We saw a lot of them on smaller power cruisers in Canada last summer -
didn't know what they were until I asked! I've been considering the
smaller version for Sanderling. Not sure what the advantage of either of
the sizes would be; we've been told that we have a good radar return
without any reflector, but when cruising in fog (we've done several
summers worth of fog along the New Jersey coast, in New England and the
Bay of Fundy) it's nice to have a little added insurance.

Up to this point we used one of the ball-type reflectors shown here:
http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|135|1066430&id=82970

Would be interested in seeing a review (and am still looking for one).

<><><><><><><><><><><><>Mozilla Thunderbird<><><><><><><><><><>
Bob McLeran and Judy Young              Manatee Cove Marina
MV Sanderling                            Patrick Air Force Base
DeFever 41 Trawler                      Melbourne, Florida
Blog: http://mvsanderling.net/Blog
Web: http://cruising.mvsanderling.net/

On 5/23/2012 6:17 PM, Joe hotmail wrote:

I've had good results with the cylinder one first mentioned. But since we
were testing it, we had to ask the ship or my friend on a sailboat that we
would like their opinion. Bob, there are two test reports: one is British
and the other was done by "Practical Sailor." I remember that the British
one favored the largest Firdell Blipper, but also was unsure about some
(then) very new British devices. The RNLI lifeboats carry the large
Firdell. But it's expensive. "Practical Sailor" had good things to say
about the Davis aluminum one as I recall.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Bob McLeran Bob@mvsanderling.net wrote:

I have the tubular type for around the same size power boat:  I purchased it when we went to New England in 2008 and wanted to be seen!
This was of course before yachts started to purchase AIS units.  There
was plenty of fog off Rhode Island, and hopefully others could see me;
maybe they thought I was larger than the boat actually is!  We leave for
the Great Loop on Friday, and the tube is up there on the masthead!
Mike
'One September"
Virginia Beach
www.oneseptember.net

Defender
Item # : 552179
Large Sailboat Version
Total Reflective Area: 172 Square Feet
Dimensions: 4" Diameter x 23" Long
Manufacturer: Plastimo
Model Number: 39099

Joe and list,

The Defender radar reflector should work just fine for your boat.  However, my guess is that with your 45 foot power vessel, you have RADAR installed.  All you need to do is turn it on and your boat will be seen by other vessels with RADAR.  Note if so equipped, the FCC requires you to have your RADAR turned on when underway.  Reflectors are good when anchored in a non designated mooring field.

John

---====
On May 23, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Joe hotmail wrote:

on when underway.

I was not aware of that.  Does this apply to sailboats, and all waters?

Radar uses power and most sailing yachts are power-challenged.  AFAIK,
in my experience, most run with radar off except in poor visibility.

Is there a regulation available to quote?

It's in the CFR's (33CFR 164.35 Rule 7). Read a copy of the Inland
Navigation Rules published by the Coast Guard.

And yes, it applies to sailboats.

Ted

----- Original Message -----
From: "allen" allendick@gmail.com
To: great-loop@lists.trawlering.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: GL: Radar reflectors

Not to beat a dead horse, but the rule does not REQUIRE the use of
radar; that's in the opinion expressed by the editor of the Coast Guard
iteration of the rule.

You be the judge of whether the use of properly installed and
functioning radar is REQUIRED.

Here is the CFR rule and comment Ted referred to, in its entirety:

11. Am I required to have Radar? Radar is not required on vessels under
    1600 GT (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.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>Mozilla Thunderbird<><><><><><><><><><>
Bob McLeran and Judy Young              Manatee Cove Marina
MV Sanderling                            Patrick Air Force Base
DeFever 41 Trawler                      Melbourne, Florida
Blog: http://mvsanderling.net/Blog
Web: http://cruising.mvsanderling.net/

On 5/24/2012 3:31 PM, Ted Stehle wrote:

Bob and list,

Nobody, including me (or Ted Stehle) said that you must have RADAR on your boat -- only that if a vessel is so equipped it must be in service (in use) when underway  -- as quoted:  "whoever has one must use it".

Why else have it if you only intend to use it in a dense fog?

If you should ever be in an accident and it was testified in an admiralty court that you had an operational RADAR aboard but never or only rarely use it, you could be found liable or at least partially so -- note the statement that it will be:  "ultimately decided by a trier of fact".

BTW, if your RADAR is not operational, it might be a good idea to have a letter from a certified marine electronics technician stating the problem, just in case!

Bob and all.  It is my prediction that the majority on this list will error on the side of:

1. Have RADAR - must use it and need to learn how to read various targets before critical use.

2,  Have RADAR but DO NOT use it, because it is too hard to read and understand or uses too much alternator DC power.

Y'all Vote Now.

John

---======

On May 24, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Bob McLeran wrote:

Thanks for the discussion, folks.

Last time we came into Sandy Hook from Bermuda at night, and a dense fog
suddenly descended, we sure could have used radar, but otherwise, in
most daytime hours, when we did have radar (another boat) we did not see
any need to use it when visibility was excellent.  If there was any question
though, it was immediately activated to help resolve the issue.

I am quoting the rule, below, as I have it.  In this text, the terminology
is "Proper use".  That would seem to be open to some latitude in
interpretation and is not necessarily IMO the same as "continuous use".

Also, to my understanding, the meaning of "Proper use" may depend on the
circumstances.  In the case of a collision or near collision, the use
or disuse of all the available means of avoidance would certainly be
under consideration in assigning blame and failure to use radar "properly" if
available would make a skipper culpable.

--- quote rule ---

RULE 7
Risk of Collision

(a)  Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of
collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to
exist.

(b)  Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and
operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of
risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic
observation of detected objects.

(c)  Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty
information, especially scanty radar information.

(d)  In determining if risk of collision exists the following
considerations shall be among those taken into account:

   (i)   such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing
   of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;

   (ii)  such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable
   bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very
   large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.