Dover Straits in “the good old days”?

Gary Fox said:
Imagine how complicated matters would be, if the Rules were constantly fiddled with by bureaucrats and lawyers, to try and accomodate every new development!
I would personally say that improvements in technology are covered under phrases such as, 'the normal practice of mariners' , which would imply our normal practices in 2021 AD, thus including the latest technology.
Or, '..appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions', as judged on the day in question, whether it is 1972 or 2072.

There is already a glaring misunderstanding of the latest (1970's) technology, the reference to WIG's. This is claimed to stand for 'Wing in Ground'. However a craft with its wing in the ground would 1) not be at sea, and 2), would have crashed.
I find it quite annoying, but that is just me.

The writers were intending to mention craft which fly low above the surface with their wing(s) in 'ground effect', gaining more lift for less power because the air is slightly compressed between the craft and the surface.


'Surface effect craft', would have been a better choice..although in the plural, the spoken acronym becomes SECs...
Click to expand...
Would you be equally happy if the rules of the road or air travel regulations had not been revised since 1972 to take account of new technology? Seat belts, cruise control, use of mobile phones while driving, to name but a few.
That does not mean you have to ditch the basics, of course not, but you have to acknowledge the changing world, make best use of new possibilities and curb any new dangers that may arise. Somehow the wise people who deliberated on the colregs then thought it wise to incorporate the use of that relatively new technology that was called radar. They did not pretend it did not exist, but decided to make the best use of it and write it into the legislation
 
westhinder said:
Would you be equally happy if the rules of the road or air travel regulations had not been revised since 1972 to take account of new technology? Seat belts, cruise control, use of mobile phones while driving, to name but a few.
That does not mean you have to ditch the basics, of course not, but you have to acknowledge the changing world, make best use of new possibilities and curb any new dangers that may arise. Somehow the wise people who deliberated on the colregs then thought it wise to incorporate the use of that relatively new technology that was called radar. They did not pretend it did not exist, but decided to make the best use of it and write it into the legislation
Click to expand...
FYI, in 1972, radar had been in use by ships for several decades. Fiddling with the Rules in today's era of technological advances would cause chaos. AIS and any other possible future innovations are already covered, as I wrote above.
Air travel and road travel are not good comparisons.
 
Back in the day (1976), when I left Uni, I joined British Rail as a graduate trainee and spent a few days at Sealink which included a bridge trip on Horsa which had installed an experimental radar which had a "target identification" system which could identify collision risks... I thought it was amazing, but my AIS receiver on Gladys does many more targets, in about 0.5% of the size!
 
Gladys said:
Back in the day (1976), when I left Uni, I joined British Rail as a graduate trainee and spent a few days at Sealink which included a bridge trip on Horsa which had installed an experimental radar which had a "target identification" system which could identify collision risks... I thought it was amazing, but my AIS receiver on Gladys does many more targets, in about 0.5% of the size!
Click to expand...

I remember Henghist and Horsa on the Folkestone Boulogne route??? The hover craft were a little modern for my family!
 
Gary Fox said:
How are the 1972 Rules quote, 'still killing people', unquote?
Click to expand...

Particularly, Rule 17, which is only needed because of Rule 15, which isn’t needed and is only there because of the Paris Conference of, iirc, 1862. The original 1840 Trinity House Rules used a version of Rule 19 for all power driven vessels.
 
Gary Fox said:
How are the 1972 Rules quote, 'still killing people', unquote?
Click to expand...
Interesting article, I'm not sure what the fellow advocates with regard to Colregs.
The problem with incorporating new tech in an international system is obvious, it needs to work for Eritrean fishermen as well as Dutch or Chinese supertankers.
I like to play in the Thames Estuary in my mirror dinghy, and when I see big barge with a foaming mouth I know what to do.
 
seivadnehpets said:
I remember Henghist and Horsa on the Folkestone Boulogne route??? The hover craft were a little modern for my family!
Click to expand...
We did a hovercraft trip to Calais in 1978. It was sort of OK, but noisy and boring because you couldn't see a thing out of the windows, due to spray. My view is only partly jaundiced by the fact that I ate some dodgy mussels with lunch and threw up in the city park.
 
The fellow is a member of what has been known for thirty years and more as the Rule 19 lobby, which argues that merchant ships are 99.99% power driven vessels, that the stand on and give way concept is vital for sailing vessels but, as Trinity House spotted in 1840, not for power driven craft, that these days merchant ships first detect one another by means other than sight and are thus subject to Section III - Rule 19 until they come in sight of one another at which point Section II - Rules 11-18 - apply, that this is silly and Rule 19 should apply all the time between power driven vessels with logical alterations, just as it did between 1840 and 1863.
 
seivadnehpets said:
With apologies for a layman's reply, and thanks for the simple explanation, I suppose that would make sense as long as the vessels are in radio contact, and both are aware of the others presence.
Click to expand...
Many conversations between ships by VHF are worse than useless, because those speaking do not have a good clear command of English.
 
Kukri said:
Particularly, Rule 17, which is only needed because of Rule 15, which isn’t needed and is only there because of the Paris Conference of, iirc, 1862. The original 1840 Trinity House Rules used a version of Rule 19 for all power driven vessels.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will have a perusal later.
 
johnalison said:
We did a hovercraft trip to Calais in 1978. It was sort of OK, but noisy and boring because you couldn't see a thing out of the windows, due to spray.
Click to expand...

From memory, the first two windows each side just about had a view.

Sort of.

Much prefer the ferries though.
 
Biggles Wader said:
...
The tanker was blown in half and thus there were two wrecks and two other ships hit them and sank. Trinity house set up an exclusion zone with a couple of lightships and there were lots of storys about shipping ignoring them including one US navy carrier which may or may not have been true. I think over thirty died by the time it was all over.
...
Click to expand...

The origin of the story,

I demand you alter course,
No
I am a US aircraft carrier
I am a lighthouse.

Probably was true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

stu9000
Which route to Vlissingen?
Replies
11
Views
454
All_at_Sea
A

Share this page

Top