"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

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

They can't stop what they can't see..... ;-)

|
| 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 .

Was that the big Brewery Bust??? Crap that was awesome! They should give
those guys a Government contract and let them hire staff!


CM

Capt. Mooron wrote:



Was that the big Brewery Bust??? Crap that was awesome! They should give
those guys a Government contract and let them hire staff!



Wasn't quite that big, they only had three barns full of lights,
blowers, pipes, driers, heaters, insulation, filters......

A few miles north of Kingston and about two weeks earlier.

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

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"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.


100% correct.


Let's wait and see what Joe's answer is.



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message ...
"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"?

Look it up in your on-shore yachtmaster guide.


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

Gee Lanod.........on my boat thats all the same person.

Does it take 3 yachtmasters to navigate a boat?

Joe
MSV RedCloud






Regards

Donal
--