Richard Rodriguez's
Bitter End blog mentioned the "Changes to the Inland Navigation Rules"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-02/pdf/2014-14413.pdf to (in part) align them closer to the COLREGS, which is a pretty interesting read since it contained comments and the Coast Guard's response. One of those comments said:
"Lastly, we recognize that our use of
the phrase ‘‘other electronic equipment’’
in § 83.07(b) might have had unintended
consequences in light of the
Pennsylvania Rule. Specifically, in
litigation following a collision, the
Pennsylvania Rule as applied to the
proposed language could potentially
have been used to shift the burden onto
a navigational watch officer to prove
that his or her failure to employ every
electronic device in the wheelhouse did
not cause the collision. Our intent in
proposing the phrase ‘‘other electronic
equipment’’ in § 83.07(b) was to require
a navigational watch officer to utilize
equipment such as the Automatic
Identification System (AIS) to determine
whether the risk of collision exists.
Paragraph (a) of Rule 7 (§ 83.07)
achieves this purpose, without the
unintended consequences discussed
above, by only requiring officers to use
those available means ‘‘appropriate to
the prevailing circumstances and
conditions. . . .’’
I wasn't familiar with the Pennsylvania Rule (named after the ship, not the state). There are lots of resources online, and I found
this article useful in explaining it.
After reading about this Pennsylvania Rule, I have new respect for the provisions of the Nav Rules / COLREGS with respect to equipment like lights, whistles, radar, et cetera.