COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon
Some people here who claim to be captains are so
obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
is but one example of restricted visibility that they
have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
visibility.
While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.
Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.
Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.
You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.
Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.
The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.
So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.
Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.
Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.
Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.
Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.
S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.
Me
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:edGdnTcYGc1...@terranova.net...
> Dear Group,
I find banana porridge helps greatly
Tim Roberts
Rule 3
General Definitions
(l) The term "restricted visibility" means any conditions in which
visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms,
sandstorms or any other similar causes.
That aside, from my own experience at sea I'd have to agree with the point
Simon is trying to make.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
The_navigator©
Cheers MC
Charles T. Low
Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.
So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.
Charles
====
Charles T. Low
ct...@boatUNdocking.com - remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat
====
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:edGdnTcYGc1...@terranova.net...
Everett
<snip> I'm left not
> knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
> Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.
>
> So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
> "Simple Simon"
<snip>
>> I say there is a pecking order in restricted
> > visibility.
> >
> > My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
> > vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
> > it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.
> >
from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html
"Rule 4
Application
"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."
That seems to say it all. Thanks SS
Everett
John Cairns
"Everett" <everettharp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vop6nhs...@corp.supernews.com...
collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and
yell "STAND ASIDE"
John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters
The Carrolls
"Charles T. Low" <ct...@boatUNdocking.com> wrote in message
news:RK6dnYzVOO8...@ripnet.com...
Jeff Morris
entitled, actually obligated, to proceed at full speed in the thickest fog. Now you're
admitting that the sailboat must slow appropriately. I sounds like you're admitting you
were wrong all along.
More comments interspersed ...
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:edGdnTcYGc1...@terranova.net...
> Dear Group,
>
> Some people here who claim to be captains are so
> obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
> is but one example of restricted visibility that they
> have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
> issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
> visibility.
>
> While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
> way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
> say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
> visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
> visibility.
>
> Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
> able to refute rationally or logically.
>
> Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
> can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
> and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
> everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
> fires can cause restricted visibility.
>
True, but totally irrelavent. We merely claimed that fog that reduced visibilty to under
50 feet was not uncommon. Now you just admitting there are other conditions.
> You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
> to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
> of the mark.
>
Thick fog may be "worst case" (actually I think torrential downpour can be worse) but it
is not uncommon.
> My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
> vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
> it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.
>
> Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
> vessel does not change my argument because unusually
> thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
> generally an exception to the rule.
>
Absolutely not. In fact, for large vessel (which is what the rules truly address) 1/4
mile visibilty is "thick" because it may be under a boat length. The only reason why we
often talk of very thick fog is that you insist on only applying the rules to a 27 foot
sailboat that has a max speed of about 3 knots.
> The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
> so when they eventually come within sight of one another
> they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
> collision while following the in-sight Rules.
Absolutely wrong. By the time vessels come in sight of one another, it may be too late to
apply the "in sight rules." But even so, this is a huge backpedal for you, Neal! You're
actually claiming that all vessels must slow down? You've insisted all along the sailboat
has no such obligation!
> It's sort of like
> being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
> fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
> shine.
>
> So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
> and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
> by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
> four facts that cannot be disputed.
>
> Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
> are required to sound signals specific to the
> vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
> signal when underway and those vessels above
> them in the pecking order sound another and
> different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
> pecking order.
>
There is no "pecking" mentioned in the rules. In fact, they are quite explicit that the
obligations are the same for all vessels. The fact the some vessels have a different
signal does not make them "standon."
> Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
> visibility get close enough to each other that
> they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
> the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
> is mandated.
>
This is a grey area that only works if all vessels believe they are "in sight" and can
clearly make out the course and speed. There may be some cases where it works - but the
courts and all commentators I've read are quite clear that the "restricted visibility"
rules are in lieu of the "in sight" rules.
> Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
> an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
> and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
> sight of one another.
Again you're backpedaling here - you've maintained in the past the the standon/giveway
relationship holds even in the thickest fog. Are you admitting you were wrong?
>
> Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
> in or near an area of restricted visibility.
>
So you are claiming the sailboat is required to maintain course and speed in thick fog?
What is is Neal, you seem to be reverting here. Are you claiming that because at some
point the "in sight" rules will apply that sailboats are always standon?
>
> S.Simon - the ultimate buffoon when it comes to understanding
> the COLREGS.
>
Nice try Neal. You've pretty much admitted you were wrong all along. You're trying to
recast this as a situation were two small vessels are near an area of slightly restricted
visibility. You might even have a point for this case. However, you've claimed all along
that Rule 19 does not apply to sailboats; that they are permitted to travel at full speed
in the thickest fog, and all powerboats must get out of their way. A guess we can assume
this is as close as you'll come to admitting you were wrong all along.
--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)
Jeff Morris
year.
Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.
Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.
If you want to see some of the earlier threads, search on "fog" in this group.
"Charles T. Low" <ct...@boatUNdocking.com> wrote in message
news:RK6dnYzVOO8...@ripnet.com...
Jeff Morris
>
> "Rule 4
> Application
>
> "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."
>
> That seems to say it all. Thanks SS
>
> Everett
>
What does it say? Do you have a point?
Jeff Morris
sailboat is "standon" in the thickest fog and is not required to reduce speed. He has
claimed repeatedly that rule 19 does not apply to sailboats because they are incapable of
ever traveling at an unsafe speed.
Is this point of Simon's that you're agreeing with?
"Tim Roberts" <t...@tr.yousurf.net> wrote in message news:3f8c8...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Rick
> So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
> and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
> by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
> four facts that cannot be disputed.
??? Why drag me into your fantasy world, Nil?
All I ever did was call you a nautical wannabe. The last thing in the
world I would ever do is argue about the COLREGS with the Cliff Claven
of a.s.a.
Shenn and Otnmbrd are unlimited masters with a career at sea actually
operating ships so I do believe they are a bit more qualified to
interpret the COLREGS than, what is it you claim to hold, a 6 pack MOTOR
ticket or something?
The only thing I can see in your post that cannot be disputed is this
determined adherence to your nautical fantasy life and your peculiar
need to shop it around so many newsgroups.
Rick
Tim Roberts
It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread.
I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of
restricted visibility.
Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should
perhaps add a couple of points;
First Point:
Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1
(Application)
'(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all
waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels'
Second Point:
Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog?
He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It
happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than
it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a
change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the
moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds
more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for
long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker.
I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog.
I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound
signals much easier than with an engine on.
Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and
Meteorology amongst other things.
Capt. Frank Hopkins
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Of course,
one "tries" to miss the errant PWC too. <G>
Capt. Frank
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
Frank Hopkins" <aartwor...@earthlink.net>, to say:
>Hey John,
>Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid.
Standing orders on USS Prairie, AD 15 read in part:*
Aircraft carriers are unpredictable and change course at will,
with little to no regard to the rest of the fleet. Whenever
steaming with an aircraft carrier, a vigilant watch will be kept
upon it, and the ship will be maneuvered out of the way as
prudent.
*As much as I remember.
Shen44
Simpleton Neal, are purely luck or imaginary, on Neal's part.
The only reason to read Neal's interpretations, is to learn how NOT to
interpret the rules.
Shen
Calif Bill
No wind and fog? He has never seen the fog come in the Golden Gate! Or
over the Marin Headlands. Seems as if the CG feels that the big, dang
freighter coming in the the Gate, had priority over everything but the Blue
Angels, etc, this last Sunday. Everytime a large ship came in the gate, the
CG informed all the boats to get out of it's way because of the Col Regs as
it was restricted to channel. Also they informed the ship of the safety box
on the San Franciso waterfront during the Fleet Week airshow. They just
adjusted speed, to arrive during the breaks.
Bill
Jonathan Ganz
"Calif Bill" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pU5jb.1628$7a4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Ronald Raygun
> from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html
>
> "Rule 4
> Application
>
> "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."
>
> That seems to say it all.
To say what, exactly?
The pecking order (rule 18), stand-on (rule 17), and give-way (rule
16) stuff is not in section I of part B, to which rule 4 refers, but
in section II of part B, which is introduced by rule 11:
"Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another."
So the pecking order *only* applies when in sight.
Section III which is rule 19 applies only to vessels not in
sight of one another, when in restricted visibility. This means
that, even where visibility is restricted (for any reason), as
soon as ships come close enough to see each other, section III
goes out the window and section II kicks in, restoring pecking
order *which does not exist in section III*. But this revived
pecking order may be academic if by then vessels are already
in a close quarters situation.
Ronald Raygun
> Neal's point has been (though he doesn't state it explicitly in this
> thread) that a
> sailboat is "standon" in the thickest fog and is not required to reduce
> speed. He has claimed repeatedly that rule 19 does not apply to sailboats
> because they are incapable of ever traveling at an unsafe speed.
One has to remember that what is paramount to him is not whether
rule 19 applies "to sailboats" but whether it applies *to him*.
Perhaps in the limited types of situation of which he has experience,
restricted visibility is associated with less wind which will mean
that his sailing vessel is likely already to be proceeding at a safe
speed, and may even already be at the minimum speed at which she can
be kept on her course.
That's not to say that rule 19 doesn't apply to him, merely that he
is already automatically complying with it because the conditions of
19b and 19e are already met.
So, in his own little universe, he's probably right.
For the rest of us, in the real world, the story is different.
Simple Simon
S.Simon
"Everett" <everettharp...@charter.net> wrote in message news:vop6nhs...@corp.supernews.com...
Simple Simon
can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!
Comments interspersed.
"Jeff Morris" <jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom> wrote in message news:cfqcne_XkMe...@comcast.com...
> Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
> year.
>
> Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
> to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
> are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
> "restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.
I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
down.
As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
exists in all its glorious ramifications.
>
> Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
> them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
> that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
> are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
> he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.
I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.
I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
keep failing to get it.
As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.
S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
liberal fashion.
Simple Simon
horse frantically with whips in both hands. You continue to
argue using the discredited thick fog scenario and that simply
will not discredit my facts about restricted visibility being all
sorts of situations where in-sight circumstances eventuate
within the area of restricted visibility and in-sight Rules come
into play.
What don't you get about vessels being in sight in or near
an area of restricted visibility?
S.Simon
"Jeff Morris" <jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom> wrote in message news:OWKdnWnbr6F...@comcast.com...
Simple Simon
occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick
that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another.
At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog
is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of
the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or
near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations
are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and
stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another.
Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained
there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of
restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on
and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility.
I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line.
I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at
a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less
than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so
I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk
in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed.
In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally.
If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away
if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on
vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm
overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering
they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual
20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore,
I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try
to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision.
If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course -
I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to
a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk
by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too
fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and
not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES.
Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the
Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel
hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above
it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight
of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel
in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation
in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation.
This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That
there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a
give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility.
If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come
within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows
it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation.
(we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc,
here - we're talking at sea.) This means the
give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of
restricted visibility.
S.Simon - knows the practical application
as well as the letter of the Rules.
"Tim Roberts" <t...@tr.yousurf.net> wrote in message news:3f8cc...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Simple Simon
understand the meaning of keeping a proper
lookout. It appears your compatriot otnmbrd
hasn't a clue.
Is is any wonder with the likes of otn operating
ships that there will always be plenty of collisions
that could have and should have been avoided.
S.Simon
"Shen44" <she...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031015011716...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Simple Simon
Go pick your nose or something constructive like
that because it's clear you have too little knowledge
to play with us big boys!
S.Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:wj3jb.1477$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Rick
> Go pick your nose or something constructive like
> that because it's clear you have too little knowledge
> to play with us big boys!
>The key to documenting your time is to do it on boats you have owned
>recently. Then it is on the honor system. You have to show proof that
>you own the boats but they take your word for the time you have sailed
them. Hint! Hint!
> I've plenty enough time in three years on one of my two boats.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
ROFLMAO Yeah, it must be the Whaler 'cause your toy license is for
MOTOR!!! You can't pass the test to get a sail endorsement and the only
motor you can operate is an outboard ...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
> S.Simon - A legitimate Master.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ... a "master" of the keyboard, an
internet wannabe, the fastest backpeddler, and the master of fraud in ASA.
This just gets better and better ... best laugh since Jax bailed out in
shame.
Rick
Calif Bill
"Jonathan Ganz" <nos...@noospam.com> wrote in message
news:voptnd4...@corp.supernews.com...
Wife and I rather enjoyed the day. Anchored up by Angel Island, to avoid
the mess by Alcatraz, then went to Ayala Cove on Angel Island after the
show and got a slip and did a little hiking.
Bill
Calif Bill
friggin fog so thick you can not see the front of the car from the drivers
seat!
Bill
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:6uidnfh6i_x...@terranova.net...
Vito
>
> Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on
> occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick
> that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another.
I'm told you are absolutely correct - that there's always a few seconds
of stark terror before actually colliding.
Tim Roberts
Simon, you wrote:
If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course -
I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to
a stop and become a sitting duck
Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course
regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels
position?
Jeff Morris
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:6uidnfp6i_x...@terranova.net...
> And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
> can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
> motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!
>
> Comments interspersed.
>
>
> "Jeff Morris" <jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom> wrote in message
news:cfqcne_XkMe...@comcast.com...
> > Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about
a
> > year.
> >
> > Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not
required
> > to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since
there
> > are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
> > "restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.
>
> I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
> down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
> going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
> the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
> vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
> little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
> at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
> down.
Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not require boats to
slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:
"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions."
All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the basics. Rule 19 says
that sometimes you have to go even slower. Rule 19 specifically addresses restricted
visibilty, and says:
"(e) Except where it has been determined that a risk of collision does
not exist, every vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the
fog signal of another vessel, or which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation
with another vessel forward of her beam, shall reduce her
speed to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course. She
shall if necessary take all her way off and in any event navigate with
extreme caution until danger of collision is over."
The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there is no situation
where a sailboat must slow down. Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?
You've claimed that its impossible for a sailboat to slow down, but that only proves you
don't know how to sail. I suggest take a beginners sailing class if you don't understand
how to control your speed.
>
> As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
> in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
> Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
> becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
> or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
> exists in all its glorious ramifications.
>
I've often admitted that in light fog there can be situations where the "in sight" rules
take affect. However, in thick fog, two vessel making 7 knots each can be closing at 24
feet/second. In 50 foot visibilty, this does not leave enough time to even react. This
is why there can be no pecking order in thick fog - ALL VESSELS have an equal
responsibilty to REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM!
>
> >
> > Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
> > them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a
myth
> > that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because
they
> > are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
> > he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.
>
>
> I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
> fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
> a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.
>
By claiming a vessel is "standon" you imply it must maintain course and speed. But even
so, claiming a sailboat "could" proceed a full speed in thick fog also blatantly wrong.
>
> I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
> or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
> Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
> keep failing to get it.
>
For many situations, you may be correct. However, in thick fog, 6 knots is too fast, even
for a small boat. The rules are quite explicit. The courts have also been very specific
on this, holding vessels at fault because they did not anchor immediately.
BTW, just a month ago you claimed your hull speed was 7 knots. Did you suddenly slow
down?
> As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
> happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
> my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
> or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.
>
No, you've merely claimed rules that protect boats in thick fog don't make sense because
sometimes there isn't thick fog. This is nonsensical!
Ronald Raygun
> Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not
> require boats to slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:
On the contrary.
Rule 6 requires speeds to be safe at all times, there is no explicit
mention of reducing to a safe speed. Not even in 19b. Only in 19e.
Both 6 and 19b *imply* that a reduction might be mandated in some
circumstances, but only 19e makes *explicit* mention of reduction,
and then only in specific circumstances.
> All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the
> basics. Rule 19 says that sometimes you have to go even slower.
Even slower than safe speed? No, it only means that "safe" may at
times mean very slow.
> The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there
> is no situation where a sailboat must slow down.
In this he is of course mistaken.
> Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
> SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?
Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can
be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need
to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained,
unless (as required be the following sentence) it becomes necessary to
take all way off. But remember that the whole of 19e only applies to
vessels which have heard another vessel's fog signal from apparently
forward, or where an unavoidable close quarters situation already exists.
otnmbrd
Simple Simon wrote:
> Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on
> occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick
> that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another.
Wrong and immaterial to the discussion. The discussion is how vessels
react and there responsibility when they can see each other, and when
they can not see each other.
>
> At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog
> is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of
> the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or
> near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations
> are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and
> stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another.
>
> Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained
> there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of
> restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on
> and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility.
Absolutely wrong. What you seem unable to comprehend is that when
vessels can not see each other due to some form of restricted
visibility, that there is no stand-on/priveleged status ..... both
vessels must navigate with extreme caution.
IF .... while in fog or some other form of restricted visibility, the
two vessels should come in sight of each other (yes, they may well still
be in restricted visibility) then, and only then, do give-way, stand-on
conditions apply, unless, of course, they are so close, that BOTH
vessels must maneuver to avoid collision.
The very simple governing phrases you seem unable to comprehend and
apply to the terms "fog" and "restricted visibility", are "in sight of"
and "not in sight of".
>
> I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line.
nope
>
> I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at
> a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less
> than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so
> I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk
> in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed.
> In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally.
Wrong again. Safe speed must be adapted to the prevailing circumstances.
If you are doing seven knots and can barely see your bow or just beyond,
you will never maneuver in time if something should appear. Sorry, rules
for speed apply to sail also.
>
> If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away
> if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on
> vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm
> overtaking the motor vessel
or we are so close that both vessel's must maneuver to avoid collision.
(I'll ignore TSS or narrow channels)
What do you do if you are hearing the fog signal of what turns out to be
a 6000 hp Z-drive tug pushing a 150' deck barge (i.e. a vessel blowing
the same signal you are)
which is not likely at all considering
> they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual
> 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once.
immaterial
Therefore,
> I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try
> to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision.
> If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course -
Potentially unsafe practices (Notice, it's perfectly OK for Neal to keep
sailing at 5-6 k, but not a motor vessel)
> I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to
> a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk
> by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too
> fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and
> not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES.
Garbage and shows limited sailing skills.. Rules tell you to take all
way off if necessary.
>
> Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the
> Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel
> hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above
> it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight
> of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel
> in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation
> in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation.
More garbage. There is no pecking order of any kind, in fog, when two
vessels cannot see each other, no matter what the different signals may
be. There is, also, no way for a motor vessel to tell if it is dealing
with a sailboat, by whistle signals alone.
Here again we can see Neals problem grasping the terms "in sight" and
"not in sight" and relating (or separating them, if you will) with the
terms "fog" and/or "restricted visibility".
>
> This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That
> there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a
> give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility.
Again, the problem relating to terminology .... and ....no pecking
order.... and again you've proved nothing.
>
> If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come
> within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows
> it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation.
> (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc,
> here - we're talking at sea.) This means the
> give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of
> restricted visibility.
........ONLY if the vessels can see each other (you're still ignoring
rule 17(b) and how it would affect stand-on status).
So, how's the license renewal coming, Neal? Sure hope they don't make
you take a "Rules" test (open book or otherwise)<BG>
otn
Ronald Raygun
> At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog
> is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of
> the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or
> near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations
> are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and
> stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another.
>
> Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained
> there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of
> restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on
> and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility.
>
> I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line.
Correct, if you replace IS with CAN BE. The in sight rules don't
just suddenly become invalid just because visibility becomes
restricted. The definitions are clear: "in sight" and "restricted
visibility" are not 100% mutually exclusive. That's why the "in
sight" rules apply not when visibility is not restricted, but
when one vessel can be observed visually from the other.
> I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at
> a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less
> than seven knots max.
That's crap. There is no way you can seriously claim that
7 knots is a safe speed in thick fog. You should surrender your
master's licence immediately and take up golf.
> Many fogs have little or no wind so
> I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk
> in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed.
Wrong.
> In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally.
Even wronger. In thick fog you would not be under in-sight rules
and so could not possibly be legally standing-on.
> If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away
> if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on
> vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel.
Nice try, and I admit there is some logic in this approach, but
it is nevertheless a flagrant violation of 19b, 19c, and 19e,
the point being that sound signals do not allow either you or
the motor boat to determine what your likely relative positions
are going to be once your range closes sufficiently for you
to be able to see each other. The whole point of 19 is that
it recognises that there might not be enough time for whichever
vessel would become the give-way vessel, once the in-sight rules
kick in, to take effective action to avoid collision.
Simple Simon
"Tim Roberts" <t...@tr.yousurf.net> wrote in message news:3f8da...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> Simon, you wrote:
>
> If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course -
> I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to
> a stop and become a sitting duck
>
>
> Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course
> regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels
> position?
>
Yes I would. The Rules require me to.
S.Simon
Simple Simon
Sea fog and land fog are two different animals.
"Calif Bill" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:MOhjb.1996$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Tim Roberts
You are totally wrong.
If you hear a sound signal in fog but have not clearly identified the other
vessel visually, how the hell do you know where they are?
Sound in fog is like sound in water - it's very difficult to tell which
direction it's coming from. If you alter course without knowing where the
other vessel is, you could increase the risk of collision.
The ONLY sensible and safe course of action is to slow down, post as many
lookouts as you can (difficult if your single handing) and be ready to move
quickly once you get a visual. With luck, the sound signal will get quieter
as the other vessel passes away from you - but in my experience (and i've
sailed a lot in fog in the North Sea and English Channel) this is not
likely.
I hope I never have to sail anywhere with you when there is a risk of fog.
You're a downright danger to yourself and to other shipping.
Tim Roberts
should be treated accordingly.
I suppose you are implying that there is no wind when you are dealing with
land fog?
What do you think causes the land fog to move out to sea?
The Wind.
Drainage winds and katabatic winds can both move off land out to sea and
carry fog with them.
Simple Simon
Part B - Steering and Sailing Rules
Section I - Conduct of Vessels in any Condition of Visibility
Rule 4
Application
Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility.
Rule 8
Action to Avoid Collision
(a)Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due
regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit be large enough to be
readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar;
a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed shall be avoided.
(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation
provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness
of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to asses the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by
stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.
(f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching
the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be
required by the rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two
vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.
I guess you think the above doesn't apply in restricted visibility. Think again.
It applies in all conditions of visibility as stated in Rule 4
S.Simon
"Tim Roberts" <t...@tr.yousurf.net> wrote in message news:3f8dd...@corp.newsgroups.com...
The_navigator©
reversing.
Cheers MC
The_navigator©
Cheers MC
Simple Simon
Yes they do - as an option or alternative if there is doubt.
Rule 8 specifically.
S.Simon
"The_navigator©" <farr...@excite.com> wrote in message news:3f8de232$1...@news.auckland.ac.nz...
Jonathan Ganz
we have out here. 35kts and a wall of impenetrable fog.
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:6uidnfh6i_x...@terranova.net...
Jeff Morris
news:O1kjb.8095$h8.71...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
> > Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not
> > require boats to slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:
>
> On the contrary.
> Rule 6 requires speeds to be safe at all times, there is no explicit
> mention of reducing to a safe speed. Not even in 19b. Only in 19e.
>
You're being pedantic - rule 6 mandates a safe speed at all times. If the visibility gets
worse, this likely means vessels should slow down. I was only pointing out what you are
also claiming, a "safe speed" is not just a requirement in restricted visibility, it
always applies.
> Both 6 and 19b *imply* that a reduction might be mandated in some
> circumstances, but only 19e makes *explicit* mention of reduction,
> and then only in specific circumstances.
Ah, that's why I quoted 19(e) and not 19(b) ???
>
> > All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the
> > basics. Rule 19 says that sometimes you have to go even slower.
>
> Even slower than safe speed? No, it only means that "safe" may at
> times mean very slow.
Even more pedantic. You might just claim the 19(e) is not required at all, since its
implied by rule 6. And yes, the courts have ruled that leaving the dock was going too
fast.
>
> > The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there
> > is no situation where a sailboat must slow down.
>
> In this he is of course mistaken.
I think we are in strong agreement here.
>
> > Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
> > SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?
>
> Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can
> be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need
> to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained,
> unless (as required be the following sentence) it becomes necessary to
> take all way off.
I've quoted this rule in full about 5 times in the year we've have this running debate. I
assume the everyone is familiar with the full wording, so I sometimes only quote the
"short version." Neal has claimed that it is unsafe for a sailboat to proceed at anything
less than the full speed for a given wind, and therefore claims that anything less than
hull speed may be unsafe. The rules are specific that there is no such lower limit -
minimum steerageway may be too fast. Indeed, the courts have ruled on occasion that not
dropping the anchor was too fast.
> But remember that the whole of 19e only applies to
> vessels which have heard another vessel's fog signal from apparently
> forward, or where an unavoidable close quarters situation already exists.
>
Yes, again I assume everyone is familiar with the wording. But all you're saying is that
this rule only applies when there's a possibility of a collision - but that's the
interesting situation!
This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e)
requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the
"prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway
relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a
grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then
there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order,
sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it.
Tim Roberts
Rule 19(e)
>requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the
>"prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a
standon/giveway
>relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that
since there is a
>grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might
apply, then
>there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a
pecking order,
>sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying
it.
O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is a
pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing vessels
need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is involved
in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?).
Fishing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short
Sailing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short
Many Other vessels also sound 1 Long & 2 Short
How do you know the other vessel isn't a fishing vessel
Sailing vessels must keep out of the way of fishing vessels even in Simple
Simon's pecking order (surely! or maybe this will just add fuel to another
pointless argument from Simon).
As you can't tell what the vessel is (because you haven't seen it) -
prudence requires you to slow down - THE RULES require you to slow down -
just in case it IS a fishing vessel and you have to give way.
Also, I have skippered many yachts that sail (and steer) quite happily at 2
knots, so this can't slow down (must maintain hull speed) approach is a load
of bollocks. 7 knots is not a safe speed for a yacht in restricted
visibility! Would you sail into a berth at 7 knots? I don't think so.
There are no grey areas in the IRPCS. Just in the way we interpret them.
Clearly there are some out there who are not employing common sense and
employing safe practice when they are at sea.
Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine
Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the internet.
The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to blame
as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for
avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'.
Charles T. Low
bail! (Only one life to live.)
But I will remind everyone that one law-enforcement officer I know said he
virtually always lays two charges in collison situations, the stand-on
vessel's skipper getting at least "failure to maintain an adequate lookout."
Related to the so-called "General Avoidance Rule."
I'm not sure about Simple Simon (is that "Neal") thinking that 6 knots under
sail is a "safe speed." I think a read of the Regs shows that safe speed is
not ever one number, but takes myriad factors into consideration, and that
sometimes a safe speed is stopped, or reversing. ((Backwind a sail, I
guess!)
Charles
====
Charles T. Low
ct...@boatUNdocking.com - remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat
====
"Jeff Morris" <jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom> wrote in message
news:cfqcne_XkMe...@comcast.com...
> Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone
on for about a
> year...
otnmbrd
A bit of history for those new to this discussion:
I'm not sure how long ago it started, but it's months not days ago, and
friend Neal basically started off by stating that since a sailboat and a
power driven vessel made different signals in fog, there was a full
pecking order in fog and a sailboat was then considered a stand-on
vessel when it heard the fog signal of a powerdriven vessel. Also, that
it didn't need to reduce speed since it was all ready at a reduced
speed. (someone can look back to confirm this, or possibly Jeff or Shen
can confirm my memory).
Needless to say, he was shown to be wrong, and since then has been
trying to talk his way out of it ..... to no avail, as you can all see,
by trying to apply abstract conditions to the basic "in sight" and "not
in sight" conditions of the initial discussions.
Regarding rule 6 and 19 .... keep in mind, that those responsible for
the rules, seem to be aware that you cannot write a rule to cover every
situation, so "insert" rule 2.
Although the wording of rule 6 and 19 in most sections, does not
specifically state "reduce speed" the implication is there, and "rule
2", you are responsible to act upon that implication.
As I've said before, Neal is a basic "newbie" who has somehow gotten a
beginners license, which he's rarely if ever used. His knowledge of the
rules is based on his own reading and interpretation, not experience or
real knowledge of their meaning or intent.
The best reason to get into an argument/discussion on any maritime
subject, with Neal, is to learn how NOT to think or interpret the
"Rules", or any other subject, for that matter, I've seen him expound
upon, as <BG> I have seen him come up with some clever ways to try and
"cover his butt".
otn
otnmbrd
otn
otnmbrd
otn
John Cairns
John Cairnsnews:3f8df...@corp.newsgroups.com...
otnmbrd
Simple Simon wrote:
> And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
> can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
> motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!
>
> Comments interspersed.
>
>
> "Jeff Morris" <jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom> wrote in message news:cfqcne_XkMe...@comcast.com...
>
>>Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
>>year.
>>
>>Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
>>to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
>>are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
>>"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.
>
>
> I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
> down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
> going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
> the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
> vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
> little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
> at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
> down.
Totally wrong and another indication of your incompetence.
>
> As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
> in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
> Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
> becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
> or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
> exists in all its glorious ramifications.
This is a vain attempt to cover your butt, because you've been shown
that a pecking order doesn't exist, which means sailboats are not stand
on when vessels are not in sight .... i.e. Neals Damage Control
>
>
>
>>Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
>>them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
>>that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
>>are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
>>he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.
>
>
>
> I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
> fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
> a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.
Bull chips
>
> I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
> or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
> Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
> keep failing to get it.
More Bull chips
>
> As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
> happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
> my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
> or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.
>
> S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
> liberal fashion.
>
The above is nothing more than NDC (Neal Damage Control) incompetently
attempted.
otn
otnmbrd
we've all ready been over this, O stupid one .... you are just now
beginning to understand how to separate "in sight" from "not in sight"
when it comes to restricted visibility ....actually, I'm really becoming
worried about your basic mental capacity to reason.
otn
Simple Simon wrote:
> If I'm backpedaling furiously then you're flogging that dead
> horse frantically with whips in both hands. You continue to
> argue using the discredited thick fog scenario and that simply
> will not discredit my facts about restricted visibility being all
> sorts of situations where in-sight circumstances eventuate
> within the area of restricted visibility and in-sight Rules come
> into play.
>
> What don't you get about vessels being in sight in or near
> an area of restricted visibility?
>
> S.Simon
More NDC (Neal Damage Control)
otnmbrd
of the "Big Boys"..... never mind your lack of experience and/or knowledge.
otn
Simple Simon wrote:
> Go pick your nose or something constructive like
> that because it's clear you have too little knowledge
> to play with us big boys!
>
> S.Simon
>
>
> "Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:wj3jb.1477$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Simple Simon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
>>>and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
>>>by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
>>>four facts that cannot be disputed.
>>
>>??? Why drag me into your fantasy world, Nil?
>>
>>All I ever did was call you a nautical wannabe. The last thing in the
>>world I would ever do is argue about the COLREGS with the Cliff Claven
>>of a.s.a.
>>
>>Shenn and Otnmbrd are unlimited masters with a career at sea actually
>>operating ships so I do believe they are a bit more qualified to
>>interpret the COLREGS than, what is it you claim to hold, a 6 pack MOTOR
>> ticket or something?
>>
>>The only thing I can see in your post that cannot be disputed is this
>>determined adherence to your nautical fantasy life and your peculiar
>>need to shop it around so many newsgroups.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>
>
>
otnmbrd
otn
Tim Roberts wrote:
>>This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are whether
>
> Rule 19(e)
>
>>requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the
>>"prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a
>
> standon/giveway
>
>>relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that
>
> since there is a
>
>>grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might
>
> apply, then
>
>>there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a
>
> pecking order,
>
>>sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying
>
> it.
>
> O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is a
> pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing vessels
> need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is involved
> in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?).
<EG> What's fog got to do with fishing? Trust me, they fish in fog.
Calif Bill
fog is the same. And we get sea fog on the coast. Watched sea fog for many
years growing up, coming both through the Golden Gate and over the Marin
Headlands and San Franciso. Knowing when I got out of school, the frikken
fog would get us at about 3:30 pm. And could not run the convertible top
down with the date. Grew up next to Berkeley in the hills.
Bill
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:vaadnaQkYPx...@terranova.net...
Rick
> ROFL You're dinky little license and sailboat, will NEVER make you one
> of the "Big Boys"..... never mind your lack of experience and/or knowledge.
Nil couldn't get a job as a messman, he simply is not qualified. If he
was fit enough, could afford and pass the training, and somehow managed
to get an STCW certificate his attitude would get him kicked off at the
first port anyway.
Have seen a lot of his type dragging their gear down the gangway over
the years, one trippers who found out it takes more than a big mouth to
be a seaman.
Nil is singing and dancing now, backed into a corner, shown to be a
fraud and nothing more than just another internet wannabe ...
Rick
Jonathan Ganz
"Calif Bill" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:QUojb.2503$7a4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Shen44
>visibility.
>From: "Tim Roberts" t...@tr.yousurf.net
>Date: 10/15/2003 13:23 Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3f8da...@corp.newsgroups.com>
>
>
>
>Simon, you wrote:
>
>If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course -
>I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to
>a stop and become a sitting duck
>
>
>regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels
>position?
>
>
UTOH, Tim ..... You've opened one of Neal's worm cans......Good Luck !!
Shen
Shen44
>visibility.
ROFL, Trust me Neal, Gawd Help the SOB Mate who didn't post lookouts, or
additional lookouts, in a timely manner in times of restricted visibility, or
the lookout who didn't pay attention, when "otn" was Master..... speaking from
experience.......
Shen
ps When you learn how ships and big boats operate, we can discuss those
operations.....until then you'll always be a "rank amateur" with a highly
developed "wannabe" attitude and knowledge base.
>I gotta give you credit, Capt. Shen, at least you
>understand the meaning of keeping a proper
>lookout. It appears your compatriot otnmbrd
>hasn't a clue.
>
>Is is any wonder with the likes of otn operating
>ships that there will always be plenty of collisions
>that could have and should have been avoided.
>
>S.Simon
>
Ronald Raygun
> "Tim Roberts" <t...@tr.yousurf.net> wrote
>>
>> Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course
>> regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels
>> position?
>
> Yes I would. The Rules require me to.
Good, that's what I like to see, Cap'n. Nice reasoned argument.
So, pray tell, which particular rules require this?
Would you care to say how, without knowing where the other vessel
is, you can ensure your action *will* result in the vessels involved
passing at a safe distance (rule 8d) and not result in another close
quarters situation, in this case with the same vessel (rule 8c)?
Note that rule 8e also requires you to slow down if necessary.
Rule 8 is in section I, by the way, so applies whether in sight
or not.
Would you also care to explain how, by altering course to avoid
a vessel of the position of which you are uncertain, you are not
violating rule 7c by making assumptions on the basis of scanty
information?
Ronald Raygun
> "Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote
>> Jeff Morris wrote:
>> >
>> > Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
>> > SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?
>>
>> Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can
>> be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need
>> to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained,
>
> I've quoted this rule in full about 5 times in the year we've have this
> running debate. I assume the everyone is familiar with the full wording,
> so I sometimes only quote the "short version."
Well, you'll never get anywhere with sloppy quoting. By saying
"TO A MINIMUM" you're in danger of making people think you think
the rule means something other than what it really means. In short,
you need to be more of a pedant. :-)
> Neal has claimed that it is unsafe for a sailboat to
> proceed at anything less than the full speed for a given wind, and
> therefore claims that anything less than
> hull speed may be unsafe.
Well, that's bullshit of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely
to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an
implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an
opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances
be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe
for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you
say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other
speed. That's fallacious.
> Yes, again I assume everyone is familiar with the wording. But all you're
> saying is that this rule only applies when there's a possibility of a
> collision - but that's the interesting situation!
Well, he could say that provided there is no other traffic around,
it is perfectly safe for him to go as fast as he can, particularly
if that isn't very fast. Where he goes wrong is when, as you say,
it gets interesting.
> This debate has gone on for over a year.
Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't
say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-)
> The two main issues are whether
> Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough,
That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does.
> and
> whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog
> implies a standon/giveway relationship.
That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his
position that the signals give the listener an early warning of
what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship
will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply.
But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea.
> In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that
> since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted
> visibility" rules might apply, then
> there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a
> pecking order,
> sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying
> it.
His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing
grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly
changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during
an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments
prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the
level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he
will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*.
That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of
course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the
letter of some of them which he closes his mind to.
In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced
to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can*
happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He
also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist,
its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what
action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying
himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many
rules.
Jeff Morris
...
> In short,
> you need to be more of a pedant. :-)
>
I bow to the master!
> > This debate has gone on for over a year.
>
> Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't
> say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-)
>
Neal has essentially admitted he's wrong a few times, but prefers to keep the debate going for fun.
The problem is that every time it starts up a few people will be sucked in by his nonsense. I hate
to think how many newbies there are that think they have Right-Of-Way in the fog!
> > The two main issues are whether
> > Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough,
>
> That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does.
>
> > and
> > whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog
> > implies a standon/giveway relationship.
>
> That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his
> position that the signals give the listener an early warning of
> what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship
> will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply.
> But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea.
precisely.
>
> > In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that
> > since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted
> > visibility" rules might apply, then
> > there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a
> > pecking order,
> > sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying
> > it.
>
> His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing
> grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly
> changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during
> an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments
> prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the
> level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he
> will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*.
>
> That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of
> course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the
> letter of some of them which he closes his mind to.
>
Yes, he's tried to make this case. But this time he seems to be saying that the rules were not
written with thick fog in mind, since it is so rare. But he never addresses the fundamental concept
of 19(e), that when you hear a fog signal ahead, and can't figure it out, you must slow down.
> In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced
> to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can*
> happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He
> also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist,
> its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what
> action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying
> himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many
> rules.
>
Neal never responds when I mention "closing rates." His claim has been that since the powerboat has
stopped for him, he will always be able to avoid it.
Eisboch
> What do you think causes the land fog to move out to sea?
> The Wind.
>
> Drainage winds and katabatic winds can both move off land out to sea and
> carry fog with them.
>
>
I don't think fog is moved around much by the wind. Fog develops when
atmospheric conditions are such that the air becomes saturated with water
vapor. A distant fog bank on the ocean doesn't "blow" in to surround your
boat. The fog that surrounds you generates at your location as the
atmospheric variables permit.
Eisboch
Simple Simon
It's simple. Information is not scanty when
1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and
it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder.
2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel
is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course.
3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and
change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters
situation.
S.Simon
"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:sgtjb.8326$gJ4.73...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Simple Simon
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.
The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.
Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong. Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.
If you are a sailor and if you've ever sailed a 27-foot
cruising sailboat with a fin keel and balanced spade
rudder you would know that at five or six knots one
can put the helm down rapidly so the vessel spins and
stops in less than a boat length. If I am going one or
two knots this is not the case. The boat doesn't have
enough way on to spin on her keel and stop. One
must have a certain amount of speed to have decent
maneuverability. If any judge ever attempted to say
my speed was unsafe because it was too fast at
five or six knots I could easily set up a demonstration
to prove him in error.
As for your situation with the vessel fishing when I hear
the same signal I'm giving I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.
S.Simon
"Tim Roberts" <t...@tr.yousurf.net> wrote in message news:3f8df...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Rick
> ps When you learn how ships and big boats operate, we can discuss those
> operations.....until then you'll always be a "rank amateur" with a highly
> developed "wannabe" attitude and knowledge base.
You got it correct except for the bit about the knowledge base ... Nil
has only a shaky and homemade knowledge base. He has no formal training
and absolutely no professional experience to expose him to any
operational technique. All he has is a toy MOTOR license yet he claims
to hate all motorboat operators ... he claims to be the master of sail
yet has NO sail endorsement ... couldn't pass the test? Doesn't have the
sailing time?
All he has are the bad habits he developed while pretending to be
"master" of his trailerboat and a peculiar view of vessel operations
based on watching other yachties. He has absolutely no idea of how any
vessel other than his and the trailerboats that pass his moorage operate.
Nil is a textbook example of why maritime academies exist and are more
and more critical to training in the maritime industry.
He is the poster child of the wannabe mariner.
Rick
fraggy
so what you are saying is that in a heavy mist created by hot bathwater in
a colder bathroom ,simple simons rubber duck being un powered should stand
on even though it is at risk of a collision with his plastic toy power boat.
fragged
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:edGdnTcYGc1...@terranova.net...
> Dear Group,
>
> Some people here who claim to be captains are so
> obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
> is but one example of restricted visibility that they
> have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
> issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
> visibility.
>
> While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
> way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
> say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
> visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
> visibility.
>
> Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
> able to refute rationally or logically.
>
> Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
> can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
> and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
> everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
> fires can cause restricted visibility.
>
> You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
> to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
> of the mark.
>
> My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
> vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
> it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.
>
> Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
> vessel does not change my argument because unusually
> thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
> generally an exception to the rule.
>
> The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
> so when they eventually come within sight of one another
> they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
> collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
> being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
> fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
> shine.
>
> So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
> and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
> by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
> four facts that cannot be disputed.
>
> Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
> are required to sound signals specific to the
> vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
> signal when underway and those vessels above
> them in the pecking order sound another and
> different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
> pecking order.
>
> Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
> visibility get close enough to each other that
> they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
> the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
> is mandated.
>
> Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
> an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
> and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
> sight of one another.
>
> Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
> in or near an area of restricted visibility.
>
>
> S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
> the COLREGS.
>
>
Jonathan Ganz
its way to Bezerkeley. The interior valley heats up and rises, and
the air flows from the cooler ocean toward the valley. It is typical
to see fog moving at 30+ kts through the slot between Angel Island
and Alcatraz.
"Eisboch" <r_er...@bellsouthnot.net> wrote in message
news:Bpwjb.2893$h47...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Simple Simon
I suppose name-calling is, indeed, the last bastion of those too ignorant
to discuss the issues, in this case - the Rules, on their own merits.
S.Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:9Kzjb.3106$s93....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Pockets of Resistance
<Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote:
>I hope you all notice how Rick can only resort to ad hominem attacks.
I have a set of rules I call the SteveRegs.
1. If you are a sailboarder with more balls than brains, I'm not
moving for you because the lead in my keel weighs more than your car.
2. If you are a tug pushing four barges up or down the river, I'm
going to get out of your way because . . . well because you'd be a
moron not to.
3. If you are a powerboat, sod off.
4. If you are another sailboat, we'll look at each other for awhile,
try to figure out is we're going to hit each other or not (CBDR is
your friend), and make the appropriate adjustments. Then (or perhaps
during) we will check out any babealishous babes on the foredeck.
I'd say that about covers it.
Rick
> I hope you all notice how Rick can only resort to ad hominem attacks.
>
> I suppose name-calling is, indeed, the last bastion of those too ignorant
> to discuss the issues, in this case - the Rules, on their own merits.
I only consider the source of the troll.
Arguing COLREGS with Nil is pointless. Pointing out the reasons why Nil
is unsuited to make any reasonable argument or to intelligently discuss
vessel operations is not an ad hominem attack. It is an observation of
the futility of discussing such issues with the ignorant and uninformed
wannabe class of trailerboater that he represents.
The merits are beyond your understanding.
In case what I wrote was as difficult for you as the COLREGS, read it again:
You got it correct except for the bit about the knowledge base ... Nil
has only a shaky and homemade knowledge base. He has no formal training
and absolutely no professional experience to expose him to any
operational technique. All he has is a toy MOTOR license yet he claims
to hate all motorboat operators ... he claims to be the master of sail
yet has NO sail endorsement ... couldn't pass the test? Doesn't have the
sailing time?
All he has are the bad habits he developed while pretending to be
"master" of his trailerboat and a peculiar view of vessel operations
based on watching other yachties. He has absolutely no idea of how any
vessel other than his and the trailerboats that pass his moorage operate.
Nil is a textbook example of why maritime academies exist and are more
and more critical to training in the maritime industry.
He is the poster child of the wannabe mariner.
That is not an ad hominem attack, it is a professional observation of
the attitude and management skills of an amateur recreational sailor
pretending to understand the nuances of safe vessel operation.
Rick
Simple Simon
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the power boat
operators who have invaded this sailing newsgroup,
they hold sailboats in contempt and loathe the fact
that sailboats have stand-on status in most situations
and they have to give-way. They can't abide being
shown their inferior status. Their big fat egos just
can't take the beating.
S.Simon
"Pockets of Resistance" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message news:g0ktovsu3u1v4n7ti...@4ax.com...
Simple Simon
Bwaaahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahah!
S.Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:AtAjb.3151$s93....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Pockets of Resistance
<Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote:
>I agree with the power boats sodding off part.
>
>Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the power boat
>operators who have invaded this sailing newsgroup,
>they hold sailboats in contempt and loathe the fact
>that sailboats have stand-on status in most situations
>and they have to give-way. They can't abide being
>shown their inferior status. Their big fat egos just
>can't take the beating.
And here I don't care about their feeeeeelllllings, I just want them
out of the way.
Rick
> I agree with the power boats sodding off part.
>
> Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the power boat
> operators who have invaded this sailing newsgroup,
> they hold sailboats in contempt and loathe the fact
> that sailboats have stand-on status in most situations
> and they have to give-way. They can't abide being
> shown their inferior status. Their big fat egos just
> can't take the beating.
That IS funny ... Nil, is chief among the very few in this thread to
claim superiority of one mode of propulsion. All the while stating that
the ONLY mode in which he is licensed is the one he claims is inferior.
Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just
don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the
application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But
that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand.
That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's
idiocy.
Self hatred? Inferiority complex of some sort? Either way his statements
are not those which define a stable and reliable shipmate or the sort of
individual who can be entrusted with the operation of a vessel in close
quarters.
The question that should be asked here is: How well could you sleep
below knowing that Nil was at the wheel of your boat one foggy dark
night in a busy sound or bay?
Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing
brightly.
Rick
Jonathan Ganz
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:OJOcnRZ3etv...@terranova.net...
Simple Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:BWAjb.3184$s93....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing
> brightly.
>
And, superior to someone enamored with name-calling. Bwaaaaaaaaahhhahahahhhahah!
S.Simon
Shen44
>visibility.
>From: "Simple Simon"
>
>It's simple. Information is not scanty when
>
>1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and
> it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder.
This is scanty information. In truth, the bearing may be opening left or right
or may be steady... by sound alone there is no way to be absolutely sure.
>
>2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel
> is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course.
In which case, follow rule 19 (e)
>
>3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
> the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and
> change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters
> situation.
Based on scanty information, and not knowing whether your course change will
result in safe passing.
Shen
Simple Simon
the wheelhouse and opening your ears and you will discover
it's easy to tell the bearing of a vessel giving fog signals. It is
also not too difficult to tell the sound is getting louder (closer).
Look at your radar as required by the Rules and plot positions
and get bearings.
Rule 8 applies in ALL conditions of visibility and it states that
changing course early and largely is often the best way to
avoid a close quarters situation. You would have me create
a close quarters situation with your stupid insistence that
I slow down and remain on the same course. You are
Wrong Wrong Wrong!
Why give signals at all if you're just gonna ignore them
or use them to create close quarters situations?
Huh? Huh? I can't HEAR you!
S.Simon
"Shen44" <she...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031016135536...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Ronald Raygun
> It's simple. Information is not scanty when
>
> 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and
> it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder.
Fair enough. But first, please, show me a reliable method of taking a
bearing on a fog signal. I only seem to be able to achieve a precision
of plus or minus 180 degrees, or plus or minus 45 if lucky.
> 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel
> is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision
> course.
Backwards logic again. Rule 7d1 says risk of collision shall be deemed
to exist if you are on collision course (i.e. if the compass bearing
does not appreciably change).
That doesn't mean that if you are apparently on a collision course
(by magically sensed compass bearing of a foghorn) that you should
assume you are on collision course, from which an arbitrary change
of course will divert you.
> 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
> the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8
> and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close
> quarters situation.
The purpose of 8a/8b/8c is in big part to ensure the other vessel's
master is made aware in good time of your action. I'm more concerned
about the rest of rule 8 here. You can't hope to comply with 8d
(action ... to result in passing at a safe distance) if you have no
way of assessing what that distance is likely to be because you have
no precise enough idea of its relative position. And again I remind
you that even when 19e doesn't apply, 8e also tells you to slow down
if necessary to avoid collision.
What kind of course alteration are you proposing, by the way?
A U-turn? Sounds like a good legalese trick to disarm 19e,
since it would automatically change a fog signal detected
apparently forward of the beam into one abaft the beam. That
would certainly for the moment exempt you from 19e's slowing
down requirement unless it had been determined that RoC exists
or that a CQS could not be avoided. But what if you're surrounded
by fog signals? Then what?
Ronald Raygun
> All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
> the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
> vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
> the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
> speed for any particular situation or circumstance.
OK
> The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
> if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
> man can dispute it.
OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.
> Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
> a judge determine that I was wrong.
OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?
> Even then, it is
> only a legal decison to determine liability
It is indeed that, but not only that.
> and still
> does not take away a Captain's right to determine
> what is a safe speed.
Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!
Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.
> I have to admit I might be the
> give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
> me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
> I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
> comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
> is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
> area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.
Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?
Capt. Mooron
Bobsprit talking about sailing. Neither has merit.
CM
"Simple Simon" <Pie...@Mincemeat.com> wrote in message
news:yfidnXXo8ZU...@terranova.net...
Rick
> And, superior to someone enamored with name-calling. Bwaaaaaaaaahhhahahahhhahah!
Is that all you have left?
That IS funny ... Nil, is chief among the very few in this thread to
claim superiority of one mode of propulsion. All the while stating that
the ONLY mode in which he is licensed is the one he claims is inferior.
Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just
don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the
application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But
that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand.
That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's idiocy.
Self hatred? Inferiority complex of some sort? Either way his statements
are not those which define a stable and reliable shipmate or the sort of
individual who can be entrusted with the operation of a vessel in close
quarters.
The question that should be asked here is: How well could you sleep
below knowing that Nil was at the wheel of your boat one foggy dark
night in a busy sound or bay?
Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing
brightly.
Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living
doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his
pathetic existence.
Bon Voyage, Nil. It is time you joined your mate, Jax in the MSD of
internet boating.
Rick
otnmbrd
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.
otn
The_navigator©
Cheers MC
The_navigator©
Cheers MC
Simple Simon
More name-calling! Keep it up and maybe you'll
convince yourself you're not envious.
S.Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:tfDjb.3104$7a4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Simple Simon
is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under
the circumstances he finds himself in.
Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs
and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with
the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at
all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is.
S.Simon
"otnmbrd" <otn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gEDjb.3355$s93....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Rick
> Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO
To safely operate either requires skill. There may be different skills
involved at different times but neither is somehow a "superior" skill.
Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority.
You will not find professional mariners of either mode making the type
of ignorant statements regularly espoused by Nil.
Nil's comments prove my point very clearly. He is merely a pedantic
dilettante who lacks both skill and experience.
Rick
Rick
doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his
pathetic existence.
Whats'a matter, Nil, reduced to projecting your own failures and
ineptitude? Are you so jealous of those of us who do for a living what
you struggle to do for pleasure that you can now only attack us for what
you are incapable of attaining?
It seems you have been so thoroughly thrashed over your incompetence in
the COLREGS and vessel operations that you can now only spin around and
lash out in some blind rage accusing others of your own deficiencies.
Poor sad little wannabe ... save up and buy a boom. Get some sailing
time and maybe you can get a sail endorsement on your little MOTOR boat
ticket.
Don't forget to flush after each post, Nil.
Rick
Simple Simon
to believe you are nothing but glorified truck drivers.
Sailors, on the other hand, are much much more
competent mariners. There is a whole world you
are unfamiliar with because you drive boats while
sailors sail them.
How anybody who drives a boat from an enclosed
and air-conditioned wheel house where you can't
smell the air, hear the sounds outside, feel the temperature,
look at the horizon all around, see the sky, see the water,
etc. can call himself a mariner is an absurdity of a major
sort.
S.Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:m4Ejb.3143$7a4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Simple Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:DgEjb.3158$7a4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living
> doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his
> pathetic existence.
Name-calling!
> Whats'a matter, Nil, reduced to projecting your own failures and
> ineptitude? Are you so jealous of those of us who do for a living what
> you struggle to do for pleasure that you can now only attack us for what
> you are incapable of attaining?
More name-calling!
> It seems you have been so thoroughly thrashed over your incompetence in
> the COLREGS and vessel operations that you can now only spin around and
> lash out in some blind rage accusing others of your own deficiencies.
Still more name-calling!
> Poor sad little wannabe ... save up and buy a boom. Get some sailing
> time and maybe you can get a sail endorsement on your little MOTOR boat
> ticket.
Even more name-calling still!
And, you call ME sad? Bwaaahahahhahahahahhahhahah!
S.Simon
Rick
How Nil "can call himself a mariner is an absurdity of a major
sort."
Let's look at what he brings to the dock:
A license good for a Whaler load of poor bemused and endangered
passengers but none of the other certifications required of legitimate
professional mariners.
A plastic trailer-sailer with a broken boom moored to an old engine
block in some Florida swamp.
A pedant's vision of the COLREGS based on sailing fantasies developed
while immersed in the fumes from his cedar bucket MSD.
H'mmm, that seems to be about all ...
He needs about a year's worth of training before he can even be a "one
tripper." I don't believe he can successfully complete it even if he
could afford it.
Poor pathetic internet wannabe.
Rick
Rick
> And, you call ME sad?
Well, not just Sad:
Pathetic
Incompetent
Jealous
Incapable
Inept
Pedantic
Dilettante
Wannabe
Deficient
Let me know if I missed anything.
And BTW, that is not "name calling" it is part of an evaluation of your
unsuitability for shipboard employment based on your written statements.
Rick
Simple Simon
I'm beginning to think Rick is becoming a newsgroup stalker.
He's so jealous of me he just can't let go of his obsession.
S.Simon
"Rick" <woo...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message news:kvEjb.3170$7a4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Wally
> Well, that's bullshit of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely
> to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an
> implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an
> opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances
> be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe
> for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you
> say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other
> speed. That's fallacious.
What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher
speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher
speed? Does that wash?
--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.
Tim Roberts
sea in fog.
It is NOT easy to tell the bearing of a vessel by just hearing a sound
signal in fog.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----