tradition
won't hold water in the hearing room or in court afterwards. Job
security ends at the point of impact.

To be honest, I've never seen the HSC, except as a tourist. But I thought that
major portions of it are a security zone, closed to all recreational traffic.
I don't know if 20 knots would be considered unsafe there; my only reference is
that in New England, 6 or 7 knots or faster is common for ferries in thick fog.
At this speed, it would be impossible to avoid a kayak that was not seen on
radar, not matter how good the lookout is.

As an example, the report on the collision in zero visibility between the Bar
Harbor Fast Cat and a fishing boat out of Yarmouth found little fault with the
ferry, even though it was going 13.4 knots in the channel. Almost all of the
contributing factors in the final report had to do the actions of the fishing
boat, its speed was too fast (9 knots) for the mediocre quality of its radar, it
continued to cross after acknowledging the presence of the cat, etc. Although
the incident caused an uproar, the ferry continues to operate, doing over 40
knots in open water. (All of the issues had to do with the approach channels at
Yarmouth and Bar Harbor.)
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/mari...1/m98m0061.asp

If the speed of the ferry was not considered an issue in this incident, I have
trouble seeing how the ferry would be found at fault if the other vessel were an
invisible kayak.

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...


I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?


Read the Coll Regs!


I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply? Grow up, Donal!







Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.

What do you mean?

He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker.


Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?

Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they do fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also have the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding large
vessels when effectively invisible.

The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid crossing a VTS
channel. It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is effectively
invisible.





And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40
knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong.
You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases.
"Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area.


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


No, he isn't.
You seem to be saying that the kayak has no rights at all.


I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business being in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the fog.






You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Ahhh! Good. You realise that the kayak will sometimes be the "stand on"
vessel!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the fog? The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while being
overtaken. You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

In other words, you don't know.

No, I don't. How could I possibly know what a Coast Guard hearing board
would decide? Or what a civil court will determine in a wrongful death suit?

All I know for sure is what measures I must take to avoid ever having to
find out.


So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog?

A safe speed.


You keep evading the question.

I made every effort to answer the question as clearly as possible. There
are no one word answers for all conditions and for the very brief set of
conditions and circumstances you outlined. Welcome to the real world of
boating.

You refuse to accept that vessel operations are not as simple and clear
cut as you wish they were. If you are looking for someone to tell you
exactly what to do in each and every condition then do not sail as master.

Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

Maybe, maybe not, it all depends.

You're claiming that the kayak has the right to travel in a VTS in thick fog?
I think not.

You may think what you like. Just don't bet your license or your life
savings on that sort of thinking.

Just 'twixt us, it behooves you to stop "thinking" what "rights" another
vessel operator has and learn what they really are and how it effects
your own operation.

Have you advised kayakers that that have a right to cross large ships in the
fog? Do you tell kids to play in the street?

Has anyone advised you to continue this absurd argument?

Why don't you stop playing on the internet and read the COLREGS. If you
have problems understanding who can do what when and where, ask someone
who lives by those rules, ask the CG who administer the rules and sit on
the hearing boards. What you want to think or believe might just get you
in a lot of trouble some day.

If the speed of the ferry was not considered an issue in this incident, I have
trouble seeing how the ferry would be found at fault if the other vessel were an
invisible kayak.

Perhaps because there were factors in that collision which you are not
aware of or don't understand.

The only way you will know why and how the CG came to their conclusion
is to read the report in its entirety and then read it again after
getting a few years experience in a wheelhouse as a master. If you still
disagree with their finding then come back here and tell us why they
were wrong.

Rick

And ???????
 

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Got to agree with Joe on this issue of remembering outlines/picking
differences.

I don't disagree that one can become familiar with a coastline/river from
the radar picture.

I disagree with the proposition that a Radar watch(at 25 kts) can be
considered " an effective lookout".

I'd tend to agree with you. Mind you, radar can be *very* good. We have
2 on our icebreaker and I've steered through heavy sea ice using the
radar image to see where the leads are. Lotta fun and it doesn't really
matter if you turn a little wide or tight since it's OK to crunch over
stuff in the way.

Anyway, if damn fools are considered as worth the trouble of saving,
then running at 25 knots on radar only in heavy fog isn't prudent.
Personally, I wouldn't regard anyone stupid enough to go out onto a
busy waterway, in heavy fog, sans lights, radar reflector, radar, sound
signals, radio and in a hull that is a poor radar reflector as worth
saving. Anyone that stupid is a hazard to navigation and we're all
better off without them.

PDW

And ???????
 

In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

PDW

And ???????
 

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you know you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in the fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

Yes I agree that any collision is bad news and should be avoided. And the any
master would be well advised to consider all possibilities.

However, if you believe that a small kayak, effectively invisible to radar,
could be anywhere, then it would be impossible to proceed in thick fog. Large
vessels have stopping distances far greater than visibility in thick fog - there
is absolutely no way avoid a collision even in good visibility.

Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to follow the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can assume that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor. What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

And you even admitted, in your convoluted way, that I'm right in the case of a
VTS. Isn't that what you meant when you said "kayak has the same rights of
navigation as the tanker within the COLREGS and VTS requirements."? Obviously,
you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to impede the
tanker.

So, you're the captain of a tanker? What do you do in the fog? If you give
your "maybe yes, maybe no" bull**** to your owners, you're out of a job.


"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

In other words, you don't know.

No, I don't. How could I possibly know what a Coast Guard hearing board
would decide? Or what a civil court will determine in a wrongful death suit?

All I know for sure is what measures I must take to avoid ever having to
find out.


So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog?

A safe speed.


You keep evading the question.

I made every effort to answer the question as clearly as possible. There
are no one word answers for all conditions and for the very brief set of
conditions and circumstances you outlined. Welcome to the real world of
boating.

You refuse to accept that vessel operations are not as simple and clear
cut as you wish they were. If you are looking for someone to tell you
exactly what to do in each and every condition then do not sail as master.

Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

Maybe, maybe not, it all depends.

You're claiming that the kayak has the right to travel in a VTS in thick
fog?
I think not.

You may think what you like. Just don't bet your license or your life
savings on that sort of thinking.

Just 'twixt us, it behooves you to stop "thinking" what "rights" another
vessel operator has and learn what they really are and how it effects
your own operation.

Have you advised kayakers that that have a right to cross large ships in the
fog? Do you tell kids to play in the street?

Has anyone advised you to continue this absurd argument?

Why don't you stop playing on the internet and read the COLREGS. If you
have problems understanding who can do what when and where, ask someone
who lives by those rules, ask the CG who administer the rules and sit on
the hearing boards. What you want to think or believe might just get you
in a lot of trouble some day.

If the speed of the ferry was not considered an issue in this incident, I
have
trouble seeing how the ferry would be found at fault if the other vessel
were an
invisible kayak.

Perhaps because there were factors in that collision which you are not
aware of or don't understand.

The only way you will know why and how the CG came to their conclusion
is to read the report in its entirety and then read it again after
getting a few years experience in a wheelhouse as a master. If you still
disagree with their finding then come back here and tell us why they
were wrong.

Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you know you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in the fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.

Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to follow the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can assume that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules.

If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to impede the
tanker.

I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS.

I am not going to waste a bunch of time on this with you, if you can't
comprehend the fact that there is no compilation of precise rules to
cover each and every possible combination of weather, visibility,
traffic, vessel type, and operator mindset then you should stay home or
at least stay away from other boats in all conditions.

What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you know
you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in the
fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.


So tell us. What do you think the ColRegs say? Especially regarding kayaks in
a VTS. You keep saying that I should read the book, but its looking like you
never have.

Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to follow
the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can assume
that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules.

You stated very little "plainly." But you started by saying they have the same
rights as everyone; I claim they have different obligations.


If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

No. You started this by claiming the kayak has the right to cross shipping
lanes in fog. Since the ColRegs specifically say they can't impede a
power-driven vessel in the VTS, they would be violating the rules just the same
as the vessel that behaves erratically.


you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to impede the
tanker.

I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS.


Bull****. You're saying he has the right to do it unless he doesn't. The
ColRegs say he doesn't have the right to impede. Without radar, in the fog the
kayak can't tell if he might be impeding. Therefore, he shouldn't be there.
Its really very simple. You're just so wound up pontificating that you can't
see this.

I am not going to waste a bunch of time on this with you, if you can't
comprehend the fact that there is no compilation of precise rules to
cover each and every possible combination of weather, visibility,
traffic, vessel type, and operator mindset then you should stay home or
at least stay away from other boats in all conditions.

I think this should apply to you.


What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.


You haven't given any answers. You've only claimed you know everthing and your
not sharing.

And ???????
 

Should all shipping shut down in the fog?


For perfect safety, yes indeed. Is it a perfect world? Hmmm....



Peter Wiley wrote:
By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

And it would run the price of gas up when the refineries couldn't get deliveries
on time.

I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so. But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

And ???????
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
....
I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in
the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks,
sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might
have
'every right' to do so. But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks
on
the interstate. Try it some time.


I'm glad there are a few who agree with me. I believe Rick is thinking that
when I said kayaks don't belong there I was claiming that large vessels have a
right to run them down. I was never trying to imply that. In fact, my real pet
peeve is the sportfishermen that think because a ferry (with high quality radar
and a trained crew) can safely do 8 knots on a well known route, they are free
do 35 knots in the fog.

Aside from the foolishness of taking a small boat in a traffic in the fog, the
ColRegs are quite specific, in Rules 9 and 10, that they don't belong is some
places when they are unable to see or be seen by other vessels.

Further, I claim that Rule 2 also frowns on foolish behavior. In very simple
wording it requires everyone act in a seamanlike manner. This would include
staying out of the way of large ships, and also maintaining a extra slow speed
where small boats would frequent.

If you cruise in coastal Maine, you will frequently see sea kayaks with radar
reflectors on the stern, often on a short pole. However, the consensus is that
this is only partially effective - its worth doing for the times it helps, but
it isn't reliable enough to make it safe in channels. Fortunately, they
normally stay close to shore.

And ???????
 

DSK wrote:

I have to disagree with Rick's post above, a kayaker has little business in the
shipping lanes to start with. In fog? WTF??

What "business" the kayaker has there is his, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways. That is not theory, it
is law and fact. Learn to deal with that reality. The kayaker is
obliged to follow the COLREGS and VTS rules just as you do in your boat.

But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is." What
you "believe" to be right or wrong in the operation of a vessel seems to
be a bit askew for both water and interstate highway operations.

Rick

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

What "business" the kayaker has there is his

His suicidal tendencies, perhaps?

, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

Agreed.

However, if a commercial vessel runs aground & is damaged by trying to avoid a kayaker,
the kayaker is liable for damages to the ship and under some circumstances is liable to
the shipper for the cargo.



There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks, sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways.

As long as he's not obstructing commercial or military traffic, agreed. However, the
"right" to recreate in shipping lanes is restricted.


.... Learn to deal with that reality.

Well, the rules are written in plain black & white. Is that "reality" enough for you?



No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

Excuse me, while hitchhiking or operating non-motorized vehicles is illegal on some
interstate highways & local expressways, there is no statute mentioning tiddlywinks or
badminton or a host of other unlikely and unwise activities.




All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is."

Hmm, seems to me that you might benefit from that prescription yourself.

DSK

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
Are you claiming that you can maintain a proper lookout with radar
alone?


Thats what I'm claiming Donal. I would not suggest it running a
strange river for the first time, but if you have navigated the same
area many times and you know it like the back of your hand then you
can safely run it with a quality fine tuned radar.

Emmmm... Aren't we discussing the Coll Regs? The International Rules
for
the avoidance of Collisions??

I don't see how "familiarity" with a particular stretch of water can
help
you avoid a collision.



So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================

Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility.

Jeff. It isn't moot. "at ***all**** times .... by sight and sound...".


Regards

Donal
--

And ???????
 

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


I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak crosses
an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?


Read the Coll Regs!


I've read them many times. You've admitted that you don't know them.

That is just plain stupid. I don't know them off by heart. However, I
have studied them - and I try to be aware of what my responsibilities are.

I cross the busiest shipping lanes in the world 6-8 times a year. I've
even crossed them in fog, without radar, a couple of times.


Perhaps you think that they don't apply?

That's a childish argument. Do you claim that everyone that disagrees
with you
is claiming the ColRegs don't apply?

You appear to be saying that the kayak may not traverse a shipping lane in
fog.

You said "The problem is that small boats without radar, that are not good
reflectors,
will be invisible. ***They have no business being out in fog****."
[my *'s]

I don't understand how you reach these conclusions.




Grow up, Donal!




Yes, the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker
within
the COLREGS and VTS requirements.

What do you mean?

He means that the kayak has the same rights of navigation as the tanker.


Where do the ColRegs talk about the rights of any vessel?

Silly question. Nobody claimed that the CollRegs talked about rights.



Do you think that the Coll Regs don't cover meering, or passing
situations
between Tankers and kayaks?

Again with the childish arguments.

Why is that childish?



Although rowboats and kayaks are hardly mentioned in the rules, they do
fall
under the "all vessels" category and thus have the same obligations as
other
vessels to proceed at a safe speed, maintain a lookup, etc. The also have
the
obligation to behave in a seamanlike manner, which includes avoiding large
vessels when effectively invisible.

That is a ridiculous argument. What is a kayak supposed to do if fog
descends unexpectedly?



The rules are quite also explicit that the rowboat should avoid crossing a
VTS
channel.

Is this what you are referring to?

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but
if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at
right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

That is not quite the same as your statement.


It goes further:
"A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not
impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic
lane"

I must assume these rules are even more important when the kayak is
effectively
invisible.



And remember, I'm no trying to defend the sportfisherman doing 40
knots in
the
fog; I'm just saying there are places the kayak doesn't belong.
You're
claiming
the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do anything he pleases.
"Using
all
his resources" is not an excuse for not using his brain.

I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds
of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area.


In other words, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.


No, he isn't.
You seem to be saying that the kayak has no rights at all.


I was serious - he was agreeing with me. The kayak has no business being
in a
VTS, or a restricted channel, or a security zone, especially in the fog.

So, if a kayak is traversing a shipping lane at right angles in fog, and it
gets hit by a ferry(only using radar) doing 25 kts, how would you
approportion the blame?


You want to play captain, you take the responsibility that comes
with
the job.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Ahhh! Good. You realise that the kayak will sometimes be the "stand
on"
vessel!


You think so? Where in the rules can any vessel be "standon" in the fog?
The
only time it can be standon is "in sight of another vessel" while being
overtaken.

Even in fog, vessels can be in sight of one another.

You really should read the rules sometime, Donal.


I have, look further back up the thread.


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
What "business" the kayaker has there is his, your "business" is only to
deal with the possibility he might be there.

You're ignoring the possibility that the readers of this forum are more likely
to be in the small boat than driving the tanker. You're taking a very
self-centered view of this.


There are plenty of places to use small recreational craft such as kayaks,
sailing
dinks, etc etc, without getting in the way of shipping. In theory, one might
have
'every right' to do so.

The kayaker has every right to use the waterways. That is not theory, it
is law and fact. Learn to deal with that reality. The kayaker is
obliged to follow the COLREGS and VTS rules just as you do in your boat.

Double talk. The ColRegs are very clear that vessels in TSS and Narrow Channels
have obligations which are impossible for a kayak to fulfill in the fog. This
is a very simple point in the rules, but you keep acting like you've never heard
of it. Bottom line is, you're dead wrong: the rules make it pretty clear that
the small vessel must not impede the large one. How do you do this if you can't
see it?



But in theory, you have the right to play tiddleywinks on
the interstate. Try it some time.

No, it is illegal, and plainly signposted so, to play tiddleywinks, ride
bicycles, walk, or any number of activities other than drive a motor
vehicle in accordance with the traffic laws, on an interstate highway.
There is no theory involved there either.

In other words, it perfect legal to do it, as long as they don't break the law?
Or are you claiming that because its "posted" a driver need not be concerned
about the possibility? This is exactly the same situation as the kayak. Its
both illegal and foolish to play in the highway, and to paddle in the TSS in the
fog. The driver of the tanker ship/truck should stay alert for the possibility,
but we (society) recognizes that there is likely little that can be done to help
someone who insists on foolish behavior.



All of you guys really do need to take a deep breath and try to
understand that what you think "should be" is not always what "is." What
you "believe" to be right or wrong in the operation of a vessel seems to
be a bit askew for both water and interstate highway operations.

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world works. Why
don't you just share it?

And ???????
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Donal
wrote:



I disagree with the proposition that a Radar watch(at 25 kts) can be
considered " an effective lookout".

I'd tend to agree with you. Mind you, radar can be *very* good. We have
2 on our icebreaker and I've steered through heavy sea ice using the
radar image to see where the leads are. Lotta fun and it doesn't really
matter if you turn a little wide or tight since it's OK to crunch over
stuff in the way.

That situation seems quite different to doing the same thing in a busy
waterway.



Anyway, if damn fools are considered as worth the trouble of saving,
then running at 25 knots on radar only in heavy fog isn't prudent.
Personally, I wouldn't regard anyone stupid enough to go out onto a
busy waterway, in heavy fog, sans lights, radar reflector, radar, sound
signals, radio and in a hull that is a poor radar reflector as worth
saving. Anyone that stupid is a hazard to navigation and we're all
better off without them.

I don't really disagree with you.

I'm simply saying that I don't think that travelling in a busy waterway at
25 kts using radar alone is semsible - in any state of visibility.



Regards

Donal
--

And ???????
 

I'm simply saying that I don't think that travelling in a busy waterway at
25 kts using radar alone is semsible


Semsible???? WOW!!!

Bwahahahahaa!

RB

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

So where in the Colregs does it say you can't run on radar alone?

=================================
Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.
=================================

That says you must maintain the lookout - it doesn't say you can't proceed when
visibility is limited. The courts have ruled that speeds up to 10 knots and
higher can be a safe speed in some circumstances, even in very limited
visibility.

Adding radar (required on all large ships) raises the "acceptable" speed a bit.
As I mentioned in the case of the Fast Cat Ferry, it was going 13.4 knots
shortly before the collision - this was not considered a factor in the
collision. Given that there was "zero visibility" we have to view this as
effectively running on radar alone.


Of course,
one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is moot if
there is
effectively zero visibility.

Jeff. It isn't moot. "at ***all**** times .... by sight and sound...".

I don't see your point here at all. Are you claiming that all traffic should
stop in thick fog? This is clearly not what happens. The laws and the court
rulings allow continuing, within limits, on radar alone. Clearly society has
determined that the value of continued commerce outweighs the risks to some
vessels.

If you're going to fantasize about a better world, how about one without the
common cold?