This reg only really matters if there is an "incident"..... at which point a
solo sailor cannot use this fact as an excuse.

It is a clear example of rules generated by lawyers and politicans.........
If ANY solo was have a 10 minute kip / made a cup of tea / put a note on the
chart / had a **** / etc and something happens they will get the
blame.......

This would be exactly the same if you didn't have a motorsailing day signal
in place you would in the rules be at fault.

That said..... it really is a bit anal to expect ppl to comply in all
circumstances.


And try to remember...... every yachtmaster was a dayskipper
once............................


Matt

"Dan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message

Are you saying you have to be caught breaking the
law before you are actually breaking the law?

I think not!

You think right!

I'm saying there are thing I choose to ignore. Eg:

Col Regs: Motorsailing Triangle

Highway code: Wearing a fluresent Jacket as a pedestrian.

I've slept for 15 mins when sailing alone, we all have. You'd be
inhuman not to.

wrote in message

The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a
proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to
adjucate on a case by case basis.

According to Jim Austin in Ocean Navigator -
"ColRegs and Inland Rule 5 are identical in their description as to the
lookout requirement: "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight and hearing AS WELL AS BY ALL AVAILABLE MEANS APPROPRIATE"
(emphasis added). The last phrase adds, by implication, both radar and radio
to the requirement. (Courts have looked at binoculars, the depth sounder,
radar and radio as included in the armamentarium for a proper lookout.)"

CM

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule?
rant snipped
Captain Neal Warren
USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
ser.# 1045941
--- Safety at sea is no accident.


What's that funny smell? Oh yes, hard cheese. If there was a world class US
single handed sailor I bet you would change your tune.

John

wrote in message

You have run into the end of a dock on your starboard side. You were
keeping a CONSTANT ear and eyeball watch , but not a "proper watch at
all times". When you get to court, what portion of the blame do you
suppose will be alloted to the dock?

Do you usually provide scenarios which defy logic to substantiate logic??

CM

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:06:19 -0500, Capt. Neal®
wrote:


Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You
cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you
attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and
explicitness of Rule 5.


Captain Neal Warren
USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer
ser.# 1045941
--- Safety at sea is no accident.


Geeze, who ****ed in your cornflakes?

Dave

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule?

Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . .


Proper? What is proper? If it means 'sufficient to avoid collision' then
Ellen's must have been 'proper'.

wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan"
wrote:

wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan"

The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain
a
proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to
adjucate on a case by case basis.

In that case there must be some prior cases.

I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence.

I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no
one
has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and
listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for
someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that
the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it
would be up to a court to make the determination.

But most people *interpret* it as being up on deck, on the bridge at
all times. I'd be interested in and evidence of an alternative
interpretation.

Troll

Plonk


"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule?

Dan wrote:
wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan"


The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a
proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to
adjucate on a case by case basis.


In that case there must be some prior cases.

I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence.

There have been numerous cases that involved the issue of a proper
lookout. Many court decisions have set precedents, and many textbooks
have written on it.

However, the fundamental concept they focus on the question of whether a
better lookout could have prevented a particular incident. For
instance, and early ruling says that a proper lookout is so designated,
and this must be his primary duty. However, a later decision allowed
that a lookout could also sound a fog horn. However, a lookout can't
also be a navigator.

But if you apply decisions based on large ships, you end up requiring an
impossibly large crew for a small boat. The courts don't require the
same level of "lookout" on a small boat. Further, failure to have a
proper lookout (or failure to comply with any rule) is not penalized
unless it contributes to an accident.

However, if you're looking for a court decision relevant to this
situation, the ruling that I posted (again below) involves David Scully,
who was sailing the single hand racing boat Coyote (an Open 60?), which
he had chartered from the widow of Mike Plant. (Actually, I don't think
they were married before Mike disappeared when the keel fell off in the
mid-Atlantic). Scully was sleeping during a qualifying run from the
Azores to Newport when Coyote hit a fishing boat off Nova Scotia. Its
interesting reading - the original decision apparently cited the "vessel
moving should avoid vessel stationary" concept, but the appeal court
agreed with Scully that the fishing boat was not really "stationary"
according to the law, since it was not anchored. But the court held
that the lack of a lookout was the primary cause of the incident. The
fact that Coyote was not running its radar, lights, or radios didn't help.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf

One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout
is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must
follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty
for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In
inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not
having proper lights, etc.

Duh! Go to the back of the class, Vito!

"Proper" is defined by the content of Rule 5.

Here's your lesson for today. Study it hard and
please forego the wanking.

Rule 5
Look-out
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by 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."

Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even
someone of Italian heritage might understand.

"A proper look-out is defined by every vessel
at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as
well as by 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."

I hope this helps.

CN


"Vito" wrote in message ...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule?

Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper
look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . .


Proper? What is proper? If it means 'sufficient to avoid collision' then
Ellen's must have been 'proper'.