"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I don't think I stated an opinion one way or another about whether you
had
a YM.
I didn't know for sure what you actually have, not do I care.

Frankly, I wasn't sure John was specifically addressing that when he
suggested
you were a faker. The bottom line is that you suggested you had taken
a
certain
test but described it so badly it seemed clear to everyone you never
had.
when
pressed you said:

"It's 13-14 years since I did the course, so I'm cannot give you the
specifics
of what is required."

From this I assumed you where claiming to have taken the "blind
navigation"

Assumptions are dangerous.

You were asked to clarify many times - you prefered to be obscure. You
invited
"assuptions." Frankly no one cared - it was only your reputation on the
line.


test, but your poor description showed that you hadn't. I'm guessing
John
made
the same assumption, but possibly also assumed that since this is part
of
the
YM, you were claiming to have that also.

Lots of assumptions there!

It was only your reputation on the line - everyone asked you to clarify!

Only people whose names began with "J" asked me to reply.




OK. I'll explain. I was lucky enough to do the shorebased course with
a
group of people who all got on very well together. The course consisted
of
evening classes in a school room, and it was supposed to take about 6
months. Our teacher's work commitments meant that he postponed many of
the
classes, and so the course stretched into a whole year.

During that year, we did two cross channel trips, and a couple of
weekends
in the Solent. These trips were much more "educational" than a normal
weekend sail. All sorts of exercises were done, including "blind
navigation", man overboard drills, etc. On the first trip the crews all
swapped boats between each of the three legs so that the non-boat owners
could gain experience.

On the last night of the course, we decided to set up our own club -
which
is still going strong. We still occasionaly do "exercises", but the
focus
is now firmly on cruising.


Good for you. That's a lovely story.

You don't respond very well to openness, do you?

*Now* do you see why I was circumspect??





Now you're claiming (I think, you still a bit vague) that you never
really
took
the test, you were only practicing it with friends.

I never claimed anything else.
I've said repeatedly that I did not take the Practical test. I don't
see
what is vague about it.


So, are you saying that "blind navigation" is part of the practical test?
Why
do you insist I should have understood this? You could have taken that
portion
of it.

Oh dear! Are you pretending to be stupid? How could you sail a boat in a
classroom?




Are you actually claiming that when you said "its been 13 or 14 years
since I
took the course" you meant that you took a course that explains what the
test
would be if you took a different course? Well, excuse me for not
following!

No. I learned about blind navigarion 13 or 14 years ago. I also
practised it (outside of the official course).

I'm really trying very hard to give you straight answers here. In case you
haven't noticed, I've stopped trying to let you, and Joe, carry on with
your absurd misunderstandings.





While you may not have lied
about your YM (something I never claimed), you're still a Putz!


Pah! Look at the subject line!

Are you proud of it?


Well, it does sum up your behavior succinctly. Are you denying that you
misrepresented my comments? You lied repeatedly about the "lookout"
issue;

OK! Let's try to rewind a bit.

Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate
under Radar alone?

That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


and
you even lied about this YM thing, since I never questioned whether you
had it
or not.

Frankly, your behavior has been that of a jackass, Donal, for which you
owe
everyone an apology. You made deliberately vague comments, implying that
you
had done "blind navigation";

I did!


now 2 weeks later you're saying you never really
did take the test. you just practiced it with friends.


Jeff, really!!!



I call you a coward because you deliberately misrepresented what I said,
even
when it was pointed out that you were completely wrong. Even if you could
claim
that my original words could be misconstrued, I made every effort to
clarify
them. But you persisted in lying. For this, I call you a Cowardly Liar.
If
the truth bothers you, perhaps you should consider adjusting your
behavior.

So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you can't
run on radar alone?"

What did you mean by that?

This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is.
" Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is
moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. "




Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

OK! Let's try to rewind a bit.

Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate
under Radar alone?

The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely that in
the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed. However,
nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe speed is
some exact function of the degree of visibility. Before radar, attempts where
made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the
visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't anything
that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced to
below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway. With a proper radar
setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be prudent
without radar.

So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required, the vessel
can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman, who is
likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted to
also function as the lookout. How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes well.

Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the ColRegs is
that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup, the
courts have not seen it that way. And if you insist that this "letter of the
law" is all important, overriding everything else, I might ask where in the
ColRegs there is an exception for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a slip?
Rule 5 simply says "at all times," it doesn't say "when underway." In fact,
the courts have ruled that a "proper lookout" is satisfied by "no lookout" in
many situations. (Though there have been odd cases where the courts said that a
boat anchored near a channel needed a lookout to warn off other boats.)

The point is, the concept of what is a proper lookout, and what is a safe speed
is rather variable. The courts have clearly held that if there was a
reasonable chance that a better lookout might have prevented a collision, than
the vessel is held liable. But if a proper lookout is posted, the vessel is
permitted to effectively navigate on radar alone.



That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels
anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't you
believe in the ColRegs?

The lookout is required, but he isn't the one driving the boat.



So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you can't
run on radar alone?"

What did you mean by that?

This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is.
" Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but that is
moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. "


I meant that although the lookout is required, his contribution to the actual
driving of the boat will be minimal. The helmsman is relying on radar alone.
If it truly is "zero visibility" this is rather obvious. (Of course, the fog
often varies so that if the fog lifts, the lookout may get a chance to
contribute, but then it isn't "zero visibility.")

BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole premise of
that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs.

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

OK! Let's try to rewind a bit.

Why did you ask where in the CollRegs it said that you couldn't navigate
under Radar alone?

The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely
that in
the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed.
However,
nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe
speed is
some exact function of the degree of visibility.

Have I ever suggested such a thing?


Before radar, attempts where
made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the
visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't
anything
that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced
to
below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway.

Have I ever suggested that they must stop?

With a proper radar
setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be
prudent
without radar.


Uhh ohhh!!!!

I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some
evidence to back this up? It would help, if the evidence came from
international sources, rather than domestic ones. After all, the CollRegs
are in fact the "*International* regulations for the prevention of
collisions at sea"..






So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required,

Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping
a lookout by sight"?


the vessel
can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman,
who is
likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted
to
also function as the lookout.

Agreed.


How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes well.

The lookout is there because things do not always go well.




Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the
ColRegs is
that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup,

I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a
pragmatic view.

I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that
they should exercise a degree of caution.



the
courts have not seen it that way. And if you insist that this "letter of
the
law" is all important, overriding everything else, I might ask where in
the
ColRegs there is an exception for vessels anchored, moored, or even in a
slip?
Rule 5 simply says "at all times," it doesn't say "when underway." In
fact,
the courts have ruled that a "proper lookout" is satisfied by "no lookout"
in
many situations. (Though there have been odd cases where the courts said
that a
boat anchored near a channel needed a lookout to warn off other boats.)

The point is, the concept of what is a proper lookout, and what is a safe
speed
is rather variable. The courts have clearly held that if there was a
reasonable chance that a better lookout might have prevented a collision,
than
the vessel is held liable. But if a proper lookout is posted, the vessel
is
permitted to effectively navigate on radar alone.

What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as
Joe says?


I'd like to see a link to such a case.






That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the
Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels
anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't
you
believe in the ColRegs?


I have complete faith in them.


The lookout is required, but he isn't the one driving the boat.

Of course he isn't.




So, Jeff, Why did you ask me "So where in the Colregs does it say you
can't
run on radar alone?"

What did you mean by that?

This time, I've also pasted the rest of the same paragraph. Here it is.
" Of course, one should always have a visual (and sound) watch, but
that is
moot if there is
effectively zero visibility. "


I meant that although the lookout is required, his contribution to the
actual
driving of the boat will be minimal. The helmsman is relying on radar
alone.
If it truly is "zero visibility" this is rather obvious. (Of course, the
fog
often varies so that if the fog lifts, the lookout may get a chance to
contribute, but then it isn't "zero visibility.")

BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole
premise of
that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs.

There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the
navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility.
Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely
that in
the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed.
However,
nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe
speed is
some exact function of the degree of visibility.

Have I ever suggested such a thing?

First you say you don't, but then you say a ship must be able to stop in time to
avoid a vessel spotted visually. That seem pretty specific - especially at zero
visibility.



Before radar, attempts where
made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the
visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't
anything
that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced
to
below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway.

Have I ever suggested that they must stop?

Yes. You said recently:

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

If vision is down to a few dozen feet, the only way a large ship could comply
with that is by not moving. Or do you have a different spin on this?




With a proper radar
setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be
prudent
without radar.


Uhh ohhh!!!!

I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some
evidence to back this up?

Yup. I think I've even quoted cases.

It would help, if the evidence came from
international sources, rather than domestic ones.

The ferry incident I've quoted is Canadian. Farwell's is co-authored by
Commander Richard A. Smith, Royal Navy. When my edition was published he was
the commanding officer of the HMS Achilles. Although a majority of the cases
they quote are from US courts, Farwell's is definately teaching the
"international" law. BTW, one British court opinion they cite was one of the
first cases where the moderate speed "half distance" rule has judged to not be
the "rule of law," and that each case must be judged on its own merits.

Another specific case mentioned in Farwell's involves two vessels , one without
radar the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 7 knots in 1 mile vis in a busy area,
another with only .75 mile vis but a good radar was allowed 8 to 9 knots. This
was listed as a specific case where radar permitted a higher speed. The
footnote cited: "The Hagen [1973] 1 Lloyd's Rep 257" so I assume this was a
British case.


So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required,

Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping
a lookout by sight"?


Certainly not by large ship standards. If there were an incident, they'd have a
lot of 'splaining to do!

On the other hand, Maine Lobsta Men single hand all the time. One comment in
Farwell's is that local customs cannot override the Lookout requirement, but in
practice, at least for small boats, they do.



the vessel
can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman,
who is
likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted
to
also function as the lookout.

Agreed.


How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes well.

The lookout is there because things do not always go well.




Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the
ColRegs is
that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup,

I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a
pragmatic view.

I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that
they should exercise a degree of caution.


No - you've said that the ship has to be able to stop, based on visual input.
That becomes an impossible task in real pea soup; for most heavy ships its
impossible in anything considered "thick fog." You seem to go back and forth on
this, first insisting that ship must be able to stop, then claiming you don't
intend the obvious implication of that. So perhaps you can take us through
this - what speed might be appropriate, and what are the parameters that would
allow the ship to avoid hitting the kayak?




What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as
Joe says?


I don't think so. The only way that works is if the river is known to be free
of small craft that might not show on radar.


I'd like to see a link to such a case.


Joe will have to answer that.






That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the
Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels
anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't
you
believe in the ColRegs?


I have complete faith in them.

Now that's scary! Wouldn't that mean that a ship doesn't have to worry about
the kayak, because it would never violate the rules by impeding its safe
passage?

But you didn't answer the question - do you keep a lookout while anchored or
moored?



BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole
premise of
that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs.

There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the
navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility.
Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering.


Your helmsman has "full visibility" in thick fog? Does he have radar vision?

-jeff

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
The ColRegs are explicit that a lookout is required - I said precisely
that in
the very next sentence. And the ColRegs also require a safe speed.
However,
nowhere is there an explicit correlation made that requires that a safe
speed is
some exact function of the degree of visibility.

Have I ever suggested such a thing?

First you say you don't, but then you say a ship must be able to stop in time to
avoid a vessel spotted visually. That seem pretty specific - especially at zero
visibility.



Before radar, attempts where
made enforce such a formula ("stopping distance shall be half of the
visibility"), but that was rejected by the courts. There simply isn't
anything
that explicitly says that all ships must stop when the vision is reduced
to
below the stopping distance from minimum steerageway.

Have I ever suggested that they must stop?

Yes. You said recently:

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

If vision is down to a few dozen feet, the only way a large ship could comply
with that is by not moving. Or do you have a different spin on this?




With a proper radar
setup, vessels are allowed to continue at a speed that would not be
prudent
without radar.


Uhh ohhh!!!!

I'm not quite so happy to agree with you here. Can you provide some
evidence to back this up?

Yup. I think I've even quoted cases.

It would help, if the evidence came from
international sources, rather than domestic ones.

The ferry incident I've quoted is Canadian. Farwell's is co-authored by
Commander Richard A. Smith, Royal Navy. When my edition was published he was
the commanding officer of the HMS Achilles. Although a majority of the cases
they quote are from US courts, Farwell's is definately teaching the
"international" law. BTW, one British court opinion they cite was one of the
first cases where the moderate speed "half distance" rule has judged to not be
the "rule of law," and that each case must be judged on its own merits.

Another specific case mentioned in Farwell's involves two vessels , one without
radar the safe speed was deemed to be 6 to 7 knots in 1 mile vis in a busy area,
another with only .75 mile vis but a good radar was allowed 8 to 9 knots. This
was listed as a specific case where radar permitted a higher speed. The
footnote cited: "The Hagen [1973] 1 Lloyd's Rep 257" so I assume this was a
British case.


So, what this means is that although a visual lookout is required,

Is Joe wrong when he says that looking at the Radar is the same as "keeping
a lookout by sight"?


Certainly not by large ship standards. If there were an incident, they'd have a
lot of 'splaining to do!

On the other hand, Maine Lobsta Men single hand all the time. One comment in
Farwell's is that local customs cannot override the Lookout requirement, but in
practice, at least for small boats, they do.



the vessel
can actually be "navigated" by radar. More to the point, the helmsman,
who is
likely focused entirely on radar and/or the compass, is not even permitted
to
also function as the lookout.

Agreed.


How much input does the lookout provide? In a
real pea soup, probably none if all goes well.

The lookout is there because things do not always go well.




Now, you might argue that the implication of various phrases in the
ColRegs is
that the "letter of the law" is that no movement is legal in pea soup,

I have NOT tried to make this point. *You* keep bringing it up. *I* take a
pragmatic view.

I don't have a problem with ships moving in a pea souper. I just think that
they should exercise a degree of caution.


No - you've said that the ship has to be able to stop, based on visual input.
That becomes an impossible task in real pea soup; for most heavy ships its
impossible in anything considered "thick fog." You seem to go back and forth on
this, first insisting that ship must be able to stop, then claiming you don't
intend the obvious implication of that. So perhaps you can take us through
this - what speed might be appropriate, and what are the parameters that would
allow the ship to avoid hitting the kayak?




What is a "proper lookout"? Is is someone looking at a radar screen, as
Joe says?


I don't think so. The only way that works is if the river is known to be free
of small craft that might not show on radar.


I'd like to see a link to such a case.


Joe will have to answer that.






That question confused me. It suggested that you were looking at the
Regs
with preconceptions. IMHO, the CollRegs are very clear about the
requirement to keep a lookout.


Indeed. The ColRegs is so emphatic that no exception is given for vessels
anchored, moored, or even in a slip! So are you in violation now? Don't
you
believe in the ColRegs?


I have complete faith in them.

Now that's scary! Wouldn't that mean that a ship doesn't have to worry about
the kayak, because it would never violate the rules by impeding its safe
passage?

But you didn't answer the question - do you keep a lookout while anchored or
moored?



BTW, how is this different from your "blind navigation"? The whole
premise of
that is that its possible to navigate with no external inputs.

There is a big difference. In my exercise, I was only doing the
navigation. Somebody else was on the helm, .. and he had full visibility.
Blind navigation is not equal to blind skippering.


Your helmsman has "full visibility" in thick fog? Does he have radar vision?

Jeff,
Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can
navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster
including
lanod can see thru thick fog without radar.

Joe

-jeff

"Joe" wrote in message | Jeff,
| Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can
| navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster
| including
| lanod can see thru thick fog without radar.

Cripes Joe...... what would you guys think of my favourite pastime of
sailing at night with no running lights and CRT Radar only?

Anyone with a clue about radar can assume a total "cloaking device" and sail
in blind fog without too much worry. I often shut down all ancillicary
electronics and turn my boat into a "black-out" to sail along at night on
radar alone. My screen is well forward in the cabin and can be clearly seen
from the cockpit. I often use the Autohelm remote control and radar in
conjunction to make night sailing like a video game. If another boat is
approaching I "light-up" with every light on board [ if it suits me to make
an impression]. It scares the hell out of most other boats.

I've sailed by a friend of mine at night in a storm at 0230hrs.... who said
afterwards the I looked for all intents and purposes like a ghost ship
sailing out of an evening fog bank.... by him and into the night. He says he
saw the sails materialize first ... .....and then the boat. He claims it was
a silent and awesome sight to see me pass him so quietly.

You guys are arguing an idiot's point! I'll sail my vessel as. when and how
I please. You won't tell me what when or how! I don't care how good you
think you are..... I'm the Captain! **** the COLREGS! I'll stay out of the
way of faster and bigger vessels or let them know where I am when it suits
me.

CM

Capt. Mooron wrote:




Anyone with a clue about radar can assume a total "cloaking device" and sail
in blind fog without too much worry. I often shut down all ancillicary
electronics and turn my boat into a "black-out" to sail along at night on
radar alone.

Stops those pesky *******s from the RCMP from stopping you when you're
bringing in a couple of hundred kilos of BC bud eh?

My nephew just got his butt arrested during a raid at a million dollar
grow-op, he was the chief horticulturist. Claimed he grew the best
weed in Canada, but I wouldn't know anything about that ;-o .

Cheers
Marty

"Joe" wrote in message
m...

Jeff,
Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can
navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster
including
lanod can see thru thick fog without radar.


Joe,
Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"?

Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the
helmsman, or the skipper?



Regards

Donal
--

Donal wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
m...


Jeff,
Lanod has told us a hundred times now that any yachtmaster can
navigate blindly without any input. Of course all onshore yachtmaster
including
lanod can see thru thick fog without radar.



Joe,
Can you give us a rough definition of the word "navigate"?

Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the
helmsman, or the skipper?



Regards

Donal
--


That's easy ... the skipper .... the navigator only advises, eg kinda
like a pilot.

otn

"Donal" wrote in message

| Who controls a boat's course through the water? The navigator, the
| helmsman, or the skipper?

The Helmsman..... which could be the Captain or the Navigator depending on
the circumstance or watch.

CM