duncan

lol I haven't seen many radar units wired with the AWG 2/4 cable necessary for 2Kw (that's thicker than many starter circuits)

you wouldn't want to run it without the engine charging! but most of us will have more charging than our electronics/nav lights consume the only time I find it an issue is when drift fishing in fog where I would prefer to turn of the engine (which also means I can hear - in Alderney this means the chat on the other boats before you see them!). Here it would be good to leave it running but hard on the batteries! Whilst the head units get more efficient you still need most of the power to drive the raydome (although most of the head unit efficiency gets consumed by the bigger and bigger screens being used!

it used to be simple - because there were no colours or pixels! Power and beamwidth were key (more and less respectively being good) pixels actually made it easier to compare and to understand how much power and how small a beamwidth it was worth paying for to match your chosen screen - until the concept of non-dedicated screens and the ability to upgrade components! I actually have the 'worst' resolution LCD screen ever produced with radar, but a slightly better raydome. It works (AWOL knows that!) and I wouldn't be without it in any reduced visibility situation (or on a yacht when crossing busy shipping lanes). Having looked at a number of the newer ones (in use) I have to say they are way, way better in terms of auto settings and overall clarity. Look forward to hearing how others get on with theirs in due course.

couple of things that strike me here - 1. I agree with Dan's observation - I remain puzzled regarding this issue. 2. Whilst large ships have problems spotting small boats (like us) the good news is that small boats can definitely spot each other - and the big ones! Equally fog and flat seas tend to go together. Small boats fog and a big sea definitely don't mix! 3. I'm also confused about how using an active GPS antennae such as the latest Lowrance one is going to help what I had understood was a plotter screen refresh rate issue (if that isn't the problem then switching to N up won't make any difference!). This assumes the existing engine can be bypassed and that the data bus isn't a problem when linking up multiple systems etc etc. Anyway - I hope you all stay safe.

as a coded boat I would have thought 2 aerials, radio should be direct to battery and on on fuse (with spare on-board like all members will have anyway ) but then again communications weren't the issue here as they called the CG ie they could phone a friend. obviously a very unfortunate set of circumstances where a boat heads out with all it's electronics and looses them at a point it's not noticed (so they don't know exactly where they are - but they are unable to navigate out again with chart and compass. normally we (fishing boats) know where we are if anchored ('cos we choose to be there) or spot the electronics going down when on a drift (sounder spotting) and, again, can put a mark on the chart straight away and 'take it from there' with the compass. these things are always easier in theory - comfort of easy chair etc and it really is good to practice them occasionally. sadly it is often inconsistent with fishing practice as the logical time to do this is when heading in in poor visibility ie switch of the plotter. Loosing it all in thick fog is really unlucky.....

somewhat concerned about all these 'slow to respond' electronics, it's cropped up before and, unless boats are running 15 year old plotters (like one of those on Phaeton) I can't help feeling that there are some setting issues at work as well. All my recent (5-8 year old) plotters, small cheap units, refresh almost instantly. obviously the issues associated with being stationary in fog are a different matter; knowing where you are and where you are pointing are solutions to different problems! which brings us back to the Weymouth incident. Whilst I admit to not knowing where this cove is I would tend to back my plotter for avoiding fixed submerged hazards rather than radar; both in terms of getting into the situation and knowing it's there. on the other hand if the craft was underway, and under command, in poor visibility then it is required by regulations to maintain a radar watch. no doubt some clarity over what happened will emerge in due course.

has to be returning home in idyllic conditions after any successful trip - this was from a weekend Alderney run a few years ago sadly all to infrequent

overall these insurance clauses are getting very confusing - especially as they all claim to have plain English clauses (they have to)... a few pointers Boat CE rating isn't relevant to geographical limits - those (limits) are simply an indication of the likely average conditions against which a particular craft might reasonably be considered. Insurers know this but like to piggy back safety legislation if they can. There is huge confusion about some of the clauses around leaving a boat 'unattended' - other than on it's own mooring (and sometimes including that). This comes around because so many of these policies are derived from trailer boat insurance. You should put any likely scenarios to your insurer in writing and save the response with your policy docs. Generally (but not to be relied upon) responses have confirmed that a boat at anchor when you are on the beach watching it is 'attended', marinas are OK, harbours and their moorings are OK, charted anchorages can be OK for a specified time period etc... Another one that's crept in relates to anchoring in less than X depth or within Xm of shoreline - when damage to sterngear is excluded/higher excess. The reasons are obvious to anyone that's seen people anchoring in the shallows with a swell running (again trailer boats no tender etc) Being 'in company' doesn't make a huge difference to the majority of the insurers liabilities. Phaeton is covered by the next standard "Brest to Elbe", all I had to do was ask (as others above). I would hasten to add that the restrictive nature of the clauses and confusing terms is not really the Insurers fault - and is certainly not an attempt to get out of realistic claims - more an attempt at a warning of bad behavior in relation to an historically under educated (in relation to using boats) group (trailer power boats) There is probably scope to negotiate a club policy ie a standard policy available to club members rather than necessarily cheaper premiums or any club involvement. Now is probably a good time to look at it too. I still have a few connections to plug into if there's a feeling that this is worth pursuing? I would need some basic statistics on the boats that members have and whether trailed, dry stacked, marina or trot - but that's all to start with.

indeed Terry

lol - if SHT's bots spot that post they will close the bay to boating completely until they find a turtle!

fascinating subject! you might find this research paper interesting, as it goes into more detail on the specific hooks and implications. pdf on longlines it deals with the hooking of sea turtles but bear with it! interestingly you will see how fixed rings to the eye of the circle is considered 'optimum' whilst in the swordfish fishery research there was no significance between J and circle hooks! I will admit that I hadn't viewed the 'snelling' images before posting - capital punishment is due........ to me snelling was how spade ends are attached! Running the line through to the front of the eye will improve the performance of a circle, over a circle tied with a uni/grinner or snelled without going through the eye to the front, or snelling and going out through the back of the eye! Basically you are increasing the circle effect. The weakness of this research (longlining- self hooking only) is that it takes into account baiting and fish species etc but not the practical aspects of angling. Look at the relative performance of the 4/0 and 5/0 in the Probability of Catch section of the full report (the one you linked) and reference the 5/0 J - there is almost twice the difference between the 4/0 and 5/0 circle then between the 5/0 circle and 5/0 J - this is a very selective and sensitive fishery! However, all that said, I will still fish full circles on loops - but definitely accept that snelling such that the snood exits the eye through the front is as good (if not better!). Thanks again.

I feel a bit guilty contributing to a current thread on cod when I haven't fished for one for 4 years.... however, there seem to be a couple of key issues that are only getting touched on - when they are fundamental. 1. if you are using a circle it will work far far better attached to a loop, often crimped in heavier lines, and will be pretty useless snelled... 2. you can just about get away with a semi circle snelled, but it's not as efficient as it would be connected 'loose' 3. there is a key relationship between the angle of pull and the springyness of the hook - ideally you want all the pull on the point in the right direction, and without the potential for any spring through the bend. 4. using springy hooks means you have to have a very thin and short point to a small barb - ie the hook needs to set to the barb with the sort of force available before the bend springs. hooks like the C&R uptides work this way. 5. snelling will keep a J hook aligned better on a springy hook and deliver a little more to the point with even springy hooks - even better with stronger, narrow bend, designs. 6. add a wide bend to a J hook and snelling is really excellent - often a good combination with larger baits. Now you can have a longer, tapered, point to a more significant barb and expect it to get set and hold! obviously baiting, masked points, etc are all factors. I had most success with smaller baits, fished on the bend of a circle hook attached to a reasonably large loop (not tight) with a crimp - 60lb hard nylon. For larger baits I could get 12 calamari on the bend of a 16/0 circle if necessary - but it was much more effective to fish 1 on a smaller circle just down tide of Paul J's 24 calamari baits

sadly (I blame Paul D) I can now click on that thumbnail and see a slightly bigger cod..... can't be much over 32 though

sorry if I am coming over to hard - I think I am actually agreeing with you but highlighting that the time for AT's serious involvement in the NE research has already past. on balance even the extended MCZ at Studland isn't really a serious issue for the RSA, the Needles one certainly has the potential to be a much bigger issue for all RSA sectors including a huge 'knock on effect' to the charter market out of Lymington etc, and the Eddystone area for Plymouth. the effect for the leisure boater, and knock on to Poole's economy, of the MCZ in Studland being a no-anchor zone - would be huge. Likewise Babbacombe Bay off Torbay. However, they really wouldn't notice either the Needles or Eddystone areas at all. the commercial (catching) sector wouldn't really miss any of them - what's not trawled off the Needles will be picked up in the surrounding area just fine! FWIW the RYA, as a stakeholder and early recipient, published it's initial reaction to the South West proposals yesterday. I have copied it below "RYA commenting on coastal areas being explored by English MCZ project teams. The RYA is currently in the process of commenting on a number of coastal areas being explored by the regional English Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) project teams. These comments will feed into the continuing debate about location and management of possible MCZs. The latest report to be scrutinised by the RYA is from one of the four regional English MCZ projects; Finding Sanctuary in the south west. Caroline Price, RYA Planning and Environment Advisor explains:

in relation to RSA and MCZ's it's currently too late - CEFAS has completed it's 'research' - see here the real issue is the funding aspects of the research - the only people prepared to fund the research had a clear idea of the results they wished to obtain... when anything is published from the research (other than the incredible NE web data sets) we should certainly get active about the lack of any real engagement. CEFAS shouts loud about the potential importance of the RSA sector, but also states that it does nothing to help itself - a classic stance. There has been no significant study published since 2004 (Drew Associates, 2004 (Crabtree et al. 2004). Research into the economic contribution of sea angling. Final report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) as everyone seems to have been more interested in who (s in charge/doing it). This isn't meant as an observation on AT's current activities - just the reality of those in power when (forced to) consider the RSA. OTOH when the 'research' associated with MCZs is published it may well become such an observation.

as said before - they know they won't get a trawler ban on any active fishery, so they have targeted areas that are not fisheries (because they are active anchorages!) generally the commercial fisheries people are far more switched on to 'action' if required than the leisure boating sector - which starts from a huge disadvantage in the perception stakes ie hard working small commercial fishing communities v rich bast+rds and their gas gusseling toys... right now they continue to avoid definition of the activities they propose to gain legislation to ban within these areas - to avoid making the issues real and retain the emotional high ground - it (undefined) is bad for the environment (undefined and unproven); it's hard to argue against such statements!

indeed this is the SHT (Sea Horse Trust) no anchoring zone that was established in order to scientifically evaluate the impact of anchoring on the seahorses - unfortunately 1. they can't be bothered to evaluate 2. any evaluation is pointless as they do not have a separate zone where there is no anchoring or scientific activity such as diving, filming and handling the little things all the time. The proposals now outlined are under a different auspices and have extremely carefully avoided any statement of what steps they actually propose to implement! However the world will be a better place for everybody if they do get a mandate It has been pointed out that there is absolutely no reason at all to implement steps in inshore anchorages (all the proposed sites are in such sheltered areas - except the Eddystone reef off Plymouth (yes all of it). This latter I could actually agree with but the rest is ridiculous. Part of the issue is that they know they have to start with a total trawling ban in the area - so they have picked areas that the commercials won't argue to much about (as they are not fisheries!). I am actually amazed that Poole council hasn't realised the implications of the (recently) extended Studland proposals - combined with the potential for fiasco over the bridge and Holes Bay access this could easily halve the attraction of Poole to the small pleasure boater, many of whom have holiday property etc in the Borough as well. FWIW I voted etc many months ago.

my 'spare' onboard (I have a fair few anchors back at base) is the same except for the length of rode. Of the South Coast I consider 100m appropriate to the safety function my onboard spare is designed to fulfill. Whilst this may seem longer than necessary the problem is that in the event of an engine failure the boat is going to be drifting, potentially at speed, when I need to deploy (am heading for rocks) so although the depth is unlikely to exceed 12m I feel more comfortable with the additional scope.

you have chances Greg - I am photographing a(nother) wedding that weekend and I always get (far too) bright and sunny weather, that everyone thinks is good for the photographer

don't get gutted - worst case is that the weather is brilliant, the fishing fantastic and you have to read a whole lot of stunning catch reports...........but of course it won't happen like that.

Adam, I can use the gas bottle and would be interested in the bench vice (the bigger the better!). I'm sure we can resolve any value easily enough. I'll be down around the dinner thingy at the latest, maybe earlier. OK?

you also need to close the fore hatch in the larger tides....

bigger tides also mean more consideration to wind and tide when moving around over there as well as the crossing...again fine for the (larger) charter craft.

Adam Club comps first as the core membership should come first and all other trips are secondary. On that basis I agree with your first set of dates. That said I will go across the channel when the weather allows me especially as I didn't make the crossing last year Martin I think this is the crux of it Martin - the weather. Planning is important (and obviously fun) but it such trips tend to all come down to opportunity

does that mean there's a spare pink tent Tom? Charlie - thanks for the clarification on dates.