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

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

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 . . .

Get a life. It was a stunt and stunts are, by definition, dangerous.

Besides, like or not, no harm, no foul.

Simple at that.

Later,

Tom

"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'.

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?

Capt.
What are you worried about her sail boat colliding with your ship? It's
a risk she chooses to take as have many others through the years.
There's always one out there that's a stickler for the "rules". You must
be one that never ever breaks a rule. Like posting to multiple
newsgroups for example.
Paul

Capt. Neal® wrote:
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 . . .


Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot
claim you do not know what the words "sight" and
"hearing" mean.

Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about
it.

sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing
2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense
of which the eye is the receptor and by which
qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color)
are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small
bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming
5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj

hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of
perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which
noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot
3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments
(as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative
committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses

© 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster
Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

"At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is
sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order
to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing
AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states
ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps
is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise.

Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal
if Ellen has a collision argue falsely.

Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance
solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor
anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they
are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat.

Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole
team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about
time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity
which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere.

I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos
to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates
legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only
record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation
of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of
electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays
awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing
twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally.

Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission.

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.

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.