"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than
a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in the
matter. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. Fog
can descend when it is not expected. The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the
unexpected can happen. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.


Regards


Donal
--





DSK

And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?

It's easily possible. If a ship ran aground (or hit some other obstacle)
trying to dodge one, the results could be bad.



Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public
than
a
kayak?

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that
taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with
ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter. TSS lanes can be 5 miles wide, with 10 miles between them. Fog
can descend when it is not expected. The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that
the
unexpected can happen. That is why the CollRegs never assign a right of
way. It is *always* the duty of any vessel to avoid a collision.


Regards


Donal
--





DSK

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.


Our CG doesn't operate 25 miles from shore.




Regards


Donal
--

Ours does.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And it would equally be the duty of the CG to remove the kayak from
the situation as being unsafe.


Our CG doesn't operate 25 miles from shore.




Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS? I think you would have to
agree that the only way for this to happen is a deliberate attempt to cross the
English Channel, or some similar venture. This is not a case of of going out to
a harbor island for a picnic.

If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short lived.

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

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected. Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being there.

The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

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

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

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

And what of the responsibility of the kayak? Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right - the
kayaker has no business doing it.

But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?

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

IMHO 25 knots and fog is not good, regardless of the lookout.

The point that Jeff and Jon and I have been trying to make is that
taking
a
small boat with poor radar return and little chance of evading ship
traffc,
into a shipping lane in fog, leaves no way to comply properly with
ColRegs
or
for that matter good seamanship.

I don't disagree with you. However Jeff has been saying that the kayak
"has no business" there. I strongly disagree with that statement.


Its certainly your right to disagree; its an opinion, not a legal claim or
statement of fact.


A kayak could easily find itself in a position where it had no choice in
the
matter.

Easily find itself? You mean they go to bed in their cozy flat, and
suddenly
wake up in the middle of the world's largest TSS?

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

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


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

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

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





If you wanted to make a case for the kayak, you could start with a trip to
a
harbor island, where the return involved crossing channel a few hundred
yards
wide - then I might have some sympathy. But if they had not taken the
basic
precautions that would make this safer, that sympathy would be short
lived.

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

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



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

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???


Fog can descend when it is not expected.

It should always be expected.

It depends upon the climate.


Anyone that goes that far offshore should be
prepared to deal with the possibilities. Even if they were intent on
crossing
the Channel, they should be making a weather assessment when they're out
there
before commiting to crossing the TSS. If this is beyond their
capabilities,
then I would claim (I'll bet you can guess) they have no business being
there.

And, as you can guess, I




The CollRegs (IMHO) accept that the unexpected can happen.

Yes, and departures from the rules can become necessary.

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

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

No, I am not leaving out anything.

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


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

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







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

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

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


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

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




And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

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


Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.

You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

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

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


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


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

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

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


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

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

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

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


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



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

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

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


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

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

No, I am not leaving out anything.

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

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




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

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


This is the key issue in all of this: Once you say that even with "appropriate"
vigilance, the large ships can't stop for small boats they can't see on radar
(or visually, until its too late), and you say the small boat doesn't have the
resources to avoid the collision, the only reasonable course is avoid the
encounter in the first place.


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

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

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


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

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

In my experience, the large ships do a reasonable job. However, I've frequently
seen sportfishermen do 30+ knots in a area where small boats could be crossing,
such as Buzzard's Bay. And I would doubt they have a dedicated lookout or
trained radar operator. I generally assume its on autopilot while the skipper
is in the head!






And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

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

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



Requiring the large ship to do a
crash stop is violating its responsibility not to impede. How does it
maintain
a lookout? How does it avoid a collision? My claim is simply that
starting out
on a venture that has a fair possibility of these results is not right -
the
kayaker has no business doing it.

Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that the kayaker's
responsibilities outweigh the ship's.

They BOTH have responsibilities under the CollRegs.


sure.




But what is your claim? Are you saying its OK because the large ship must
avoid
collision? Is it OK if there's only a 10% chance of fog? Is it OK
because they
have a legal right to try? Or because they don't start out with the
intention
of violating the rules? What's your point here?


My point is, and aalways has been, that the ship should try to observe the
CollRegs.


I never denied it.


You keep arguing that the kayak shouldn't be there. That doesn't change
the obligations of the ship one iota.


I agree, the obligations of the ship are unchanged - sort of. At the risk of
opening this back up, I'll say what's been in the back of my mind all the time:

A powerboat in a harbor, say, in an anchorage, should be expecting a small
dinghy. To be prudent, it should be going dead slow in a thick fog, and be
assuming that a dink could appear at any moment. A ship that does not have this
capability, "has no business" being in the anchorage in the fog.

So while the fundamental obligations remain unchanged, the location and
circumstances mean that the details have changed. So in a sense, the
obligations do change - the changing parameters in the ""safe speed" equation
yield a different safe speed.

The test of Rule 2(a) can be applied - is this the behavior the "ordinary
practice of seamen"? If the answer is "Yes" then if everyone fulfills their
obligations under the ColRegs and the court interpretations, everything should
work out. But if one vessel does something out of the ordinary, then we have to
look carefully at the prudence of the actions. A big ship in a small boat
anchorage is not "ordinary practice," neither is a kayak in a shipping lane.
Both may be legal, but they are not prudent.

-jeff

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

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



"Donal" wrote in message
...

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

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


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

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

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






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

Fog can descend suddenly - wherever it occurs!

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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






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

A few are, but they are obviously miles offshore.

So???

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

Hmmm. I can't say that.



..


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

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

No, I am not leaving out anything.

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

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


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






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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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





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

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

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


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

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

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

Not in fog, you haven't!

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

Good assumption.









And what of the responsibility of the kayak?

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

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


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

I think that you are mistaken.


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



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote ...

We all had work to go to the next day.

Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs?

SV

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




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

We all had work to go to the next day.

Is that a viable excuse according to ColRegs?

SV