Difference between revisions of "Talk:LAWLAW"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ~~~~ I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comments is below It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so fa...) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[User:Jens|jens]] 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His | + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comment is below |
It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so far I think, any | It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so far I think, any | ||
great details out of what you call 'regs' in your mail. An extract would | great details out of what you call 'regs' in your mail. An extract would | ||
Revision as of 11:28, 11 February 2010
jens 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have been in contact with Capt. Mahajan discussing who extensive ECDIS should provide law verbatim. His comment is below
It is early days yet, but mariners do not expect, so far I think, any great details out of what you call 'regs' in your mail. An extract would suffice, I think. However, an extract would not be completely 'legal', for example if a casualty were to result at least partly from a used 'extract', then I am sure somebody will show that due diligence was not exercised by the Master. On a personal preference level, I am of the opinion that a) less is usually more and b) although it would be useful to have greatly detailed tools available in the hands of /professionally trained and ECDIS competent /mariners, the reality is that many will not be. Therefore keeping it simple has advantages.
What do you think? Is is worth following a bit different approach and add a further LAW section where legal stuff can be stored in length?