Yep there is black and there is white, both of which are easily interpreted, but when they mix and become grey? Some still argue black and white when its grey. Are you suggesting for a moment that there are those who cannot recognise grey and therefore unable to compute a solution using anything other than black or white rules?
This post renders the remaining 341 redundant.
Except it is about an incident with the boats going in different directions to this one...This post renders the remaining 341 redundant.
The problem with that is that as a ship turns round the brambles - you interpretation would exclude pretty much all of the central solent, which is not a reasonable interpretation. In this particular instance it seems likely that the atlanta entered the area by virtue of the tanker turning, rather than her own actions.
The issue may be as to how the Precautionary Area is defined in the words of the actual byelaw. It says where it starts, on a line between two buoys, and it says where it ends, on a line between two buoys. The bit inbetween is only described as "the main navigable channel" the exact location of which could be subject to argument. Some diagrams even show it as going beyond the edge of the channel and extend it to the western boundary of the Port of Southampton.
Yep there is black and there is white, both of which are easily interpreted, but when they mix and become grey? Some still argue black and white when its grey. Are you suggesting for a moment that there are those who cannot recognise grey and therefore unable to compute a solution using anything other than black or white rules?
I don't honestly know whether he could be charged under byelaws as well. I don't see why not as they would be totally different from the current charges. The only thing that may stop it is that if someone is charged with two similar offences for the same incident but of differing seriousness, usually only the most serious is proceeded with. I think the defences would still stand though - the precautionary area would still be ill defined and the tanker was still not indicating the MPZ as it was obliged to do under the byelaws. Nothing would be changed with the lower burden of proof in those cases.
All the vessels, including the tanker, had obligations in that area which I think is what the discussion is about. The actual trial is about whether or not the yacht did meet it's specific obligations under 3 (or so) regulations.Hmmm. Let me get this right. Now the HK is in the wrong for being in a major shipping channel it cannot leave and has difficulty manoevering, and has attempted to avoid collision with a disabled power vessel and struck a racing yacht that was in the shipping channel, in a an area where special restrictions apply when large vessels are navigating and in a defined zone where they must keep clear.
Got it
Hmmm. Let me get this right. Now the HK is in the wrong for being in a major shipping channel it cannot leave and has difficulty manoevering, and has attempted to avoid collision with a disabled power vessel and struck a racing yacht that was in the shipping channel, in a an area where special restrictions apply when large vessels are navigating and in a defined zone where they must keep clear.
Got it
