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
--