Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout.
He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa! Regards Donal -- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
politician Donal wrote: Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is becoming acceptable, world wide. And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Read the Inland Rules for the US (Rule 34 h ) otn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or politician Honestly, I've only ever acted in a legal capacity for an individual named Lucifer. If I ever enter into politics, I think that I will be an anarchist ... and of course we will have to dissolve our party as soon as we found it! Donal wrote: Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion. Yes, he did! He is the sole lookout on his high-speed barge, and he sits in the wheelhouse looking at his radar, ans listening to his VHF in fog. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is becoming acceptable, world wide. 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 And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. Addressed???? Joe seems to be completely its limitations! Regards Donal -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or politician (repeat above) Donal wrote: Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion. Yes, he did! He is the sole lookout on his high-speed barge, and he sits in the wheelhouse looking at his radar, ans listening to his VHF in fog. 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. "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. 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 or backed up with information from the radar, or other sources, as to it's feasibility. Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is becoming acceptable, world wide. 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. And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! 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. BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about VHF communication for "passing agreements". otn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Donal" wrote in message ...
Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa! Regards Donal -- Donal your name calling is quite childish. The rule states "as well as by all available means appropriate " VHF Radar ect. If you can not hear anything but your vessel then listening is not one of the available means that would be appropriate to avoid collision is it?. Joe MSV RedCloud |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Joe" wrote in message m... "Donal" wrote in message ... Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa! Regards Donal -- Donal your name calling is quite childish. "...fire with fire"! I am conducting this discussion according to *your* rules. The rule states "as well as by all available means appropriate " VHF Radar ect. If you can not hear anything but your vessel then listening is not one of the available means that would be appropriate to avoid collision is it?. You are not even trying to hear anything!!! You Also omitted the first part of the rule! "***Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing*** as well as by all available means appropriate ...." Furthermore, is it impossible to hear anything because you are going at full belt? If you reduced your speed from 25 kts, to say 6 kts, would a proper lookout be able to hear other fog horns? You seem very willing to accept the bit of Rule 5 that start with "as well as....". Why don't you accept the bit that starts with "Every vessel **shall** .."? The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency (MCA) is the official body that is responsible for maritime safety in UK waters. They have issued a bulletin that highlights the dangers of your approach to navigation. I've posted a link to the bulletin, http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 , and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. The MCA have quoted examples of unnecessary collisions that were caused by people who, like you, were so irresponsible that they used VHF as their "hearing" watch. Perhaps you didn't read the link? Regards Donal -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Donal"
Lanod posted this fake link with no usefull info what so ever, http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 Guess they change the web-site eh Lanod? Joe |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Joe" wrote in message om... "Donal" Lanod posted this fake link with no usefull info what so ever, Sorry! It was there yesterday. I checked it. Honestly. http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 Guess they change the web-site eh Lanod? 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!! Regards Donal -- |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Redneck Girl | General | |||
Redneck Woman | General | |||
Dangerous quadrant? | ASA | |||
Installing storage - cutting aluminum bench, dangerous? | General | |||
Irrefutable proof of dangerous multihulls. | ASA |