Visit our Popular Forums

CSY Man · 28-08-2018, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

I think it is interesting that those who find it morally wrong to single hand don't complain about the crewed vessels who don't keep watch when anchored.

Not a bad idea to keep an Anchor watch if there is some solo sailor voyaging nearby on autopilot and sound asleep.

Mr B · 28-08-2018, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Not a bad idea to keep an Anchor watch if there is some solo sailor voyaging nearby on autopilot and sound asleep.

How do you keep an anchor watch, If your not on the boat,

Paul L · 28-08-2018, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Weavis has a good point. You are correct that the court is not DIRECTLY telling you what to do. They are however indirectly telling you what to do because they found against you. In many ways this is similar to the now widespread use of the phrase Best Practices (at least here in the U.S.) as opposed to standard operating procedure (SOP). There were a few cases where someone did something different from the SOP and the attorneys said well, why did you deviate from the Standard procedure. Now by using the phrase Best Practice, it sounds less bad if someone deviates. The attorneys and insurance companies wanted to reduce their exposure and in a similar way insurances companies may do the same thing with requiring radar to be on if so equipped. Time will tell.

Now having said this, I wasn't there nor have I read the court's opinion so perhaps it is justified. The concern is that everyone just assumes that if you have radar it is best to use it, when this is not always the case. In particular, I can think of those who are not proficient with it or worse, those who have little to no training with it and perhaps even less experience.

Is it safer or more dangerous to have one who is confused or unsure of what they are seeing using radar, when it is likely to distract and overwhelm them with data that they don't know how to use (information overload)? The simple act of turning on Radar (or AIS) doesn't necessarily make one safer.

There are many maritime cases that consider watches and possible Radar usage. I've posted out of one of these earlier on one of these SH threads that concerned a single hander who was below deck sleeping and a commercial ship. The single hander was going after the ship in court. It's an o.der case and the judge seems very fair and informed.

Quote:

At the pertinent time the EXPRESS was proceeding in the open ocean on a clear night. Keeping the radar on standby in those circumstances was consistent with policy.
.....
I also reject plaintiff's contention that the EXPRESS must be condemned for failing to have her radar switched on during the evening in question. To reiterate: the EXPRESS was sailing in the open ocean on a clear night. Plaintiff cites no case requiring use of radar in such circumstances. My own research discloses none. The Fourth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion in British Transport Commission v. United States, supra. The district judge in that case rejected a contention that failure to use radar on a clear night constituted fault because it would have revealed the other vessel's existence. The district judge wrote:

"But [the mate] was not looking for anything to starboard; he had no reason to go to the radar to search in any direction. His failure to see the Duke [the other vessel] was not negligence, for it was not the result of neglect of an obligation. No obscurity obligated him to use his radar, and there was nothing else to put him on notice of any need for it."
The Fourth Circuit quoted this language with approval. 230 F.2d at 142.

In Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 274 F.2d 469, 474 (2d Cir.1960), Judge Medina stated generally: "If a vessel carries properly functioning radar equipment and she is in or approaching an area of known poor visibility, there is an affirmative duty to use the radar." British Transport Commission v. United States is one of the cases cited for that proposition in Afran Transport. It seems fair to assume that the Second Circuit would not condemn a vessel for failing to use her radar in uncongested waters and clear visibility.

Quote:

The obligation to maintain a proper lookout falls upon great vessels and small alike. Matter of Interstate Towing Co., 717 F.2d 752 (2d Cir.1983) (failure of "small pleasure craft" to maintain proper lookout held to contribute to her collision with barge under tow).

In the case at bar, Granholm's decision to go below during the nighttime was negligent. His own testimony reflects an awareness that this was so.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/576/435/2593336

**weavis** · 28-08-2018, 16:59

One of the irritating things is when I read a good article, I either note the url or I dont, thinking I can find it again...... which of course I cant.

I recall a case where the Boat Captain (non commercial) was found in breach of rules because he had RADAR on board and did not use it. I have the impression that this was going to be the standard applied to all vessels, if you have it.... use it..

If any one else has read the article and can quote it, I would be most grateful.

(Says weavis with 6 computers and the crappiest filing system ever of private interests...)

Pelagic · 28-08-2018, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by weavis

I recall a case where the Boat Captain (non commercial) was found in breach of rules because he had RADAR on board and did not use it.

I have the impression that this was going to be the standard applied to all vessels, if you have it.... use it..

The COLREGS have a section on vessels equipped with RADAR, that is quite specific as to WHEN you should use it ( restricted visibility.... Nearing a Fog Bank or Squall line)

Not that they Must use it at all times.

Your interpretation of that article might be a bit simplified as it was probably a case where the judgement said.. he SHOULD have used Radar for the conditions he was in.