BoatBanter.com - Joe, the dangerous Redneck

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - Joe, the dangerous Redneck (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/19194-joe-dangerous-redneck.html)

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Donal wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
politician

(repeat above)

I play devil's advocate, occasionally.
I have learned to truly detest almost all politicians in the last couple of
years.

G No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout ....
other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when
available.

I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm,
or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm
quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar,
and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout
would be useless because his boat is too noisy.

"Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least
we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to
listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds
around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to
and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather
is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to.

I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make
no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the
lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the
VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a
lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you?

.... more on VHF later.

Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with
possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of
VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out

I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong
vessel.

or
backed up with information from the radar,

I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am
about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio
contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel.
You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have
spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you
are actually talking to a third vessel.

or other sources, as to it's
feasibility.
Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly.

Now you are really trying it on.

Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had
dissappeared. Here is another location.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf

I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I
can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are
making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the
use of radar, without a proper plot ....
i.e., if you don't back up the
basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you
are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF
communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee.

So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):-

"Marine
Superintendents would be well advised to
prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct
their officers to comply with the Collision
Regulations."

That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it?
(BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.)

snip
No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.

Addressed????

Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a
boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at
least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your
actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels
made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up
that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe.

I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely
certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on
the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate
with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking
to the right vessel.

BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about
VHF communication for "passing agreements".

Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound
like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international
safety standards.

Regards

Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.

I thought that I was doing the same with otn.

To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.

I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.

Forget your post with Jeff and Joe .... there are many conditions we all
deal
with that don't work all the time, work sometimes, and are greatly
influenced
by our individual experience for a particular area of operation.
Never forget Rule 2 .... apply it to your area and conditions, and always
know,
that what you may know or have used as normal conditions, may not apply to
a
particular area or condition that you now find yourself, in.
Many modern vessels rely on radar, as their main source of information for
the
routes they travel. Conditions may say that this is sufficient, or not,
and in
the case of a collision, it will easily be proved .... not.
The point of this whole discussion, is the reality of what one can expect
.....
the reality of what one must deal with .... the reality of .... Oh
Chit...I
didn't think of that and should have.
No system is perfect, will guarantee safety, can be relied on solely .....
Rule
2.....You are responsible for what you do, don't do, what you should do,
what
you shouldn't do.......etc.

Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?

I understand why Joe is upset with me. I *really* don't understand why
Jeff decided that I was wrong. otn seems to be conducting a rational
discussion, and I hope that I am responding in kind. Our differences are
are remarkably small. We seem to be discussing slightly different
interpretations of the CollRegs. There won't be a "winner" or a "loser".
There might even be two winners.

There's nothing wrong with these "confrontational" discussions. They are
educational.

Regards

Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

Donal wrote:

G No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout ....
other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when
available.

I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm,
or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm
quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar,
and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout
would be useless because his boat is too noisy.

I think you may have missed one of MY post. Many vessels travel without
a "dedicated" visual lookout. This does not mean that they have no one
watching visually ....it does mean that they have people splitting their
lookout duties between visual and radar .....i.e. .... all available means.
Under no circumstances, could/would I consider listening to the VHF as
being part of this "lookout" condition.
Using the VHF, however, to pass information as to "passing situations"
WOULD be prudent use of an available tool.
As to the noise associated with his boats ..... this can vary greatly,
from overwhelming to, of no consequence.

"Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least
we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to
listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds
around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to
and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather
is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to.

I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make
no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the
lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the
VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a
lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you?

Listening to VHF is PART of the "hearing" watch, and watching radar is
PART of the "by sight" watch, so, in essence, as PART of the overall
watch to be maintained in fog, I do agree with him....... I also/still
note, that different conditions require different actions and degrees of
radar/visual watch

... more on VHF later.

Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with
possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of
VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out

I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong
vessel.

This is what all are saying and part of what must be addressed, but is
no different than improper radar plotting in the final result.
One needs to use positions and other methods to confirm that the vessel
you think you are talking to, is indeed the vessel you are talking to.

or
backed up with information from the radar,

I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am
about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio
contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel.
You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have
spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you
are actually talking to a third vessel.

This danger exist, but is not a reason to not rely on VHF communication,
rather a reason to confirm proper indentification and communication.

or other sources, as to it's
feasibility.
Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly.

Now you are really trying it on.

No. My read is that you are using information, which in part, confirms
and/or bolsters your point, yet in truth when taken as a whole,
generally contradicts your point.

Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had
dissappeared. Here is another location.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf

I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I
can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are
making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the
use of radar, without a proper plot ....
i.e., if you don't back up the
basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you
are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF
communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee.

So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):-

"Marine
Superintendents would be well advised to
prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct
their officers to comply with the Collision
Regulations."

This, to me, is the statement of a lawyer who is not a Maritime
professional and not interested in the practical application as much as
the legal application. The primary issue is to follow and obey the rules
as the basis for how we act. However, to not make proper use, of new
technologies and to restrict their use or employment does not honor or
go along with that all important rule ..... rule 2.
If some "Marine Superintendent" was to try and prohibit my use of VHF
for passing situations, he would be told exactly where he could stick
his prohibitions and why..... course, in my case, I AM the so called
Marine Superintendent eg.

That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it?
(BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.)

See above

No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed.

Addressed????

Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a
boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at
least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your
actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels
made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up
that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe.

I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely
certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on
the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate
with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking
to the right vessel.

No, incorrect. There are any number of ways to ascertain that you are
talking to the right vessel. The most important being that you pass
accurate position/course/speed information. Once again, just like the
radar situation, you must closely monitor the situation until the danger
of collision is past.

BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about
VHF communication for "passing agreements".

Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound
like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international
safety standards.

Then you have lost this part of the argument with Joe, since the waters
he was generally discussing involved US "Inland Rules" which allow
passing signals to be made via VHF. I personally would not consider them
to be in the least bit dangerous ( with previously mentioned proviso's)
and in fact much safer when properly used, and don't think they fall
short in the least bit, with international standards as you will
probably find most pilots/ships use voice communication, nowadays to
communicate passing information, rather than whistle signals.

Again, if you are going to argue about a set of conditions (US inland
rivers/shipping channels [joe]) that you may not be familiar with, you
must understand that conditions/practice/rules may vary as to what you
are used to.

otn

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

Just as an interesting addendum:
Do a historical search of past rules ....you'll find that a number of US
Inland Rules, have found their way into the modern International Rules
to varying degrees/forms.

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

"Donal" wrote in message news:c0bq5o$ea1$1$8302bc10@

Try this.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf

Fortunately, the MCA still have the warning on their site!!!!
They really did change the web site! it was there when I posted the link
... honestly!!

If you read it you will see that they feel talking on the VHF might
distract from what? RADAR thats what. Why do you think they want you
to focus on RADAR?

I think you might of missed the part were I said I only run hooked up
in fog were I know every inch of the water way by radar. That make it
alot easier to comfirm who you are seeing on radar and talking to via
VHF.

And the only language problems here in Texas and LA is only a problem
with Vietnam shrimpers and it's OK to run them down, infact the Texas
shrimpers encourage it and will usually give you a few pounds of
shrimp for the effort ;0).

Joe
MSV RedCloud

Regards

Donal
--

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

Gasp...

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Only from experience.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

Hahaha.. good one. Actually, sailors tend not to wave, since the power
boaters are rarely keeping a watch.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

Hahaha... only if you include Bob and Neal.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Joe, the dangerous Redneck

"Donal" wrote in message news:c0js79$7rk$3
Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!

Why is an explanation needed? Surely you aren't claiming that the number of
toots corresponds to a position in some "pecking order"?

The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros" agreed with)
is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
"prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has some
limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible berth.

In the words of Farwell's, "Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as
any other vessel, but clearly the distinctive signals for them have the obvious
purposes of causing ordinary vessels to approach them with greater caution".

BTW, what sound signal should a kayak give in the fog?

-jeff

Joe, the dangerous Redneck