The amendments and additions to the existing (1960) Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea which were offered in the Journal, 20, 103, by Captain Burger and Captain Corbet have been studied with interest. While clearly we have the same objectives at heart it will be seen from the comments that follow that the proposals are virtually unacceptable.

Rule 16 (b)

It is felt that the proposed re-wording is inappropriate as the words ‘hearing, apparently forward of her beam’ and ‘the position of which is not fully ascertained by sighting’ do not make sense in one sentence. Moreover, the proposed addition of the word ‘particular’ before ‘caution’ is not likely to deter the delinquent any further than the original wording.

It is agreed that the present wording of Rule 16 (b) may leave something to be desired in the interpretation which can be put on ‘ascertainment of position’; this has in fact been evident by some of the different interpretations which have been given by the Courts.

In the Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. China Navigation Co. case of the pre-war era (1935), Lord MacMillan said, ‘In order that the position of a vessel may be ascertained by another vessel within the meaning of the Regulation she must be known by that other vessel to be in such a position that both vessels can safely proceed without risk of collision’.