Just commenting on the state you live in where decisions about 'safety'
is removed from the list of responsibilities of the master and taken by
the state. This promotes a lack of _real_ 'safety' IMHO.

Cheers

MC wrote:

poor you!

Cheers

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



The answer is... doesn't matter! The issue for the CG
is whether or not they decide its safe.

Rule 2b:

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

Seems to me to cover it.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

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.

DSK

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:35:03 GMT, Rick wrote:

DSK wrote:

So that the prop won't chop the kayaker to bits as he goes under the hull.

Because the suction generated by a propeller of a large commercial ships have
been known to suck small sail and power boats into them, let alone a kayak.
You really have no conception of the forces and effects generated by a 25 foot
propeller turning 100 RPM.

JJ

Why would the prop "chop the kayaker to bits" and why would
he go under the hull of a ship?

Ricfk

James Johnson
remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply

James Johnson wrote:

Because the suction generated by a propeller of a large commercial ships have
been known to suck small sail and power boats into them, let alone a kayak.

When there is no power to the prop there is no "suction" ...
You did write: "Ringing an 'All Stop" won't do any good
...."

You really have no conception of the forces and effects generated by a 25 foot
propeller turning 100 RPM.

Oh, I think I do.

Rick

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Rick" wrote in message
k.net...
That doesn't mean that is the last word on the subject, nor
does it mean that there are circumstances where a seemingly
legal act could be actionable by the CG to prevent problems.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot recall any post by any
poster claiming kayaking in dense fog across a busy shipping
channel or VTS was prudent. Every single poster other than
myself claimed without qualification that there was one
reason or another that it was illegal, prohibited, or a
violation of some such clause of some law or another.


Saying "they have no business being there" or "they shouldn't be there"
is not
the same as claiming its illegal or prohibited. This is all your
fantasy!

So, could you explain, in practical terms what " they have no business being
there" actually means?


Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a
lookout.
Where did
I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not
thread)
were

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

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was
permissible
to
run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My
complete
statement was:

"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."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout,
only that
in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its
info.

No, no no, no, no!!!!!

In practice any vessel *must* obey the CollRegs. Don't you agree?

What is your point here? You've admitted that its legal to proceed even
if
there is zero visibility.

Oooops. I was wrong if I said that. I suspect that I said that it might
be more dangerous to allow the speed to drop below the point where a vessel
can maintain steerage.

You've insisted that a lookout must be posted, and
I've agreed wholeheartedly. My only point has been that in the absence of
visual input the helmsman is relying primarily on radar.

Nonsense! Your initial argument was that Joe was correct in his assertion
that navigating under Radar alone was acceptable. Do you want me to post
your words again?




Are you arguing simply
with my choice of words? If you think "virtually all of its info" or
"essentially on radar alone" are not proper ways to say it I might concede
the
point just to end this silly discussion.

Would you accept the wording of the CollRegs?



Or are you claiming that the helmsman must rely primarily on visual input,
even
in limited visibility? If this is your point, I think you need to go back
to
your class.

Tell us what the CollRegs say.

Then tell us why your opinion outweighs the CollRegs.



Or are you simply saying that its OK to do rely primarily on radar, but 25
knots
is simply too fast? To this I would claim, it depends on the situation.

It doesn't depend on the situation. You either accept the CollRegs, or you
don't.


I said
many times that I couldn't address Joe's situation, but I know of a number
of
runs where 7 to 14 knots is considered acceptable in the fog, and I
suspect that
some go 35 knots or more away from land. Since the HSC is largely closed
to
recreational boats, 25 knots may be accepted there.

So if you have a point here, please state it, and stop lying about what
I've
said.

Please stop calling me a liar. Just because somebody disagrees with you
does not automatically mean that they are a liar. It *is* possible that you
might be wrong.


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:


So, could you explain, in practical terms what " they have no business being
there" actually means?


Regards


Donal

Could you describe your profession in simple terms ..... engineer,
lawyer, politician, etc., please.

otn

Donal, read rule 7. Every vessel shall use ALL available means
appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine
if risk of collision exist.
To be honest, you've become Neal, in his absence ..... unable to
understand and apply the variables which encompass most of the "Rules".

otn

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

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Your primary claim seems to be I advocate running without a

lookout.

Where did

I say that


The first words that you addressed to me in this discussion (not

thread)

were

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

"

That sounds like you were under the impression that it was

permissible

to

run under radar alone.


OK, I'll accept that, but its pretty selective quoting there. My

complete

statement was:

"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."

I think its pretty clear I'm not advocating running without a lookout,

only that

in practice the vessel is depending on radar for virtually all of its

info.

No, no no, no, no!!!!!

In practice any vessel *must* obey the CollRegs. Don't you agree?

What is your point here? You've admitted that its legal to proceed even

if

there is zero visibility.


Oooops. I was wrong if I said that. I suspect that I said that it might
be more dangerous to allow the speed to drop below the point where a vessel
can maintain steerage.


You've insisted that a lookout must be posted, and
I've agreed wholeheartedly. My only point has been that in the absence of
visual input the helmsman is relying primarily on radar.


Nonsense! Your initial argument was that Joe was correct in his assertion
that navigating under Radar alone was acceptable. Do you want me to post
your words again?





Are you arguing simply
with my choice of words? If you think "virtually all of its info" or
"essentially on radar alone" are not proper ways to say it I might concede

the

point just to end this silly discussion.


Would you accept the wording of the CollRegs?



Or are you claiming that the helmsman must rely primarily on visual input,

even

in limited visibility? If this is your point, I think you need to go back

to

your class.


Tell us what the CollRegs say.

Then tell us why your opinion outweighs the CollRegs.



Or are you simply saying that its OK to do rely primarily on radar, but 25

knots

is simply too fast? To this I would claim, it depends on the situation.


It doesn't depend on the situation. You either accept the CollRegs, or you
don't.



I said
many times that I couldn't address Joe's situation, but I know of a number

of

runs where 7 to 14 knots is considered acceptable in the fog, and I

suspect that

some go 35 knots or more away from land. Since the HSC is largely closed

to

recreational boats, 25 knots may be accepted there.

So if you have a point here, please state it, and stop lying about what

I've

said.


Please stop calling me a liar. Just because somebody disagrees with you
does not automatically mean that they are a liar. It *is* possible that you
might be wrong.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Saying "they have no business being there" or "they shouldn't be there"
is not
the same as claiming its illegal or prohibited. This is all your
fantasy!


So, could you explain, in practical terms what " they have no business being
there" actually means?


Everyone, including you and Rick have agreed that it is probably foolish and
foolhardy. It has been generally agreed its not prudent. For the same reasons
I said "he has no business being there.


The only issue you and Rick raised is that in might be violating ColRegs until
there is actually an incident. I think it does violate rule 2 and likely rule
5, but there is no way of proving that.

To be honest, you've become Neal, in his absence .

Neal owns a better boat.

RB