Watchkeeping Requirements - VHF and Radar

jviss

.
Feb 5, 2004
6,745
Tartan 3800 20 Westport, MA
In another thread there's discussion or debate regarding watchkeeping requirements. I think that the language of the law and regulations is not clear enough.

I'd like to know, in certain terms:

1. If you have a VHF on board are you required to switch it on, and keep a VHF watch?
2. If you have a radar on board are you required to switch it on and maintain a radar watch?

I used to think the former was so, and the latter not. Now, after having perused the federal law, the USCH regulations, and the USCG interpretation of the regulations, I don't think either is required by law.

A lot of this seems to hinge on what is meant by "operational." Does that mean that the equipment is in good repair and able to be deployed, or does it mean that it has been switched on?

What say you?
 
Feb 14, 2014
7,399
Hunter 430 Waveland, MS
All Safety equipment on board and especially with "way on" should be on and in use.

When someone is at the Helm, who is not trained in use of Radar, AIS, Chart ploter or VHF
I set various Alarms to warn all on board.
____
One example, I was below on Head duty.
Hey Captain Jim, there is a huge barge nearby. Help!!

I go above to see a Barge about 4 nm away.

I said point the boat 15° to Starboard to show the Barge our intention to pass astern. I went back below.
____
You must have a trained crew, if you want it to be "operational".
Jim...
 
  • Like
Likes: jssailem

jviss

.
Feb 5, 2004
6,745
Tartan 3800 20 Westport, MA
All Safety equipment on board and especially with "way on" should be on and in use.
That may be your opinion, but is it a matter of law or regulation? That's the question here.
 
Sep 25, 2008
7,075
Alden 50 Sarasota, Florida
Both good questions but as you have already seen, opinions aren't always factual nor should they be relied upon. As with most things and certainly when it comes to legal judgments, there isn't one right answer as circumstances bear on culpability. About the only thing of which we can be certain is that any declarative statements in response to your questions is just opinion.
 

Rick D

.
Jun 14, 2008
7,132
Hunter Legend 40.5 Shoreline Marina Long Beach CA
I know you have read the regs. Ultimately, the application is by way of adjudication. Any decisions there?
 

jviss

.
Feb 5, 2004
6,745
Tartan 3800 20 Westport, MA
I have read the regs, and many discussions on them. I would just like to be able to determine, factually, whether I am required by law to always maintain a radar watch (I always have the VHF on, anyway).
 
Oct 30, 2017
183
Catalina c 27 Lake Pueblo
call/email your local Costie Unit and ask them.


...then let us know how they responded.


Personally if in a busy area or at night I'd say if you have it and know how to use it then 'on'.... but again that's a personal preference to life not law
 
Feb 17, 2006
5,274
Lancer 27PS MCB Camp Pendleton KF6BL
I don't look at the term "operational" as being a state of "powered up", meaning, voltage applied. I look at it as meaning "working within manufacture specifications". In the regs, the term "in use" is used and to me it means "powered up". So interpretation is subjective. We have to have a legal dictionary to properly define the terms.

As for radar watch, I would think that if the radar has a proximity alert then that would be sufficient. The alert would be your "watch" as once it sounded it would be the same as someone saying "we have a target".
 

SG

.
Feb 11, 2017
1,670
J/Boat J/160 Annapolis
The answer to your questions are: Yes, they're supposed to be on and monitored.

That may not be what we do all the time; but, the question of "should" is not in doubt. If something bad happens, and you didn't have the VHF, Radar, AIS, a watch posted and watching, etc., then you didn't do everything possible. Because something bad happened, you can argue that it wasn't possible for "bad to happen"...

There is a legal doctrine:
res ipsa loquitur

(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened. Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no one saw the load fall. b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in the room caused the damage. Under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and find it a handy shorthand for a complex doctrine.​

The USCG guidance on the matter is pretty clear. ;^))) For ease of discussions: Here are USCG guidance on the subject:

The USCG "answers to frequently asked questions states:
" 11. 33 CFR 164.35), however, Rule 7 states that proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational. In other words, whoever has one must use it. The Navigation Rules are not meant to discourage the use of any device, rather they expect prudent mariners to avail themselves of all available means appropriate...as to make full appraisal of the situation (Rule 5), e.g. the use of radar. At issue is whether the use of radar is appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and that is a determination made by the Master; and, ultimately decided by a trier of fact."

"Should you be in a collision how would a judge/jury rule on your contention that the use of radar was impracticable (due to electrical drain, crew shortages, etc.)? Also, if a collision does occur, then there was obviously a risk of collision beforehand. Could the determination of that risk have been made sooner with the use of radar? It is difficult to answer such questions because the circumstances of each case are different."

"More importantly, remember that Rule 7 specifies that assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information."

"Should you be in a collision how would a judge/jury rule on your contention that the use of radar was impracticable (due to electrical drain, crew shortages, etc.)? Also, if a collision does occur, then there was obviously a risk of collision beforehand. Could the determination of that risk have been made sooner with the use of radar? It is difficult to answer such questions because the circumstances of each case are different."
[res ips?]

"More importantly, remember that Rule 7 specifies that assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information."
Radio Watchkeeping Regulations

In general, any vessel equipped with a VHF marine radiotelephone (whether voluntarily or required to) must maintain a watch on channel 16 (156.800 MHz) whenever the radiotelephone is not being used to communicate.

Source: FCC 47 CFR §§ 80.148, 80.310, NTIA Manual 8.2.29.6.c(2)(e), ITU RR 31.18, 52.244

In addition, every power-driven vessel of 20 meters or over in length or of 100 tons and upwards carrying one or more passengers for hire, or a towing vessel of 26 feet or over in length, as well, as every dredge and floating plant operating near a channel or fairway, must also maintain a watch on channel 13 (156.650 MHz) --channel 67 (156.375 MHz) if operating on the lower Mississippi River-- ; while navigating on U.S. waters (which include the territorial sea, internal waters that are subject to tidal influence, and, those not subject to tidal influence but that are used or are determined to be capable of being used for substantial interstate or foreign commerce). Sequential monitoring techniques (scanners) alone cannot be used to meet this requirement; two radios (including portable radios, i.e. handhelds) or one radio with two receivers, are required. These vessels must also maintain a watch on the designated Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) frequency, in lieu of maintaining watch on channel 16, while transiting within a VTS area. See 33 CFR §§ 2.36, 26, and 161; 47 CFR §§ 80.148, 80.308-309; NTIA: NTIA Manual Chapter 8.2.29.7.

Digital Selective Calling
Ships, where so equipped, shall, while at sea, maintain an automatic digital selective calling watch on the appropriate distress & safety calling frequencies [e.g. channel 70] in the frequency bands in which they are operating. If operating in a GMDSS Sea Area A1 may discontinue their watch on channel 16. However, ships, where so equipped, shall also maintain watch on the appropriate frequencies for the automatic reception of transmissions of meteorological and navigational warnings and other urgent information for ships.

Ship stations complying with these provisions should, where practicable, maintain a watch on the frequency 156.650 MHz for communications related to the safety of navigation.

ITU RR 31.18, 25.244

P.S. - The UCCG used the 'e.g.' above. That wasn't 'i.e.'


If you were driving a car in the fog, and you felt you had the right to go the "speed limit" and you hit something -- do you think that you could argue that you were not going to fast? You might have some excuses, but not good reasons. Rez ipsa locitur.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes: jssailem
May 17, 2004
5,028
Beneteau Oceanis 37 Havre de Grace
"Should you be in a collision how would a judge/jury rule on your contention that the use of radar was impracticable (due to electrical drain, crew shortages, etc.)? Also, if a collision does occur, then there was obviously a risk of collision beforehand. Could the determination of that risk have been made sooner with the use of radar? It is difficult to answer such questions because the circumstances of each case are different." [res ips?]
My eyes keep going to that part of the FAQ. To me, that paragraph says that there's subjectivity to whether usage is a requirement based on conditions. If I'm on a adequately crewed boat in the fog, and not using my radar, then I agree I didn't meet the requirements. But if it's a clear day and I'm on a slow moving boat with one only other person, wouldn't our time be better spent looking with our eyes than glued to the radar screen? In that case the radar likely wouldn't alert me sooner to a collision than proper visual lookout, so radar is not an "appropriate means" on that day.
 
  • Like
Likes: jviss
May 17, 2004
5,028
Beneteau Oceanis 37 Havre de Grace
The Racing Rules of Sailing are updated every 3 years, including revisions to remove ambiguous wording based on protests and appeals. Anyone know if COLREGS are updated in a similar way? It seems like this set of rules would be an opportunity for improvement.
 
Jun 6, 2006
6,990
currently boatless wishing Harrington Harbor North, MD
Certain lengths/weights of boats are required to have certain safety equipment. If you did not have that and are required to then you are negligent even if it would not have help avoid/prevent an accident. "Failure to have required safety equipment"
If you are not required to have that piece of safety equipment but put it on the boat anyway you would be negligent if it would have helped prevent an accident. "Did not avail yourself of all AVAILABLE safety equipment"
So the question is not should it be on it is would it have helped prevent the accident. case in point; well trained person at the helm during clear weather, boat is equipped with radar but not required to have it. Sees a tug that is showing restricted maneuverability lights and tries to avoid it but looses engine power and has a collision. question to the jury; would radar have helped prevent this accident? Probably not (reasonable man theory) so you would not be held liable for not having the radar on in that situation. You would be liable for not maintaining your power plant though.....
 
Jan 30, 2012
1,123
Nor'Sea 27 "Kiwanda" Portland/ Anacortes
Res ipsa is avialable but only in specific type Admiralty disputes. Oil spills, explosions are examples. But the res ipsa calculus is rare in the more common type cases. As for the topic at hand - regulations concerning monitoring - there are several possibilites: is this outside US waters in that case a treaty may control, are you passenger for hire, more than 20 meters, towing 26 feet or over, a dredge, on the lower Mississipi?

In any case, in a regulation breach case the question is whether you might suffer a penalty, whereas in an injury or property damage case the question is who pays. Unlike injury or property damage case - res ipsa is never involved in regulation enforcement cases. In injury or property damage cases whether the standard is negligence or the more strict res ipsa your care will be relevant so a failure to monitor radar or vhf may be part of the cause of the event.

My legal advice - were I to offer it - is that you should use these things if you have them. My social advice is you should use them because you may be able to help someone else in trouble or avoid trouble yourself.

Avoiding trouble is far less expensive and less agonizing than figuring out how to get out of trouble.

Charles