wasnt there EU sanctions on shipping oil to syria?
There still are, but that does not have anything to do with where the oil originated, or COSCO.
There are no UN sanctions against exporting or transporting Iranian oil to anywhere (except to one refinery in Syria) That is purely a US instigated sanction, as is sanctioning COSO, or any other shipping company for doing so.
The sanctions work because the US dollar is still the “world currency” and the US market for commodities, goods and services are large. Although no Government has followed US in imposing such sanctions, many large companies are afraid of losing trade if they go against the US.
How long before a way is found to bypass the US Dollar in international trade and transaction is hard to predict, but that the experience with the misuse of power by the present administration will certainly speed up the process is a certainty.
The rest of the world cannot accept being kept hostage to the whims of one country, or one President, or trust that this will change with the next US election.
Don’t gloat, it’s unbecoming. The Chinese are holding the countries bordering the South China Sea hostage to their expansionist policies and threatening freedom of navigation to expand their defensive posture. The US isn’t the only country imposing its will to achieve its goals.
cant have your wish if your talking about china can you President is in for life and the people didnt vote.
Last time I read the collregs. AIS was not mentioned.
Ergo. Not a violation of the Collregs.
However AIS is required by other regs. which of course would be violated.
Sort of like ‘responsible gun ownership’ phrase. Some people concentrate on the word responsible. others on Gun ownership. the two concepts exist to complement each other, not to detract from each other. Much as this topic.
How is a lookouts job description of doing their job “by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances”… construed to mean “Unless I want to turn off class, port required equipment to avoid detection?” Radar is specifically mentioned. But “all available means” (at least to the prudent mariner) would seem to make it pretty obvious what the intent of Colregs means. But… In todays litigious society it would take a court determination to see the truth. It’s too bad there are so many nefarious operators who still avoid acting responsibly in todays world.
If this is about collision, then it seems pretty definite. “A vessel shall use all available means appropriate to … determine if risk of collision exists” Unless a vessel wants to turn off class and society required equipment to ‘hide’ for business or legal reasons? Hmmm Seems to be a commonality here. Gee. I wonder what that could be? Unless you are disputing what the definition of ALL is???
In the event of a collision seems like the Pennsylvania Rule would apply,
3 Likes
Rules 5 and 7 both quoted and highlighted.
Miss the point.
Turning off the transponder’s transmitions does not mean the vessel is not receiving and therefor still utilizing AIS. Rule 5 and 7 complied with.
Not a violation of the collregs.
It is a violation of IMO regulations requiring vessel of sise and type to transmit AIS.
Required by Class so violation of class rules.
Could even be argued the vessel is “unseaworthy”. Which makes it kind of dumb. Should there be a claim.
Not a Violation of collregs.
Not suggesting its a good idea.
I expect they’re shutting down the whole system, disabling the transponder while keeping the rest of the unit running is beyond the technical ability of most mariners. (I’m not even sure it’s possible on commercial grade units.)
1 Like
It is, at least on the Furuno units we’ve had on the MSC ships I’ve worked on. Just have to know the key sequence to enable the receive only selection in the menu.
Are those regular commercial grade though?
It seems like ‘all available means’ can be abused: Could another lookout be posted? Yes. Therefore the ship wasn’t using ‘all available means.’ So add another lookout. (Repeat) Could another lookout be posted? Yes…
At what point does the possible absuriuty of ‘all available means’ end? Could requiring AIS be transmitting a position be along that slippery slope?
Furuno FA-150’s. Same as on the OSVs I worked too.
There are at least a couple versions of the FA-150 IIRC. Ours had instructions on how to disable the transmissions while keeping the receive side but at the last step in the menu the option was missing. After a few tries I dug into the manual a little deeper and it was something like had to be the FA-150f or some such.
I expect a judiciary body would base a number on accepted practice under the given circumstances, i.e. 1 or 2 minimum in open water, 3 or 4 in congested waters and refer to it as precedence in legal terms.
There was a case back in the 30’s where a tug did not carry a radio to receive weather. The court ruled that at that time have a radio was a common piece of gear. They ruled that the tug was unseaworthy.
So today AIS is more than common but required, so not using you could be held unseaworthy.
2 Likes
i.e. the common standard for negligence.
The case is The T.J. Hooper. You have it a little off, it was found that although radios were common on some vessels, they weren’t on towing vessels, and an entire industry can be found lacking. It was not a viable defense that most towing vessels did not have radios.
Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices.
1 Like