You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've only
briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that. 25 knots would seem excessive if
there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about is
largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is
considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a small
boat not visible on radar is rather slim.

I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar to
steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout. This is certainly frowned
upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have
trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this thread,
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat.

-jeff


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Once again, you're assuming that I've endorsed Joe's position. As I
said, when
you start out with faulty assumptions, you end up being wrong.

Are you now saying that Joe was wrong when he disagreed with me?





Regards


Donal
--
BTW, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. It's too late for me do
justice to it.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said
from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've
only
briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that.

Ok.
How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the
conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was
a breach of the CollRegs?

I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by
travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you
questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff.

I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained,
but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's.

Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly).


25 knots would seem excessive if
there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about
is
largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is
considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a
small
boat not visible on radar is rather slim.

It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can
whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However,
the English Channel is a completely different place.



I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar
to
steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout.

If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim
that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned
me.

This is certainly frowned
upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have
trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this
thread,
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat.


.... and mine!




Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I said
from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since I've
only
briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that.

Ok.
How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the
conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout was
a breach of the CollRegs?


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.


I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by
travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you
questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff.

I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that "safe
speed" is not an absolute.


I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained,
but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's.


Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly).


25 knots would seem excessive if
there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking about
is
largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is
considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a
small
boat not visible on radar is rather slim.

It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter can
whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic. However,
the English Channel is a completely different place.

IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel crossing.
Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't be
surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of the Bay
of Fundy.




I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using radar
to
steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout.

If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my claim
that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you questioned
me.

I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute. The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from where
I sail.


This is certainly frowned
upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I have
trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this
thread,
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat.


... and mine!


mine too.


-jeff

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
You'd have to be more specific about which conversation that was. I
said
from
the beginning that I couldn't endorse Joe's actions, especially since
I've
only
briefly seen the HSC, 35 years ago at that.

Ok.
How, then, do you explain the fact that your initial contribution to the
conversation was to question my observation that a "radar alone" lookout
was
a breach of the CollRegs?


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is
that?



I was questioning Joe's assertion that he was behaving correctly by
travelling at 25 kts under radar alone. I took exception when you
questioned me - mainly because you usually post sensible stuff.

I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business"
being there.

You are using double standards.




I know that you acknowledged that a proper lookout should be maintained,
but you still seemed to find my position more offensive than Joe's.


Sorry, I tend not to be too interested in the obvious.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace.




Quite frankly, I was surprised (to put it mildly).


25 knots would seem excessive if
there is any chance of other traffic, but the canal he was talking
about
is
largely closed to recreational boating. I also wonder if 25 knots is
considered a "safe speed" offshore where the chances of encountering a
small
boat not visible on radar is rather slim.

It really depends on what "slim" means. I happily accept that Peter
can
whizz about at any speed he fancies in the depths of the Antartic.
However,
the English Channel is a completely different place.

IIRC, there is a high speed ferry that does (or did?) the Channel
crossing.
Perhaps you can tell us what speed they slow to in thick fog. I wouldn't
be
surprised if the Bar Harbor Fast Cat does over 30 knots in the middle of
the Bay
of Fundy.


You're correct. The P&O Condor service is a high speed (35 kts+) service.

I believe that they slow down in fog, to about 20 kts. However, I would
stress the word "believe". I really do not know where that impression comes
from. I usually see the Condor on crossings to Cherbourg(three times). I
would have been fairly close to it on both my crossings in fog. I suspect
that I saw it on one of the foggy trips, but I cannot be certain.





I did take exception to Joe's claim that the helmsman, who is using
radar
to
steer the boat, can also serve as the visual lookout.

If you look back, you will find that you took greater exception to my
claim
that Joe was breaking the rules. You didn't question Joe, - you
questioned
me.

I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.
You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a
TSS.

Can't you see that you are biased?

The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that
this has happened.




This is certainly frowned
upon on large ships, and while it is sometimes done on small boats, I
have
trouble seeing how this actually works. As I said early on in this
thread,
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation on my boat.


... and mine!


mine too.




We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily!



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement. I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why is
that?

I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.) doing
thing that I think is downright crazy. I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean they
should be doing it.

Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed, killing two
of the crew.

I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all* users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.


I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that the
courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court
decisions.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had business"
being there.
You are using double standards.


There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a speed
endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a situation
where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed out
the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it would
only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're using
double standards.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a menace.


You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it.



I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a lookout
must be maintained "at all times." Do you have a lookout posted now? Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a slip? I
posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very important
principle. There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.


You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in a
TSS.

And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.


Can't you see that you are biased?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there, and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.



The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly no
ability to avoid impeding a ship. Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something. What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe that
this has happened.


There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not always,
does not need a lookout.



We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end happily!


And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy.

-jeff

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


The fact that the visibility is near zero does not preclude movement.
I
wasn't
agreeing with Joe; I simply did not wish to comment on the actions of
a
professional in an environment that I'm not familiar with.

Yet, you are very willing to comment on the actions of an amateur? Why
is
that?

I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't
presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about
smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.)
doing
thing that I think is downright crazy.

Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?



I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any
rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean
they
should be doing it.

Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.




Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident
that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed,
killing two
of the crew.

I haven't yet managed to view the evidence. I may be wrong, but I don't
think that you have provided a link.



I was merely questioning the absolute nature of your comment. The
fact
that
movement is permitted in conditions where radar is required means that
"safe
speed" is not an absolute.

I've never disputed this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I think
that shipping may travel at speeds that do not allow them to comply with
the
CollRegs. OTOH, you have consistently demanded that I should explain
why a
kayak should be in a TSS at all. I accept that the ships need some
latitude, but I also would extend the same degree of latitude to *all*
users
of the sea.


Your position is quite different. You are happy to extend *enormous*
lattitude to commercial vessels, and yet you question whether a kayak
has
any "business" to be in a shipping lane.


I didn't grant any latitude to the commercial vessels. I pointed out that
the
courts did, and it was the obligation of the masters to obey the court
decisions.

In your opinion, the commercial vessel may travel at a speed that the
CollRegs prohibit, and a kayak would have to prove that he "had
business"
being there.
You are using double standards.


There is a difference. The large ships are (presumably) travelling at a
speed
endorsed by the courts. The kayak, OTOH, knowingly placed itself in a
situation
where it is likely it would violate the rules. You've frequently pointed
out
the ship's obligation to avoid a collision, but you never mention that it
would
only come to that if the kayak violated the rules. It sounds like you're
using
double standards.

Besides, you were willing to call him a "menace" without ever
witnessing
what he
was talking about - I'm not willing to do that.

He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a
menace.


You have a right to your opinion. I just didn't care to comment on it.



I only took exception to treating the rule as an absolute.

I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a
lookout
must be maintained "at all times."

I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.




Do you have a lookout posted now?

No.


Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a
slip?

I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip.


I
posed this before and I don't think you responded, but its a very
important
principle.

Quite right!

There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.

Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?





You take torturous leaps of logic to say that a kayak has no business in
a
TSS.

And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy
thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.

So what?

What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.




Can't you see that you are biased?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The
last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there,
and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.

Did you also think that the ships should proceed as if you might not be
there? Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts, without sounding fog
horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?





The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated
until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

You repeatedly asserted that a kayak could not *guarantee* that it would not
impede a large ship if it crossed a TSS in fog. Why did you feel that it
was important to make this assertion?



And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly
no
ability to avoid impeding a ship.

There you go again!

A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.


Why are you criticising me? I really don't know. You seem to be
reasonably familiar with the CollRegs, and yet you constantly say that I am
wrong in my interpretation of the same rules. The funny thing is that I am
not *interpreting* the rules. I am just quoting them. You are the one who
is trying to *interpret* them.


I've said that it is a breach of the regs to proceed without a proper
lookout in fog. You asked me where the CollRegs forbade the use of a
"radar only" lookout. I quoted you the rule. You still seem to think that
because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there.


Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something.

I like your use of the word "embarking". I doubt that many kayakers would
"embark" on a crossing of a TSS in fog.

Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.



What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make
it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.

So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?




The concepts of
"safe speed" and "proper lookout" are decided by the courts. I'm not
willing to
pass judgment on a professional's action several thousand miles away
from
where
I sail.

I would really be interested to see a link to a case where a court has
overturned the CollRegs on the Lookout Rules. I really cannot believe
that
this has happened.


There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean
that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that
there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the
collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not
always,
does not need a lookout.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?





We are getting very close to agreement. Maybe, it will all end
happily!


And with Jax back, we can have a common enemy.

Maybe ..... maybe.


I respond to each post as I read it.


If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect
that he will succeed.





Regards


Donal
--

After a LOT of snipping (Cu'mon guys .... if a lazy ole Phart like
me can take the time to snip the useless parts, so can you.... too long
and everyone loses interest)

Donal wrote:


Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?

Yup, and not to say you won't find the exceptions, just like you won't
find the same exception for a small recreational boat, but what's the
point or advantage?
After all, on ships, all they have to do is flick a switch or turn a
knob, and .... presto, fog signal. Put the engine on SB, set an extra
set of mark one eyeballs, and enter all in the log (eg Lord help him
who falsifies or doesn't make the log entry, in case of an accident.
..... the way the regs and audits are going nowadays, accident or no
accident, don't get caught.)


Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.

Frequently, actions which apparently, only threaten the particular
individual, acting stupidly, end up threatening the lives of many who
are now tasked with saving his/her stupid butt.


He's doing 25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway. He isn't keeping a
proper lookout. He is in blatant breach of the CollRegs. He *is* a

menace.

He's doing 25k in fog .... you don't know whether it's a "busy
waterway", you assume. You also don't know how good a visual lookout he
is keeping, be it on his own or with additional eyeballs, even though
his main reliance may be the radar .... hence, you don't know whether he
is or is not a menace.


I take the lookout rule as an absolute, and you take exception.

Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a

lookout

must be maintained "at all times."


I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.

I've run a number of boats, in fog, where I was the visual as well as
the radar lookout ( I think I disagree with Joe on this point) ....
conditions will say whether you need to be more visual or radar lookout
and what your speed can be. When possible, I prefer to have someone
designated as "visual" but expect little from them until conditions warrant.



Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?

In most cases, you will find the various nations, will act on cases
within their jurisdiction. The findings/verdicts of these "nation"
courts will become "International" precedence, for other cases. The
"little court in Boston" will not necessarily override the IMO rules,
but will decide how they apply to the particular case they are handling,
which may be used as "precedence" for other cases in other "nations".



What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.

If a kayak thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a big ship in
a TSS, then it must behave accordingly .... especially in fog. The Kayak
has as much responsibility to avoid collision as the ship does.


horns, and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

BG You're reaching to try and make a point ... the point may be valid
in some circumstances, but not all. If a ship were to proceed at all
times, based on the fact that a kayak may be there, then it might's well
drop anchor at some wreckers yard, cause it ain't goin anywhere at a
rate of speed that could make it a viable option to carry cargo.


The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

You can't have it both ways. Are you talking fog or clear visibility?
If you are talking fog, then I disagree.....arguably.


A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.

The Kayak IS breaching the rules, if it can't maneuver, in time, to
avoid collision.....it's not a "one way street" .... the kayak is as
responsible to avoid collision as is the ship.


What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make

it

before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.


So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?

Nope, no more than it absolves the small boat or kayak to do the same.
..... and considering that small boats in fog may have far more
visibility than the ship, a good deal of weight is put on their
shoulders to act early .... at least earlier .... than the ship.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not

always,

does not need a lookout.



Which courts? Are they "International" courts?

Like a number of issues, you are stuck on this "international" issue
...... a particular case may be handled in the courts of a particular
nation, but the ramifications can and will be "international"


otn

I think Otn answered most of these points - its nice to have someone in
agreement with me.

Comment interspersed ...



"Donal" wrote in message
...
I don't feel qualified to judge a professional. I certainly wouldn't
presume to
judge the master of a large ship. I have made comments at time about
smaller
commercial boats, especially when I've observed them close up.

OTOH, I have seen very small (craft, kayaks, windsurfers, dinks, etc.)
doing
thing that I think is downright crazy.

Isn't it crazy if a large ship does 20 Kts in fog, without sounding a fog
horn?


Perhaps. Not sounding the whistle is certainly wrong, but its not my place to
judge the "safe speed." However, the the ship can rectify their situation
simply by throttling back and turning on the horn. What can the kayak do other
that whine the the fog was not expected?




I've had kayakers ask me which way land
was. I had a powerboater ask me where Marblehead was, and if there any
rocks
along the way. The fact that they weren't breaking any law doesn't mean
they
should be doing it.

Ahhhh. I really believe that people should be free to do anything that
they want, as long as they are not breaking any law. In fact, I believe
that governments exist to protect our right to act without impediment,
unless our actions threaten others.


Doing something where the inevitable result is breaking the law is not right.
Claiming that the sun was shining when you left port is not an excuse for not
having lights.




Remember, one of the early comments in this thread was about an incident
that I
had followed, where a small powerboat plowed into a ferry at speed,
killing two
of the crew.

I haven't yet managed to view the evidence. I may be wrong, but I don't
think that you have provided a link.


Sorry, the only writeup of the results that I remember is on a subscription
service. The original reports made it sound like the ferry ran down the fishing
boat, but it was the opposite - the small boat hit the side of the ferry at
speed.


Do you really take the lookout rule as an absolute? The rule says a
lookout
must be maintained "at all times."

I do indeed take the "lookout" rule as an absolute.

Do you have a lookout posted now?

No.

Do you
have a lookout when you're anchored overnight, at on a mooring? In a
slip?

I certainly do not post a lookout when I'm in a slip.


Then you're ignoring the rule! They are unequivocal - "Every vessel shall at
all times maintain a proper look-out" - there is nothing that says, "except when
its not convenient."

I posed this before and I don't think you responded,
but its a very important principle.

Quite right!

So you blantantly ignore the rules but expect total compliance from everyone
else! Is that your point? That its OK to violate the rules when you want to?


There are points in the rules where the rulings of the courts take
precedence over the literal words in the rules.

Which courts? These are the *International* Rules. ARe you really
suggesting that some little court in Boston can override the International
Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea?


Sorry, Donal. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You are expected to understand
the interpretations of the courts. While a court may not feel bound by the
ruling of a lower court in a different jurisdiction, the courts appreciate that
it is everyone's best interest to have a common body of law. In the text I've
quoted most often, a number of the precendents cited are British. I even
provided a quote where they say that common interpretations are important in
international law.

You keep asking me to cite British case, but you've never mentioned any. What's
the matter, don't you have courts there anymore?


And yet, virtually everyone agreed that it is a foolish and foolhardy
thing to
do. That is the common meaning of "no business" around here.

So what?

What effect should it have on the behaviour of big ships? If a big ship
thinks that there is any possibility of meeting a kayak, then it must behave
accordingly.


But then you say you don't intend that to mean that all traffic should stop.
However, that is the only logical response - if the ship knew there was a kayak
and didn't stop it would be reprehensible. You seem to keep flip-flopping on
this; what are you really saying?

I suppose I do lean toward the side of sanity, but only slightly. The
last time
I was in pea soup I remember thinking that I had no business being there,
and I
had a good radar and only needed a few minutes to cross the ship channel.

Did you also think that the ships should proceed as if you might not be
there?

A ship should always assume there is a possibility.

Were you happy that they might be doing 25 kts,

it is not my position to judge a "safe speed"

without sounding fog horns,

The would be wrong

and without having any lookout other than a radar watch?

A visual watch is required, but what that really implies varies with the
situation. Maybe you could give us some examples from your local courts.


The rules are explicit about the requirements for a safe lookout.
The rules do not explicitely prohibit a kayak from traversing a TSS.

Again, "having no business" is not legal statement. You can review the
archives and you'll find that I never claimed that a rule was violated
until a
ship was impeded (for rule 10) or there was some other consequence of the
actions (for rule 2).

You repeatedly asserted that a kayak could not *guarantee* that it would not
impede a large ship if it crossed a TSS in fog. Why did you feel that it
was important to make this assertion?


It is the responsibility of every seaman to be prepared to fulfill its
obligations and handle situations that could reasonably be expected to arise.
This is articulated quite clearly in Rule 2(a).

The law even has a provision for "inevitable accidents" arising from situations
that could not have been foreseen. However, they are very rare, less than 1% of
the cases in US law. It is generally held that simple weather events (such as
fog) or mechanical problems that could have been prevented with better
maintained are not an excuse.




And there's a point you keep ignoring. The kayak in the fog has absolutly
no
ability to avoid impeding a ship.

There you go again!

A speeding ship, without a proper lookout, cannot *guarantee* that it won't
collide with a small vessel that doesn't show up on its radar.

What's the difference? I'll answer.

The kayak is *not* breaching any rules. The speeding ship *is* breaching
rules.


Are you saying that the kayak is not obligated to "not impede" the ship in the
narrow channel or TSS?



Why are you criticising me? I really don't know. You seem to be
reasonably familiar with the CollRegs, and yet you constantly say that I am
wrong in my interpretation of the same rules. The funny thing is that I am
not *interpreting* the rules. I am just quoting them. You are the one who
is trying to *interpret* them.


We keep going around this one issue: the rules seem to imply (thought they don't
say explictly) that in zero visibilty, the only safe safe speed is "zero."
There is no other speed that would permit a tanker to proceed without having the
risk of hitting an unseen tiny vessel. My claim is that the courts have said
that it is permissible to proceed under certain situations. Your claim
sometimes seems to be that the letter of the law must be followed, and other
times you seem to say that breaking the law is inevitable.





I've said that it is a breach of the regs to proceed without a proper
lookout in fog. You asked me where the CollRegs forbade the use of a
"radar only" lookout. I quoted you the rule.

You only showed that the law requires a visual lookout even when there is zero
visibility, something I conceded in the original post.

You still seem to think that
because a "kayak has no business" in a TSS, that it shouldn't be there.

Duh! That is my position. I don't claim its illegal to be there, I claim its a
stupid thing to do.




Embaking on a venture like that may not be
violating the ColRegs, but it sure seems like its violating something.

I like your use of the word "embarking". I doubt that many kayakers would
"embark" on a crossing of a TSS in fog.

You're right, most have better sense than that.


Fog tends to appear when you least expect it. You don't always have a
choice in the matter.

No, fog usually occurs when I expect it. I think you may need a better teacher.

What if
you left for a crossing without running lights? You might be able to make
it
before dark, but ignoring the possibilty that you might not would be
reprehensible.

So what? Does that absolve ships from their responsibility to keep an
adequare lookout?

You keep harping on this. Are you claiming that all ships in the Channel are
running without lookouts, without whistles, always traveling at an unsafe speed?
I would agree that when they do so, they are wrong.



There are certainly lots of cases where lack of a lookout did not mean
that a
vessel was liable. For starters, the "Pennsylvania Rule" implies that
there
must actually be a causal relationship between the violation and the
collision.

Also, the courts have ruled that a vessel at anchor usually, but not
always,
does not need a lookout.


Which courts? Are they "International" courts?


Perhaps you can provide a link where a British court has differed significantly
from an US ruling. You seem obcessed with claiming that texts and rulings from
the US have no bearing in International waters, but you never provide any
alternatives. You have no credibility on this issue until you do so.



If Jax want's to upset me again, then he will have to try hard. I suspect
that he will succeed.



Don't be upset by jaxie, he's just a child.