SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Is Radar an absolute necessity?

9K views 33 replies 22 participants last post by  Mabinogion 
#1 ·
I am trying to understand the complexities of sound navigation skills with the variety of electronic "must haves."
From studying various blue water circumnavigators, I cannot see the significance of having such a reliance on radar as to preclude them from not venturing forth without it. Radar does have it share of glory in the battle with fear, but caveats abound.
I am trying to justify the voltage expense with a down to earth sailboat,which tries to stay away from a total reliance on electronic nav gear. After review, I would rather keep my head out of the boat than tied to a screen somewhere in the boat.
One example which I find encouraging is the Pardeys. Their experience is well documented and applauded and yet have a boat with almost no "demanding" electronic habits to help them. Can one safely, with a little experience and common sense, do away with our increasingly heavy reliance on radar?
Am I being prudent here or just stubborn. You decide.
 
#3 ·
Like any other tool, radar is a very useful tool but certainly not a necessity in most sailing venues. Radar is helpful in finding markers, avoiding collisions, and tracking small squall cells. In areas where fog is rare, radar is nicety and not a necessity. Offshore, it is helpful to a small crew trying to keep a watch for shipping and other small craft but in clear weather it is a nicety and not a necessity.

On the other hand, If I cruised somewhere like Maine, where there are major hazzards to navigation, strong currents and a grounding can do a lot of damage, I would consider Radar to be a very cheap insurance policy.

Jeff
 
#5 ·
Actually, Rich, with all due respect, what COLREGS says that "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."

This is often misconstrued to mean that if you have radar it must be on. It really means that Radad only must be employed when the conditions are such that failure to so creates a hazzard.

Respectfully,
Jeff
 
#7 ·
Hi Rich,

I am just not seeing how rule 6 (below) requires the use of Radar if you have it. Rule 6 seems to require use of radar in such conditions where speed would be otherwise be limited without its use.

Jeff


Rule 6 Safe Speed

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be
stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a)By all vessels:

(i)The state of visibility;

(ii) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;

(iii) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;

(iv) At night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;

(v) The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;

(vi) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(i) The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;

(ii) Any constrains imposed by the radar range scale in use;

(iii) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;

(iv) The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate
range;

(v) The number location and movement of vessels detected by radar;

(vi) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.
 
#8 ·
Have to concur with JeffH about radar. Have spoken with various ships at different times which, when asked if we (a 38'' sloop with reflector hoisted) appeared on their screens, replied that they did not have their radars working for reasons such as "It''s a clear day."
 
#9 ·
Okay, I guess I’ll ring in on this one too. I would assess your boating style. If you’re spending a lot of time off shore and away from the common shipping lanes, the extra drain on your batteries would be a great consideration. If you spend most of you’re time along shore, coastal cruising and in poor visibility, radar is a great asset. In neither case is radar a critical piece of navigation equipment, sailors had been getting by without it longer then they have with it. Like all electronics aboard, never trust the information unless you agree with it and always be ready to pick up plotting with DR incase the failure of some 59 cent item turns your $5000.00 worth of electronic gee-wizardry into a pile of useless ballast!
 
#12 ·
In an article several years ago - maybe even like 10 - in Cruising World or Sail there was an account of a couple in their 35 some foot sailboat, under sail, in a channel in heavy fog. They were involved in a collision. They had radar, but it was not on because of battery drain. There were cited as being partially at fault because they were not using their radar,
 
#13 ·
Radar is not an absolute necessity but can add a lot of safety and make the difference between being snug in an anchorage or waiting until daybreak to enter an unlighted harbor.

I live and sail in San Francisco and have not really felt the need for radar in the legendary fog on the bay. When I was in Mexico a few years ago radar went a long way to make up for the lack of functioning navigation aids (lights).

My use of radar is so intermitant that I dont see it as being a big threat to the amp hour budget.

As to choosing between being in the cockpit or looking at your radar display, why not do both? Put a waterproof LCD display in the cockpit.

I enjoy reading the Pardees books but have not removed my engine or thrown my batteries overboard yet. Actually I have found that the electronics on my boat rarely disappoint me and add a lot of convenience and safety to my sailing adventures.
 
#14 ·
Aucassin:

Sometimes we get all pumped up about our particular knowledge of a subject and fail to either respond to the post or acknowledge how the real world works.

First, the Pardeys - wonderful folks with an astounding set of accomplishments, both sailing and commercial - view electronics as tho'' they are still being built of transistors in the early 1980''s. Radars today are not only highly reliable but flexibly programmable. There''s no reason amp draw should categorically remove radar from use on a boat capable of offshore or alongshore cruising; just set your zone and scan timing to suit your needs.

Once a collision occurs, along with a loss for which you are seeking coverage while hoping to avoid blame, all facts associated with the collision will be considered. There''s no giant maritime rule book that says you will or will not be covered, fined or sued should you be equipped with radar but not use it. OTOH the issue will be in part whether each party conducted themselves in a prudent, seamanlike manner. Since half of each day is dark, sailboat crews at sea are often short-handed, and there''s often less than unlimited visibility, it''s pretty easy to imagine how lack of a radar''s use could be seen as contributory to the loss. And yes, the ROR''s have been used as the legal basis for radar non-use to be considered contributory.

Radar is a big help to offshore, short-handed crews. It''s no panacea but is close to adding a crew member, assuming it''s properly tuned and programmed for the conditions. One of the things we found most helpful about using it - even in the clear Caribbean - is that it allowed us to anticipate close crossing situations well before visual sightings made this possible (even in clear daylight), after which a patient, professional call on VHF resulted in the ship changing course to suit the sailboat many times. When running down wind with all sails vanged and on the vane, this is a big labor savings...and it''s usually fun to talk to the other ship''s crew, too. Using radar effectively is a bit like playing a musical instrument; you get the most value from it when you apply some effort to its use - as opposed to a knotmeter or, oftentimes, a GPS readout. I think that''s why some folks undersell radar; they turn it on and then occasional stare at it, expecting it to ''do something'', I guess.

Radar has no downsides that I can see except the financial one. Whether it justifies the expense is a function of multiple factors: the cruising grounds, size of crew, how long it will be earning its keep, what effort the crew makes to use it effectively, and what one must not buy because of installing radar among them.

For Sailnet fans, you might want to look at Liza''s article on this topic: http://www.sailnet.com/collections/articles/index.cfm?articleid=copela0018

Jack
 
#15 · (Edited)
IMO, Rich is correct. Just as important as the wording of any rule or law, is its interpretation by the courts. The rule says "all available means", and the courts have taken that to mean "if you have radar, it better be on regardless of conditions." I've heard it said that having radar can increase your liability in a collision, not using it correctly is one more thing you did wrong. My commercial vessels always run with the radar on, but I do not have radar on my own boat and do not plan to get it.
 
#20 ·
Why not pin this one and start afresh?
However, as it's still running...
Radar has evolved over the intervening years and the small but capable units currently available at 4G are worthy of seperate discussion.
Agree with interpretation that confirms the rule:- if you have it and it's functional (not just switched off) you must use it.
Given the functions available to small craft these days on modern equipment you might be considered contributory in any incident if you were not using it. Would like to see leaned maritime legal opinion on this contention, but maybe elsewhere?
 
#22 ·
Using an installed radar is *not appropriate* for the conditions if it's being on drains the available power, distracts the watch, uselessly transmits into clear air with nothing to see for 10 miles. Armchair sea lawyers are wrong.

And is it required for cruising? No. In my opinion from many years experience it is rarely used or needed. When it is needed it is indeed very nice to have. Probably the last piece of nav electronics to buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbianka
#25 · (Edited)
Try Rule 7(b) then, it seems if you have risk of collision, and radar, you had better use it..

"Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted..."
There are no if's or buts involved With regard to radar in the collision regulations

Perhaps people should peruse an up to date on-line copy of 7(b), if fitted and operational means what it says on the box.

Just because it is switched off or drains your battery if used is no excuse.

Edit: BTW, what does being on standby mode do to power useage with a modern digital radar?

Any Nautical advocates or other maritime legal specialists able to comment?
 
#24 ·
Any good sea lawyer knows the written law is not a guide to what should be done. Find and cite some case law where a small vessel was found to be liable because radar was fitted but not in use. In clear weather and foul.
 
#26 ·
Frankly I don't know of, any case where a small recreational vessel was even involved in a maritime casualty lawsuit where radar was even an issue. Nor can I imagine where it would be. The cost of the lawyers would far exceed the value of the boats so why bother.

But I would certainly be willing to argue to a court that 'proper use ' on a small sailing vessel includes operating with it off to preserve battery power in the event of fog or rain.
 
#27 ·
Well shucks, I guess we will just have to await the outcome of any legal action by Law Enforcement, the Restaurant Owner, customers or passengers of the boat that ended up inside a Tampa restaurant earlier this week having been travelling at high speed in thick fog.
There was a licensed skipper allegedly in charge and fitted with 1200hp of outboard power, then the radar, as obviously fitted, should not have been a drain on available power!
 
#28 ·
This is all very amusing. I'm in the process of installing radar b/c it will be a useful tool for our cruising grounds. Much like a depth sounder or anemometer, radar gives real-time data about what's actually going on in low-visibility areas. THAT is the real reason you should have it, and use it. This whole argument about what the courts will demand seems pretty theoretical, and divorced from reality.
 
#29 ·
There are plenty of interesting cases out there. This owner insisted that his nav lights impeded his vision:

"The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a vessel causing death. The charge arose out of a collision between a vessel being operated by the accused and another vessel. A passenger in the accused's vessel died as a result. The collision occurred at night in total darkness. The accused's vessel was displaying no navigation or running lights. The accused's evidence was that the running lights impeded his night vision and his practice was to turn them off in conditions of reduced visibility. The accused's vessel was proceeding at a speed of 26 miles per hour and the other vessel was proceeding at 32 miles per hour.

It is not required to prove the accused deliberately operated the vessel in a dangerous manner. The accused was operating his vessel at an unsafe speed, without navigation lights, in a narrow channel where there was a risk of collision and he did not keep a proper look-out. This is operation of a vessel in a manner dangerous to the public and the actus reus is proved. With respect to the mens rea element, the accused's manner of operation of the vessel displayed a reckless disregard of extreme risk and in the circumstances, exhibited a marked departure from the norm.

Decision: Accused guilty.
Comment: The accused was later sentenced to two years in prison."


This one is interesting too:

"This case concerned a collision involving two fishing vessels. One vessel, under the command of the plaintiff, was in the process of laying lobster traps and proceeding in a northerly direction while the other vessel, under the command of the defendant, was proceeding westerly. The defendant argued he had the right of way pursuant to Rule 15 of the Collision Regulations (the vessel which has the other on her starboard side shall give way). The plaintiff, on the other hand, said he had the right of way as he was a vessel engaged in fishing pursuant to Rule 3.

Decision: The plaintiff was 75% at fault and the defendant 25% at fault.

Held: The plaintiff, although laying traps, was not restricted in his ability to manoeuvre and therefore Rule 3 did not apply. The defendant had the right of way but he ought to have exercised greater care and his failure to see the plaintiff's boat was a failure to keep a proper lookout contrary to Rule 5."


This one for improper navigation light use:

"This case involved a collision on Okanagan Lake between a 26' sailboat operating under power and a 19' motorboat. The collision occurred at dusk. Both vessels were destroyed and the occupants of each were injured. The owner of the sailboat alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the other vessel in proceeding at an excessive speed and failing to maintain a proper lookout. The owner of the motorboat argued that the collision was caused by the negligence of the sailboat in failing to have the proper running lights and in turning to port immediately before the collision instead of to starboard as required by the collision regulations. It was uncontested that the driver of the motorboat did not see the sailboat until immediately before the collision and took no steps to avoid the collision. After reviewing all of the evidence the Judge found as a fact that the sailboat was not properly lit and that this was the cause of the collision. The owner/operator of the sailboat was therefore held to be completely at fault."

Alcohol and lack of running lights:

"This matter involved a collision between a small runabout and a sailboat under power in a narrow channel. The main issue in the case was liability and apportionment. The Trial Judge found the parties equally at fault. The operator of the sailboat was at fault for not having the proper lights, for operating on the wrong side of the channel and for failing to take evasive action. The operator of the runabout was at fault for operating his vessel while impaired by alcohol and for failing to observe the other vessel."

No anchor light and alcohol:

"Apportionment of liability was the issue in this small vessel collision case. The Plaintiff's vessel was at anchor and was hit by the Defendant's vessel. The Court apportioned liability 70% to the Defendant and 30% to the Plaintiff. The faults on the part of the Defendant were traveling at night at an excessive rate of speed when having consumed sufficient alcohol to have affected his judgment and vision. The faults on the part of the Plaintiff were not having an anchor light and anchoring his vessel in an area where through traffic was predictable and probable."

And finally not using radar:

"This interesting case involved a collision between the Canadian Naval vessel "Kootenay" and the "Nordpol" on June 1, 1989, in conditions of fog. At the time of the collision the "Kootenay" was engaged in anti-submarine exercises that required her not to emit any radar or radio signals. The "Kootenay" was observed on radar by those on board the "Nordpol" but she could not be raised by radio and her movements were erratic suggesting she was a fishing vessel. The "Nordpol" therefore maintained her course and speed of 13.5 knots assuming the "Kootenay" would pass astern of the "Nordpol". Of course, the "Kootenay" did not pass astern. A close quarters situation developed and the two ships collided. The Court held that both ships were liable and apportioned liability 70% to the "Kootenay" and 30% to the "Nordpol". The "Kootenay" was held primarily responsible because she created the dangerous situation by participating in naval exercises in busy shipping lanes, in fog, without having given any notice to vessel traffic or shipping and without the use of any navigational aids such as radar. The "Nordpol" was also criticized for excessive speed, for failing to take avoiding action and for failing to appreciate the close quarters situation and risk of collision. On the issue of damages, the Court had to consider what was the appropriate date for conversion of foreign currency and what was the appropriate method of calculating loss of use for a warship. On the first issue, the Court reaffirmed that damages incurred in a foreign currency are to be converted to Canadian dollars using the prevailing rate on the date of the commission of the tort. On the second issue, the Court held that there should be damages for loss of use of the "Kootenay", calculated using the capital cost of the ship. It did not matter that the "Kootenay's" duties were performed by other naval ships. There was still a loss to the Defendant; a loss of a "margin of safety"."

I suppose if even a Navy ship not using radar during training exercises can be held 70% at fault it is not a stretch to assume the courts would not look to favorably on "I was worried about my batteries" as an excuse.....;)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top