Bergman
New member
"I would agree in large measure with much of your comment"
Thank you
I too believe that our views are fairly close.
I agree that we all have a responsibility for our own safety, but not to the extent of allowing others to be complacent.
IMO standards dictate a minimum level of performance, there is no regulatory reason that I am aware of that prevents a company exceeding the minimum standards.
PeterB's description provides a very good example of how a small item can be found among clutter, and Pye end buoy, if my memory serves right, is much smaller than a 25 ft yacht. What Peter did manually could have been done electronically I am certain, given the motivation to create the capability to do it.
I agree about providing a decent RCS, which hopefully will be facilitated by the Qinetic (I still think DERA) report. I do not entirely agree that this "puts the ball in our court" Clearly there are issues surrounding the effectiveness of radar reflectors and the sooner there is better information available the happier I for one will be. I have little or no confidence in the presently available stuff.
If the answer is that the only way to give a decent reflection is to move to some sort of active device then a clear statement from Qinetic would help. Presumably such a statement would create a demand which would encourage supply which would bring down the price (yeah OK I'll dream on) however this in itself could create a range of new issues.
But
So long as Colregs puts an onus on a vessel to take positive action to avoid another vessel they cannot abdicate the responsibility for being able to detect that vessel's presence. So the ball can never be fully in our court. Zero complacency must apply to everyone who goes to sea, and everyone who is involved in the creation and policing of international regulations as well.
Thank you
I too believe that our views are fairly close.
I agree that we all have a responsibility for our own safety, but not to the extent of allowing others to be complacent.
IMO standards dictate a minimum level of performance, there is no regulatory reason that I am aware of that prevents a company exceeding the minimum standards.
PeterB's description provides a very good example of how a small item can be found among clutter, and Pye end buoy, if my memory serves right, is much smaller than a 25 ft yacht. What Peter did manually could have been done electronically I am certain, given the motivation to create the capability to do it.
I agree about providing a decent RCS, which hopefully will be facilitated by the Qinetic (I still think DERA) report. I do not entirely agree that this "puts the ball in our court" Clearly there are issues surrounding the effectiveness of radar reflectors and the sooner there is better information available the happier I for one will be. I have little or no confidence in the presently available stuff.
If the answer is that the only way to give a decent reflection is to move to some sort of active device then a clear statement from Qinetic would help. Presumably such a statement would create a demand which would encourage supply which would bring down the price (yeah OK I'll dream on) however this in itself could create a range of new issues.
But
So long as Colregs puts an onus on a vessel to take positive action to avoid another vessel they cannot abdicate the responsibility for being able to detect that vessel's presence. So the ball can never be fully in our court. Zero complacency must apply to everyone who goes to sea, and everyone who is involved in the creation and policing of international regulations as well.