Jump to content

Hold Fast

Members
  • Content Count

    358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Kiss-ass

About Hold Fast

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

1,568 profile views
  1. Hey you offered those 4 examples not me, then called for feedback of possible inadequacy in comparing the wordings, to which I've obliged. I get it's an amendment and has gone from "shall be provided" to "...shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting". I'm not disputing the activation is mandatory. What I'm saying is there's no wording in the amendments to sailing instructions preventing switching off AIS, after it's been switched on. Is it buried elsewhere? I don't know, maybe, I don't claim to be an expert. But I don't see it in the chang
  2. Every time I've seen this thread update to get to 44+ pages I've mostly ignored it because I really don't care. Result is in, case is closed and that's that. Then i happened to see the comments regarding SI wording and being something of a wordsy type, took an interest. I can't for the life of me understand how it can be claimed that the wording is perfectly unambiguous and could gain zero benefit from a basic edit. To me there are clear holes to be poked, which are highlighted when you compare to the equivalent rule regarding AIS for Keppel. Tell me where in the rules it spec
  3. Which use of "shall keep clear" are you referring to though? Because using only fragments can be misleading as often there is additional information expanding on under what circumstances you "shall keep clear". Take rule 10 for example. 10. ON OPPOSITE TACKS When are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat. "shall keep clear" here is specific to when on opposite tacks. As for the idea of "non racing time" within a race - you best speak to Jack about that. He raised it, not me.
  4. Is it really that much of a stretch though to suggest it could be argued in their favor because the rule itself can be read as being inadequate? Not the assumed intent of the rule, not the 'spirit of the race', but the actual requirements of the rule itself. An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting." WOXI did carry an AIS transponder, that was switched and it was receiving and transmitting. I'm sure there are legal types out there who could make a case with less.
  5. No, i just understand the difference between interpreting with an assumed intent and what's written. It's not perfectly well written at all. There's ambiguity in the rule regarding duration, which makes it inadequate. I'm not a legal person, but going by the wording of that rule itself (maybe it's covered elsewhere, I don't know), I think it can be argued WOXI has complied.
  6. Or something similar, yes. You don't think it would? There's a scheduled start for the race so probably that's clear enough as a minimum start time from when you must begin receiving & transmitting AIS. The finish is the finish, you're racing in-between. Would any non racing time in between matter? I don't know, haven't really thought it through or tbh know enough about what would constitute non-racing time during a race (coming to aid of another vessel i suppose or something similar?) or exactly how it's handled by the rules, redress etc. None of that was the question though.
  7. I don't think it's that simple. You're interpreting the rule assuming an intent, not judging the rule on it's own wording in and of itself. It's not the same thing. Did race officials intend the AIS to be running constantly during the race? Probably. Does the wording of the rule itself actually specify that? No. So there's room for ambiguity and the rule should be amended accordingly.
  8. in a similar way a simple amendment to the AIS rule would remove ambiguity "A gun shall be carried and be loaded at all times while the officer is on duty, such that it is ready to fire" simple addition of "at all times while racing" or similar, would bring it into line with the wording used in Volvo, Keppel etc and remove ambiguity
  9. It does swing both ways, because weather we consider your question or mine, the SI is not clear. i.e. it's inadequate.
  10. Well the SI in this instance makes use the wording 'shall', not 'can', so not quite the same thing. That door swings both ways anyway. So if I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it shall be switched on. can you help? SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting." You asked for the inadequacy in comparison to the Volvo, Keppel etc SI wordings - there it is.
  11. thats a lot of bodies on board for something billed as a shorthand/solo racer.
  12. There's no way I'm reading through 40+ pages of this mess to see if it's been covered, but the inadequacy seems obvious, particularly when compared to other SI. Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting." The problem is duration. The S2H SI don't specify for what duration AIS needs to be receiving & transmitting. This omission of duration seems glaringly obvious when compared to the other 3 examples, all of which are very clear as to when you must be powered on and transmitting.
  13. 'rounded' is the first word that comes to mind
×
×
  • Create New...