A Point Worth Considering!

[ParaHandy]

Re: clarification please!

i don't think you're quite correct ... in this regard you are correct: the master would be the person (i think the words used are .. ) "in charge of navigation and control of the vessel" although they eschewed use of such words as "master". it would seem a valid (and reasonable) defence if the (sober) person responsible had been delegated that responsibility by the owner or some other person nominally legally responsible eg the charterer. you can't convict the owner of a car or passenger for being drunk if somebody sober was actually driving .....

a minefield which will only benefit our bewigged and learned friends ...... mirelle's case seems to point to an entirely different interpretation although one might have to examine in detail the judgement and the legal basis (and i have better things to do!!) ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[billmacfarlane]

Just what I was thinking. My other half and I sail as a team, equally doing the nav etc.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

I'm no legal eagle and have never professed to knowing all the answers, but what I can say is this.
1) MCA say that in the event of an incident the master is held responsible and despite what may have been said before a ship/vessel must have a master.
2) It would be IMHO difficult for a person that has a UK postal address, UK mooring, UK VHF radio licence and probably a SSR number to claim that he's not a UK flagged vessel.
3) Putting a young person on the helm may not be deemed sufficient defence.
4) Who amongst us would want to put our childern at risk by saying they were the master and then letting them carry the can for the incident?
5) That as someone has already said a number of EU countries already have laws governing this subject and you can't escape them.

Remember that we are talking of the fact an incident HAS taken place and it is plod in what ever form that will be running the show.

God knows that I like my single malt and I can only hope that if I'm tied up somewhere and not reasonably expecting to move the boat, that I will be safe from prosecution, but as someone has aptly put it, it is up to the legal wigs to determin whats right and wrong. I can only hope that some common sense is used when formulating the regs, otherwise I fear for all the racing crews out there for a start, never mind the cruising sailors?

Until it's resolved as a holder of various commercial licences, which I cherrish, I will make sure that if I'm skipper I don't drink to excess and only "let go" when I'm designated "crew".

Peter

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Sorry been away for a while.

Doesn't matter the vessel has to have one?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Can't we simply ask the RYA legal beagles for a plain english response on their current views? When the new Solas regulations were a common topic on these forums some while back, they gave me some remarkably sensible explanations which I posted here.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: clarification please!

tcm
I would answer in the following way!
1) No
2) No, because if you are in your home and someone drives into it it's not your fault.
3) No, what difference has speed got to do with it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: clarification please!

The master could be the owner (if aboard) or his represenative, remember that any vessel has to have a skipper/master.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: clarification please!

You can and if the incident occurs when Moose is Master then he carries the can!

<hr width=100% size=1>