amateur fishing
Bernd Stramm
I would like to the amateur fishermen (and women) among us a question:
why do some people troll their fishing lines along/across narrow channels,
and why don't they get out of the way for boats who need the channel
depth? I had some problems getting around a few of them. I also had no
choice but to drive through somebody's line, which caused him to curse
me. (I was approaching a docking wall in our heavy, full-keel boat, and
he didn't seem to understand that I could not quickly turn out of the
way of his line)
I haven't read the appropriate section of thr Coast Pilot, but I was under
the impression that people should try to accomodate vessels which are
constrained by channel depth and such things.
Cheers,
Bernd.
J. Sitek
> Having just completed a lengthy delivery-style cruise on our motorsailor,
> I would like to the amateur fishermen (and women) among us a question:
> why do some people troll their fishing lines along/across narrow channels,
Because that's where the fish are. I'm not being smart, proponents of
structure fishing know that fish tend to suspend in or over narrow
channels. The deeper water provides an escape route from predators.
> and why don't they get out of the way for boats who need the channel
> depth? I had some problems getting around a few of them. I also had no
> choice but to drive through somebody's line, which caused him to curse
> me.
That's a good question. If there is a fair amount of traffic in the
channel, they probably should not have been there at all. In my
opinion, these channels exist for boats such as yours, not for fishing.
It sounds like you tried to avoid the lines. If it comes down to
a choice between damaging your boat or a few dollars worth of fishing
tackle, there is really no choice at all. The fisherman should have
realized this. By cursing you, he makes the rest of us look like
idiots.
> (I was approaching a docking wall in our heavy, full-keel boat, and
> he didn't seem to understand that I could not quickly turn out of the
> way of his line)
> I haven't read the appropriate section of thr Coast Pilot, but I was under
> the impression that people should try to accomodate vessels which are
> constrained by channel depth and such things.
My own rule of thumb is to just avoid these areas. There are plenty of
places to fish. Fishing in a busy channel is just not worth the hassle.
In fact, I much prefer to do my fishing in the smaller inland lakes.
The only problem I've had there is with some irresponsible people
riding jet skis. Jet skis are fun and I like riding them but, why do
some people insist upon riding circles around you when you have found
a nice secluded cove where you can sit quietly fishing? I mean, they
have the entire lake, but, for some reason can't just avoid areas where
people are fishing. Man does that piss me off.
> Cheers,
>
> Bernd.
Jim
Barrey Jewall
>In fact, I much prefer to do my fishing in the smaller inland lakes.
>The only problem I've had there is with some irresponsible people
>riding jet skis. Jet skis are fun and I like riding them but, why do
>some people insist upon riding circles around you when you have found
>a nice secluded cove where you can sit quietly fishing? I mean, they
>have the entire lake, but, for some reason can't just avoid areas where
>people are fishing. Man does that piss me off.
>
>Jim
You might try carrying a .45 in a shoulder holster.
(but it would be a bit of a bitch if it got wet.)
BTW, people, I used to own a JetSki, and still use one occasionally, so
send those flames to /dev/null, please...
Barrey
Wesley Rex Go
>In article <8...@ccd700.UUCP> j...@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes:
>>The only problem I've had there is with some irresponsible people
>>riding jet skis. Jet skis are fun and I like riding them but, why do
>>some people insist upon riding circles around you when you have found
>>a nice secluded cove where you can sit quietly fishing? I mean, they
>>have the entire lake, but, for some reason can't just avoid areas where
>>people are fishing. Man does that piss me off.
>
So *that's* what I'm doing wrong. All these years, I've been carrying
a 9mm in an ankle holster. :-)
>BTW, people, I used to own a JetSki, and still use one occasionally, so
>send those flames to /dev/null, please...
I rode a JetSki once, but then decided it was a useless toy. You don't
actually *go* anywhere with one, and you can't do any tricks on them.
You just run around in circles, but hey, if that's what you wanna do...
--wes
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Wesley R. Go | Dept. of Geology | BS = Bull Shit |
| wr...@wiggler.Princeton.EDU | 28 Guyot Hall | MS = More Shit |
| wr...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU | Princeton Univ. | PhD = Piled high |
| wr...@gauguin.Princeton.EDU | Princeton, NJ 08544 | and Deep |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
yet...@merrimack.edu
I had the same problem with waterskiiers trying to spray me as I sat in my
rowboat reading, till my brother gave me the answer.
As the waterskiier, jetskiier approaches, take an oar and throw it over the
side just as they approach. If the jet skiier says you threw the oar at him,
you can say "I was trying to put the oar in the oar lock holder, and slipped.
If you weren't so close, you wouldn't have been hit.
It works, I did that to a waterskiier. As he was going into his turn, I
'dropped' an oar in the water. The skiier went flying.
Kevin
UUCP%"yetmank%merrim...@samsung.com"
"You can still Rock in America" - Night Ranger
Stephen Williams
>
>I had the same problem with waterskiiers trying to spray me as I sat in my
>rowboat reading, till my brother gave me the answer.
>
>As the waterskiier, jetskiier approaches, take an oar and throw it over the
>side just as they approach. If the jet skiier says you threw the oar at him,
>you can say "I was trying to put the oar in the oar lock holder, and slipped.
>If you weren't so close, you wouldn't have been hit.
>
>It works, I did that to a waterskiier. As he was going into his turn, I
>'dropped' an oar in the water. The skiier went flying.
>
>Kevin
>UUCP%"yetmank%merrim...@samsung.com"
Wow. I understand how frustrating it is when someone interferes with
your activities on a lake. As a waterskiier, I am constantly annoyed
with other waterskiiers, jetskiiers, and (mostly) fishing boats that
seem to thrive on cutting me off or just coming too close for comfort.
BUT, although I often WISH harmful acts upon such people, NEVER would
I actually INFLICT such a dangerous trick upon any of them as suggested
by Kevin in the excerpted article. My biggest worry as a waterskiier is
floating debris in the water. Imagine having your body pelted by a
large wooden oar going close to 40 mph! At the least this will cause
minor cuts and bruises; at the worst (but not unlikely) is death from a
blow to the head.
I don't claim to have all the answers to the myriad problems presented to
the average lake go-er, but certainly Kevin's proposal would only aggravate
the situation (and might likely incur a lawsuit!) Please search for
better ways of resolving such situations.
______________________________________________________________________
Stephen Williams ste...@minestrone.Berkeley.EDU
MAMMOTH Project uunet!ucbvax!minestrone!stevew
John Forbes Hughes
> [deleted stuff]
> My biggest worry as a waterskiier is
>floating debris in the water. Imagine having your body pelted by a
>large wooden oar going close to 40 mph!
Imagine, instead, the folly of moving 40mph through a field of stationary
oars (and other debris), which is what a waterskier does.
Figure it out: *you* chose to go 40mph without protection. *You* should make
sure that either (a) you can avoid hitting anything or (b) you can live with
the results of a collision. It's possible to accomplish "a" by skiing only
in an aquatic park, where you know the water to be clear. "But I want to
ski on the lake!" I hear you cry. My response is simple: "Then live with the
lake as it comes. And if you harass people, expect some of them to be
sufficiently annoyed to make the lake less appealing to skiers."
-John Hughes
Michael Riley
...
(speaking about throwing an oar at a skier who is about to spray your boat.)
>
>Figure it out: *you* chose to go 40mph without protection. *You* should make
>sure that either (a) you can avoid hitting anything or (b) you can live with
>the results of a collision. It's possible to accomplish "a" by skiing only
>in an aquatic park, where you know the water to be clear. "But I want to
>ski on the lake!" I hear you cry. My response is simple: "Then live with the
>lake as it comes. And if you harass people, expect some of them to be
>sufficiently annoyed to make the lake less appealing to skiers."
>
>-John Hughes
You've got to be kidding. I didn't see a smiley at the end of your
article, but your article is frightening if it is serious.
I choose to ski on a lake. I attempt to spray your boat
(possibly getting you and the book you are reading wet). It's a
stupid thing for me to do, but then you do something even worse, you
throw a large chunk of wood (an oar) at me. I hit the wood. I
splinter all over your boat. You pick up the chunks of me which are
now all over your boat and you.
Just explain it to the judge.
--
Michael Riley 248 S. 45th Street
mri...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Philadelphia, PA 19104
ri...@wharton.upenn.edu (215) 222-7421
John W. Huber
something wrong right back. Yep, makes sense to me. I guess I just
don't understand all the fuss about fishing v. skiing v. jetskiing v.
boating. Aren't we all entitled to the open waterways (within a
reasonable distance of course)? But then, that is why I ski on a
private lake designed for that purpose only.
-Jay
Stephen Williams
>Figure it out: *you* chose to go 40mph without protection. *You* should make
>sure that either (a) you can avoid hitting anything or (b) you can live with
>the results of a collision. It's possible to accomplish "a" by skiing only
>in an aquatic park, where you know the water to be clear. "But I want to
>ski on the lake!" I hear you cry. My response is simple: "Then live with the
>lake as it comes. And if you harass people, expect some of them to be
>sufficiently annoyed to make the lake less appealing to skiers."
>
>-John Hughes
When waterskiing, *I* am accepting the risk of hitting floating debris
while going 40 mph. *I* check the path I intend to ski before getting
in the water, and my driver watches out for anything we might have
missed. *I* "live with the lake as it comes."
Although spraying a boater with water is not nice (and has dangers of
its own), throwing an oar into my path so that I have NO chance at
all of avoiding it is cruel and loathsome. While the skier is wrong
in trying to drench nearby boaters, he/she has no intention of hurting
anyone. *You*, on the other hand, are INTENTIONALLY trying to hurt the
skier. *You* are forcing harm upon the skier -- not by accident, but
on purpose.
Neither party's actions are justified in the above scenario. BUT,
saying that it's OK to hurt someone who plays an unwanted joke on
you is downright contemptible, and is more likely to aggravate the
problem than solve it. Attitudes like that are what cause most of
the problems in the first place.
William
judge_dredd@justice writes:
> [lots of stuff about tossing oars at waterskiiers]
This happened to me one time. I was out skiing out a crowded
Saturday afternoon on Lake Norman. I cut a bit too close to
a pontoon boat; I didn't intend to splash it, and if I did get
any on it, it was an accident.
The guy at the wheel pulls a long barrelled revolver out, points
it at me, and fires. Needless to say, I did a rather hard cut
out to the far side! My brother, who is driving the boat, sees
what's happened, and, having no weapons in the boat, shoves the
throttle up to full to get to a nearby marina for protection; he
knows the owner of the marina.
The ironic part about all this is that the owner of the marina
was the guy who shot at me. He'd been pumping gas all day and
had been getting complaints from customers who were getting
soaked by waterskiiers. This being rec.boats, I suppose most
of you are aware of the sort of effect being in the hot sun
all day combined with a six of Bud has on some people's
temperament; this guy had just sort of snapped when I when too close
to his pontoon boat.
After getting control of my temper, we managed to sort of make
up with this guy to the point where we'll talk to him now. It is
possible he fired a blank; I watched him drop a single empty case out
of the cylinder when he emptied the gun, and nobody carries a gun with
one bullet in it. Also, I hadn't heard a bullet, which I should have
been able to. The guy claimed he was using hollowpoints, which could
be also be true.
Look folks, I'm pretty laid back, but I can see lots of scenarios
here where people go home in body bags. Randomly irritating
people in public is *extremely* bad business. Doing something
designed to kill or cripple some teenager with bad judgement
and too much Bart Simpson attitude because he soaked some of the pages
together in your book before you could get to them is crazy.
Let's be careful out there, guys.
Boyce
Ray Barbour
This is not a Flame
> Saturday afternoon on Lake Norman. I cut a bit too close to
> a pontoon boat; I didn't intend to splash it, and if I did get
If you didn't intend on splashing did you really need to be that close,
you could have cut back behind the boat right.
>
> The guy at the wheel pulls a long barrelled revolver out, points
> it at me, and fires. Needless to say, I did a rather hard cut
Why were you looking back?
> out to the far side! My brother, who is driving the boat, sees
> what's happened, and, having no weapons in the boat, shoves the
If he would have had a gun would he have shot back? 8-(
> throttle up to full to get to a nearby marina for protection; he
> knows the owner of the marina.
>
> The ironic part about all this is that the owner of the marina
> was the guy who shot at me. He'd been pumping gas all day and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And shooting at people he knows. 8-)
> of you are aware of the sort of effect being in the hot sun
> all day combined with a six of Bud has on some people's
Both waterskiers and fisherpeople?
>
BTW after a day of fishing, I enjoy watching jetskiers jump
my wake.
Daniel McGehee
>[discussion about throwing oars at water/jet skiers]
>>Figure it out: *you* chose to go 40mph without protection. *You* should make
My suggestion is that you leave the skiers alone, get your rowboat fitted
with torpedo tubes. It's a clean way of getting rid of the annoyance with
little chance for legal repercussions |-).
Dan
John Forbes Hughes
>In article <58...@brunix.UUCP> j...@cs.brown.edu (John Forbes Hughes) writes:
>...
>(speaking about throwing an oar at a skier who is about to spray your boat.)
^^^ This is not what I was speaking about.
>>Figure it out: *you* chose to go 40mph without protection. *You* should make
>>sure that either (a) you can avoid hitting anything or (b) you can live with
>>the results of a collision. It's possible to accomplish "a" by skiing only
>>in an aquatic park, where you know the water to be clear. "But I want to
>>ski on the lake!" I hear you cry. My response is simple: "Then live with the
>>lake as it comes. And if you harass people, expect some of them to be
>>sufficiently annoyed to make the lake less appealing to skiers."
>>-John Hughes
>
>You've got to be kidding. I didn't see a smiley at the end of your
>article, but your article is frightening if it is serious.
Exactly which of the points in my note is wrong? That *you* should make sure of
avoiding collision? That you can do so by skiing in an aquatic park? That you
can expect *some* people to make the lake less appealing if you harass them?
Or is none of the points wrong, and you just happen never to have put them
together, and *that's* what makes it frightening?
> I choose to ski on a lake. I attempt to spray your boat
>(possibly getting you and the book you are reading wet). It's a
>stupid thing for me to do, but then you do something even worse, you
>throw a large chunk of wood (an oar) at me. I hit the wood. I
>splinter all over your boat. You pick up the chunks of me which are
>now all over your boat and you.
I did not say that I would throw an oar at you. In fact, I'd probably be
one of the people helping you out of the water after a collision. My remark
was not based on my distaste for waterskiers (although I confess to a distaste
for a consderable number of them), but rather on a view of human nature. If
you piss people off, some of them will get vindictive.
I agree that the person who throws an oar at you (or who leaves an oar or a
couple of 2 x 4s in the water where they expect you to pass) is acting
irresponsibly (and, as you point out, stupidly--the results are likely to
be counterproductive). But it's still your ass that goes flying, and *you*
should understand that, and expect the worst if you provoke it. One of the ways to make it safer is to help reduce the general anger at people who waterski.
This includes avoiding harmless pranks (when you come by and spray the deck of
my boat after I've varnished the woodwork on a very calm day, it's "harmless"
to you, but it's 20 hours of lost work for me), and trying to encourage the
others who engage in your activity avoid pranks or stupidity as well. I do
this in lots of things, including sailing and iceboating.
By the way, what should I do when you ski near my boat, lose your balance, and
run your ski through the side of my Tornado? Should I thank you for not
doing it on purpose? What if it happens *after* I've flagged you down and
asked you to maintain a safe distance? What if it happens after you've
*nearly* done it once before, earlier in the day? What I'm really asking
is this:
"Can you suggest a way for me discourage the bad behavior of a waterskier
before it actually harms me and I am left suing him/her?"
I think that putting an oar in the water is extreme, and I would never do it
(although I would expect to see it happen, if I were you), but I've never
found anything effective. Can you make a suggestion?
-John
P.S. Oddly enough, iceboaters and snowmobilers manage to get along fine
on the same lake in winter. It's true that the snowmobiles tend to corrugate
the ice a bit, but the mostly like to do speed runs out and back along a
straight-line track; the iceboaters sail to a slightly distant part of the
lake and run pick-up races. Basically, no one buzzes anyone else. We just
share the lake and do fine. Sure, the iceboaters think that the snowmobiles
are noisy and offensive. I'm sure that the snowmobilers think that the
iceboaters have no notion of good fun. My guess is this: any person in
either group knows that someday it may be the other guys who help fish
cwhim/her out of a hole in the ice, and it pays not to offend the one who
might save your life.
George Stevenson
people sharing too little resource. I've really been affected by
crowding on the lakes the last few summers because of our drought.
With the skiers, jetters, fishers and floaters all trying to have
a good time in the same spot, it gets a little crazy. I ski and
fish and to some degree these are incompatible uses of the lake.:-(
The same shoreline and canyons that have the best fishing also are
sheltered from the wind and have the flat water. When I fish, I
cuss and smile at the skiers, when I ski, I try to keep as much
distance as possible, apologize under my breath... and smile.
Two points
Any idiot can buy a boat or other water toy. I've bought many such
water toys. ( racing sloop, canoe, sailboard, ski boat, waterwings :-)
I've learned more with each one, but I didn't have to know anything
to start. I believe some kind of operators license or class should
be required. At least then the 'rules of the water' could be
communicated. SOME people aren't stupid, they're just ignorant.
Flame on.
Jetskiers: I know the wake of my boat is great fun. But, I have a
skier back there and watching forward, side AND back, as you buzz
around is too much. I have had words with more than one jetskier
who came too close to my skier after they fell and were down in
the water. I also come around hard and fast to protect the skier
and have found myself bow to nose with a wide eyed jetter.
Jetters, please police yourselves. Keep away from the boats and
skiers. Remember you are the motorcycles of the water. You have
the mobility and speed to get into a lot of danger.
Flame off
Jenner
>In fact, I much prefer to do my fishing in the smaller inland lakes.
>The only problem I've had there is with some irresponsible people
>riding jet skis. Jet skis are fun and I like riding them but, why do
>some people insist upon riding circles around you when you have found
>a nice secluded cove where you can sit quietly fishing? I mean, they
>have the entire lake, but, for some reason can't just avoid areas where
>people are fishing. Man does that piss me off.
>
>Jim
Because jetski=showoff.
Not that showing off is necessarily bad but they seem to
thrive on an audience.
> BTW, people, I used to own a JetSki, and still use one occasionally, so
> send those flames to /dev/null, please...
I don't mind jet skis either ..... over there.
Jenner ....................a.k.a. uunet!nwnexus!mcgp1!brat!jenner
else: {the known world}!uunet!nwnexus!mcgp1!brat!jenner
John Forbes Hughes
>
>No water skiier, while travelling at 40MPH should be close to a boat!!! [...]
You bet!
>
>Similarly, if a skiier hits floating debris, the skiier could well be impaled
>or suffer severe (FATAL) head injuries!!
True as well, and the sort of thing that ought to make skiers stay away from
*anything* that they might run into, you'd think...Floating debris could hurt
you. Smashing into a fiberglass (or worse still, steel) hull of a large boat
could turn you into "ocean pizza". They still love to buzz folks, though.
>
>While I am not a cop/lawyer I would expect that anyone placing a hazard in
>a waterway, causing injury or death, would be subject to criminal charges
>and full liability. Convince a jury that you dropped a few oars by accident
>and then didn't bother to retrieve them or warn off marine traffic (the
>skiier).
Dropping an oar off your boat is harmless to reasonable traffic, and would
be regarded as such. Traffic near enough and moving fast enough to be damaged
by a dropped oar is operating recklessly and in violation of the law, I'd bet.
Now if someone approaches you, signals a desire to pass, and you signal a
response that passing is OK, and *then* drop an oar as s/he passes close
aboard, I'd bet you're in trouble.
By contrast, I agree that scattering oars about the waterway would probably
make you liable to some sort of prosecution; if it were in certain parts
of the Intracoastal Waterway in Fla., probably the worst they could hit you
with is littering, since there is a quite modest speed limit, and while you
might present an obstruction to ordinary navigation, you would not present any
danger.
> Maritime law is failrly explicit on fault and responsibility.
>Maritime law can also be quite harsh and severe.
Yep. And one of the things it's severest about is reckless operation.
>[...]
>No smileys, cause this isn't funny.
Nope, it's not. Nor is the threat to life presented by the reckless skiers
and boat operators. Try to keep in mind who is the active participant
when someone skis within 3 feet of my moored boat. On the high seas, such a
maneuver might be considered an act of aggression--I'd have to check the law
books.
>
>craig
I would never toss an oar at anyone, despite the greatest possible
provocation. But I'd like to hear suggestions from skiers about how to dissuade
them (or other reckless boat handlers) from coming close to me. Of course,
none of the people who read these articles have ever done such a thing, so I
expect the answers will just be "It's all the *other* folks who do that." If
you have any real suggestions, let's hear them.
Does it sound like I took my "nasty pill" this morning? Criticize me again
after *your* boat has been damaged by a lunatic.
-John
Craig Campbell
I can't beleive the dangerous points of view being discussed here!!
No water skiier, while travelling at 40MPH should be close to a boat!!! If the
skiier looses it, then the major concern is NOT running his ski into the boat,
but rather running his HEAD through the boat!! This could quite easily be a
fatal accident/incident for the skiier.
Similarly, if a skiier hits floating debris, the skiier could well be impaled
or suffer severe (FATAL) head injuries!!
While I am not a cop/lawyer I would expect that anyone placing a hazard in
a waterway, causing injury or death, would be subject to criminal charges
and full liability. Convince a jury that you dropped a few oars by accident
and then didn't bother to retrieve them or warn off marine traffic (the
skiier). Maritime law is failrly explicit on fault and responsibility.
Maritime law can also be quite harsh and severe.
As for someone shooting at a skiier, criminal charges would have been
entirley appropriate. Such a person obviously is unqualified to be in
possession of firearms.
These stories make boating in your area sound worse that driving in California.
(Remember the car shootings...)
No smileys, cause this isn't funny.
craig
Greg Bullough
>All of this talk about stupid activity on the water ...
.
.
.
> When I came by
>(we were in the next class) I politely suggested that maybe they
>should go somewhere else to fish, since the entire lake was pretty
>much empty becasue of the lack of the omni-present skiers. There
>reply was something to the effect of "we can fish anywhere we want."
>
>They don't call the people here "hoosiers" for nothing.
That means you have to go around them. Should be no big deal, they're
a fixed object.
I'll admit to being a bit prickly on this subject, though. On the lake
where I grew up sailing, the Fremont Sailing Club would have their
weekend regattas. This was at the same time that I was daysailing
my boat. If I could count the number of times I heard "out of my
way, I'm racing," from a burdened vessel, I'd consider myself
fortunate. It might have made sense in some contexts, but since they
took up the whole lake, it just wasn't possible to enjoy sailing
while yielding to the entirely of the half-dozen or so fleets.
After a while most of us would reply with a very FIRM repeat of
"STARBOARD!" On the few occasions where I was taken to task
by such a skipper, I informed him of how difficult it was to
yield to everyone, on account of their being a racing boat.
If they irritated me further, I'd tell them to go away, or I'd
chase them down in the next couple of races, then make sure a
protest got filed if they impeded me in any way.
Another case of simply ridiculous antics by dinghy racers is the
insistence of the (I think) Palo Alto Sailing Club on using the mark
in the corner of Shoreline Park where the literally dozens of
windsurfers make their turns. Sure as clockwork, a couple of
years ago, a bunch of El Toros would arrive, and try and bully
their way through 40 windsurfers, most of whom were confined
to less than ten percent of the lake. The seemed mostly oblivious
to what could happen to the El Toro and crew when speared by
a windsurfer at 15 knots.
The racing rules do NOT suspend the other rules of the road.
Nor do they suspend common sense.
Yacht racers are pleasure boaters with no more status than any
other pleasure boater.
Greg
Bob Jacobsen
Kiravuo) writes:
> I have sometimes thought about taking a ten meter 5 mm plastic
> line with an orange float at the end and attaching it to the end
> of my kayak with a 1 mm nylon line. If somebody comes too close,
> he will get it in his propellor. Sailboaters might use this, too.
> Besides dragging a rope behind the ship is an old way to remove
> the kinks, and if properly marked...
I used to trail a 150' lifeline with knots and a float behind my 44'
sailboat, just in case I fell overboard (my wife and I used to sail a lot
with just 2 cats as crew). The end was marked with a float and light.
Approaching Boston, Massachusetts after much too long at sea, some idiot
in a 28' power boat hit and wrapped the line. It was securely attached to
a cleat near the transom which pulled out through the fiberglass deck.
Much yelling (from both boats) about the damage done to each other. He
took off, having only wrapped one outdrive unit. I was never able to get
him (identified through state registration numbers) or his insurance
company to pay for the repair. Next time, I'm going to get a picture...
In your case, don't forget that the boat in question may still be mobile,
and will certainly be annoyed. Perhaps Finland is civilised enough that
this is not a concern?
Internet: Jaco...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Bitnet: Jacobsen at SLACVM
POTS: 415-926-3133
Paul G. Tobin
* should make sure that either (a) you can avoid hitting anything or (b)
* accomplish "a" by skiing only in an aquatic park, where you know the
* water to be clear. "But I want to ski on the lake!" I hear you cry. My
* response is simple: "Then live with the lake as it comes.
I don't think the lake came with oars.
* And if you
* harass people, expect some of them to be sufficiently annoyed to make
* the lake less appealing to skiers."
How about following the skiier and asking them not to approach so
closely next time? I'm sorry that I can't speak for all waterskiiers
in saying that I'd never ski so close to a boat, but there are better
ways of handling such a situation. I know it's extremely frustrating,
but if that person's rude enough to ski so close to your boat, just
think of what some crazy might do after being tripped up by your oar.
Please be more considerate. I'd hate to see someone killed by spite.
-Paul "Hit it!"
Bernd Stramm
>In article <KIRAVUO.90...@hila.hut.fi> kir...@hila.hut.fi (Timo
>Kiravuo) writes:
>> Besides dragging a rope behind the ship is an old way to remove
>> the kinks, and if properly marked...
Dragging ropes is also a popular way of slowing yourself down. You should
see how many racing sailboats use this technique, I'm always very happy
when they do.
Seriously though, I've seen ropes recommended as sea-anchors in heavy weather,
to keep the boat oriented in a certain direction. E.g. you drag some
long thick ones off the stern, and supposedly this will help prevent
unwanted turns. I've never tried this myself, does it work?
Bernd
Dave Richards
>This happened to me one time. I was out skiing out a crowded
>Saturday afternoon on Lake Norman. I cut a bit too close to
>a pontoon boat; I didn't intend to splash it, and if I did get
>any on it, it was an accident.
Maybe I'm overly cautious, but I can't imagine water skiing close enough to
other boats to splash them, accidentally or otherwise. When it is so crowded
that this is unavoidable, I humbly suggest that it is too crowded to ski.
I would find something else to do. If the guns, spears, oars, etc. don't kill
you, impacting another craft someday just might. Or you might kill or severe-
ly injure someone swimming off the other boat. Not a pleasant situation in
either case. I know this sounds preachy, but apparently common sense is dying
(soon to join common courtesy, which passed away quietly some time ago).
Dave
tark...@cc.helsinki.fi
Somehow your comment wakes some thought avout the right and need to protect
oneself on the water against some ignorant/careless/reckles boaters.
About two seasons ago there was an tracig incident here in the Gulf of
Finland, some 15 nautical miles from Helsinki:
A motor boat (about 30 feet, 150 HP) with a crew of three persons, father
and two sons aged around 10 - 12 years run aver a 26 feet sailing boat,
the motor boat just nicely enterde the cocpit from the port side and went
right acros the sailing boat in an agle about 95 degrees. While departing
on the starboard side they pushed the skipper and the crew (a pensioned
couple) in the water and then made minced meat of them with the propeller.
The skipper of the motor boat claimed: We have not seen anything, just
sudenly the sailing boat rammed us. Maybe should be mentioned that the
sailing wessel was under sail, with the main and jib set on a run or a
very broad reach.
Some people suspect that the skipper has given the helm to one of his
sons, and because he is too short to see properly out, he could not
keep klear of the sailing boat. In the court the skipper used as an
excuse for not seeing the sailing boat, an echosounder that was installed
so that it blocked the view of about one quarter, so he could not be
kept responsible for the accident. (I wonder if the echosounder can
do some time, it can not loose a driving lisece, because it has none.)
So everytime I se some fast motorboat coming at me I start to get
nervous and hope that I had some kind of an portable anti-tank weapon
to sink the motorboat before it rams me. It is not funny at all.
I can understand that in some narrow channels motorboats must come
close to sailing boats but when some boats in open water where I am
the only other boat make their business to come and pass me from a
distance less than 10 feet and they shake my coffee in the cockpit,
I really get mad at them. I do not see any excuses for their behavior.
During the last two years we have had an enormous growth in the fast
motorboat population, because of the weak dollar most of the boats
come from the U.S. The makes like Bayliner and some other 'cheap'
but 'fast' things seem to attract drivers that are a safety risk and
a nuisance. The insurance companies have already noticed the impact.
The police is powerles. They wrote one same chap an ticket for speed
limit violence: Driving about 35 - 40 knots within the speed limit
area of 6 knots in congested harbout three times during the same
hour and then fished the crew from the sea after they had capsized the
boat. That time nobody was killed.
There is a need for anti tank missile launchers for marine use for
sailors who need protection against offending motor boaters.
Do not think that I say that all motor boaters are goons or idiots,
there are just enough of them to spoil the reputation of the decent ones.
Lauri Tarkkonen
University of Helsinki
FINLAND
Timo Kiravuo
>and full liability. Convince a jury that you dropped a few oars by accident
>and then didn't bother to retrieve them or warn off marine traffic (the
I am a kayaker myself. Fortunately we do not have very many water
skiers in Finland, but I can well imagine a scenario, where a
skier decides to splash a kayaker, the kayaker tries madly to
paddle away, and accidentally manages to drop his paddle. I mean
honestly accidentally, it is easy for an unexperienced paddler to
have the paddle to bite into water at wrong angle, so that it
pulls under the kayak and one must drop the paddle, or do half an
eskimo roll.
>As for someone shooting at a skiier, criminal charges would have been
>entirley appropriate. Such a person obviously is unqualified to be in
>possession of firearms.
True. But I can see the shooter's point of view, too.
Has anybody any ideas for a sea kayaker as to how to keep those
muscle boats away? I am serious about this, since kayaking means
already constant rubbernecking and islandhopping. And in recent
years the population of fast boats with big engines, poor
visibility and inexperienced drivers has grown. I don't want some
drunken kid in his daddy's boat to drive over me.
I have sometimes thought about taking a ten meter 5 mm plastic
line with an orange float at the end and attaching it to the end
of my kayak with a 1 mm nylon line. If somebody comes too close,
he will get it in his propellor. Sailboaters might use this, too.
Besides dragging a rope behind the ship is an old way to remove
the kinks, and if properly marked...
--
Timo Kiravuo, kir...@hut.fi
Helsinki University of Technology, Computer Center, Finland
William Sadler
something that happened this year at our yearly regatta. It was
blowing about 15-20 (which is a lot on a lake where it usually
blows 0-5) and the windward mark of the triangle course was set
about 100 yards offshore. At the beginning of the second race
two fishermen come out and anchor their boat about 50 feet from
the mark and cast their lines out toward the mark. Normally this
would have left plenty of room, but there were about 35 Y-Flyers
all headed towards the mark at the same time. When I came by
(we were in the next class) I politely suggested that maybe they
should go somewhere else to fish, since the entire lake was pretty
much empty becasue of the lack of the omni-present skiers. There
reply was something to the effect of "we can fish anywhere we want."
They don't call the people here "hoosiers" for nothing.
Will (just visiting from Texas for the last 5 years) Sadler
--
************************************************************
* Will Sadler Indiana University Law School *
* wsa...@cica.ucs.indiana.edu 5-2970 LAW101L *
************************************************************
Roy Smith
> I'd tell them to go away, or I'd chase them down in the next couple of
> races, then make sure a protest got filed if they impeded me in any way.
If you are racing and see another racer violate a non-racer's right
of way, can you protest them out?
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
r...@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
Ray Barbour
> All of this talk about stupid activity on the water brought to mind
> something that happened this year at our yearly regatta. It was
> should go somewhere else to fish, since the entire lake was pretty
The course may have been set up over a good fishing spot, asking them
to move would be like asking you to move the course to a spot on the
lake were the wind don't blow. But then again you were there first
and that should give you some rights.
William Sadler
>
>That means you have to go around them. Should be no big deal, they're
>a fixed object.
>
As a matter of fact in that particular instance a few boats actually
used the fishermen as an obstruction to their advantage. What concerned
me more than going around their boat was the possibility of snagging
their fishing lines in about 5-6' of water.
>
>The racing rules do NOT suspend the other rules of the road.
>
>Nor do they suspend common sense.
>
>Yacht racers are pleasure boaters with no more status than any
>other pleasure boater.
>
I'll second that. It seems to me that if more people were thinking
about how to allow the other guy a break while at the same time
enjoying the use of the water rather than worrying about who is
right and who is wrong in any given situation, that most of these
problems could be easily avoided.
Will
--
************************************************************
* Will Sadler Indiana University Law School *
* wi...@ogre.cica.indiana.edu 5-2970 LAW101L *
************************************************************
Jenner
> Now that makes sense. Since the skier did something wrong, we should do
> something wrong right back. Yep, makes sense to me. I guess I just
> don't understand all the fuss about fishing v. skiing v. jetskiing v.
> boating.
It all boils down to having consideration for others. Especially
on the water, where mistakes can be very costly. When out sailing
I do not have to give fishermen the clearance I do but, why
tangle on thier lines? It will cause both of us heartbreak.
I do try to steer a wide course around skiiers and I expect
them, and thier boat to give my boat the same consideration.
It's not my lake, it's not their lake, its *our* lake.
> Aren't we all entitled to the open waterways (within a
> reasonable distance of course)?
That is why there are rules for navigation. But Chapmans still
recommends taking extra caution, and being ready too give way,
in any situation where there is risk of collision.
> But then, that is why I ski on a
> private lake designed for that purpose only.
Makes sense to me.
> -Jay
ri...@xite.wv.tek.com
...
>A motor boat (about 30 feet, 150 HP) with a crew of three persons, father
>and two sons aged around 10 - 12 years run aver a 26 feet sailing boat,
...
>The skipper of the motor boat claimed: We have not seen anything, just
>excuse for not seeing the sailing boat, an echosounder that was installed
>so that it blocked the view of about one quarter, so he could not be
>kept responsible for the accident. (I wonder if the echosounder can
Did this lousy excuse actually work as a defense? I find it
hard to believe. One of the basic rules (internationally, I
believe) is a requirement to keep a proper lookout. The
excuse "I didn't see it" is absolutely no excuse (except,
perhaps, in dense fog).
-rcf
Roy Smith
> One of the basic rules (internationally, I believe) is a requirement to
> keep a proper lookout. The excuse "I didn't see it" is absolutely no
> excuse (except, perhaps, in dense fog).
Colregs says, "Every vessel shall at all times preceed at a safe
speed ... In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among
those taken into account ... the state of visibility". I take that to mean
that "I didn't see it" is never an excuse. If you didn't see it because of
the fog, you were going too fast. If the fog was so thick that you couldn't
see past your own bow, you shouldn't have been moving at all.
As for the original subject, putting an oar out to intimidate an
obnoxious skier, I can't buy that at all. He may be acting stupidly, but
you're acting maliciously.
tark...@cc.helsinki.fi
I do not think it released him, but shows just the thinkin of the
motorboater and his lawyer. Maybe they thouhght that it would be
possible to load some of the quilt to the maker of the boat who
installed the echosounder. (The boatyard gave a statement that
they have changed the position of the echosounder to the ceiling
from the chart table).
The case was a bit complicated, because it was no certainty about
who was driwing the boat, but with the rest of the crew underage,
it must be in any circumstances the responsibility of the skipper.
They wording that the sailors ram them just out of the blue, was
also an attempt to make them quilty, there was a claim that the
sailors gybed or tacked suddenly in front of the motorboat.
It is possible that the sailors tryed some last second duck to avoid
the motorboat, though the rules of the road say something like; the
boat with the right of way must keep its course and speed to give
the burdened boat opportunity to keep clear. As I said the case
was not very clear; how can they claim in one sentence that they
have not seen anything and then later on that the sailors have
changed course etc.) The weather was not so heavy that any kind of
accidental gybel would have been likely.) The only surviving vitnesses
were from the motorboat and the sons were not asked to vitness against
their father.
The motor boater got some kind of a sentence, but if my information
is correct he appealed to the higher instances.
Anyway my point is that the motorboaters were smart to keep clear
of the sailing boats. They do selden understand the thinking of the
sailors, a sailor might tack or gybe (without no obvious reason in
the motorboaters mind) and then it is maybe too late to try to avoid
a collision. I do not believe that the motorboater in question is
very happy about the situation even in the case the court will release
him because of lack of evidence or because of smart jockeying of his
lawyer.
I believe his sons got some trauma in their minds, even if they would
think that their almighty father is right, somewhere in their souls is
a suspicion that their father is an killer. The situation might be much
vorse it one of them have been driving, the father gave one of them an
opportunity to become a killer.
So far I konow the family sold their motorboat. They lost their appetit
for boating.
Brian Smith
water more than they should about oars. How often do you see skiers
coming up on two skis and then dropping one? Perhaps not so much
these days as one used to, but one does still see this occurring.
I had the dubious priviledge of running into such a dropped ski when I
was water skiing many years ago. My nerves were hurt a lot more than
my body. Then the owner had the gall to claim that I had damaged his
ski and should pay for it. Verrry interrresting!
Greg Bullough
>gr...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
>> I'd tell them to go away, or I'd chase them down in the next couple of
>> races, then make sure a protest got filed if they impeded me in any way.
>
> If you are racing and see another racer violate a non-racer's right
>of way, can you protest them out?
Yes.
In fact, I think that even a non-racer may approach the committee.
Greg
Wm Randolph Franklin
sailboat, killing 2 people).
Sometimes evolution does work properly though. A few years ago at night
a speeding motorboat in Toronto harbour hit a (MUCH bigger) ferry
broadside. Killed a few people on the motorboat, didn't much hurt the
ferry. The survivors said they never saw the brightly lit ferry against
the brightly lit Toronto skyline.
--
Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: w...@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180
Dave Kell
Franklin) writes:
|>
|> Sometimes evolution does work properly though. A few years ago at night
|> a speeding motorboat in Toronto harbour hit a (MUCH bigger) ferry
|> broadside. Killed a few people on the motorboat, didn't much hurt the
|> ferry. The survivors said they never saw the brightly lit ferry against
|> the brightly lit Toronto skyline.
|>
major stupidity going on here. However, boating at night in large-city
harbours does have this problem (too many lights - hard to distinguish).
Trying to sail into the western gap of Toronto Harbour one night in good
visibility, we got within 20' of a buoy we were looking for before we saw
it.
Motoring into Vancouver Harbour this year we consistently had a very hard
time spotting the numerous tugs with barges moving in and out of the
harbour. If they are coming up behind you, it's a bit scary, but it
would be easy to pass between a tug and barge and not realize it until
you were in the middle. I know the tugs have special lighting, but they
don't always seem to, and some of the barges we have seen appeared to
be completely unlit.
I certainly wouldn't travel too fast in the harbour at night, however I
can still believe that occasional collisions are a real possibility.
Extremely good lookouts are required at all times.
By the way, I'm not down on night sailing at all. I think it's the most
rewarding sailing there is, but extra caution is required.
dK
P.S. I'm not really sure any of my postings have ever made it to the
outside world. Did no one have suggestions on where to place
jacklines? Could someone please email me that this post was
received? Thanks.
===========================================================================
Dave Kell (604) 293-5753 ke...@mowgli.mpr.ca
MPR Teltech Ltd. mprgate.mpr.ca!ke...@uunet.uu.net
8999 Nelson Way
Burnaby, BC, CANADA
V5A 4B5
===========================================================================
James Brohard
This is a problem on all bodies of water. I have seen boats at full throttle
coming out of the boat docks before the sun is up, with no running light on.
I have seen boats at night going all out with only runing lights on, which
let's you seen them, but doesn't allow them any visability to see you. At
the same general locations, have sometimes been people drifting and fishing
with no lights on.
My solution was to use collman lamps when setting still fishing, so as not to
draw on the battery, by using my running lights. And when moving, I turn on
the running lights, and a pair of 100 watt off road lights, that I got from
chief auto parts. They are stainless steel, tear drop shaped with sheilded
cables. These lights look good on the front of the boat. The cost was only
$16 a piece, (compaired to repair work from hitting something at night).
I have a 55hp johnson that I think only puts out about 3 amps from the
charging curcuit, and a deep cycle battery, and have ran the off road lights
for about 3-4 hours average, on several all night fishing trips, and have
never had a problem with the battery getting low on charge. I also run
a fish-finder, interior lights (off and on), running lights, and a 4 speaker
stereo sometimes. So now that I know that the off road lights won't drain the
battery, and leave me stuck, I think that they are the best investment for the
boat that I made. It's like driving on the water with my brights on. I can see
anything in front of me for at least 500 feet. You do have to experiment with
the angle of the lights so that when on plane, they aren't pointing into the
air, but once adjusted they are great. I also have had no problems with cold
water hitting the hot lens on the front of the lights. I was at first worried
that that might crack the lens, but I have been in some rough water a few times
and have had no problems.
I since installing them, have also wondered why some kind of head lights
aren't required on all boats. Several park rangers that I have seen have some
form of head lights. Police give out tickets when they catch motorist on the
roads driving with out there lights on. Most boats can go as fast, as posted
speeds on roads. The only difference is the medium that is traveled on.
Plus on most roads you don't have to worry about hiting a stump or rock
sticking out of the water by about a foot, or another parked boat with no
lights on, (most people wouldn't stop in the middle of the road with no
lights on). To anyone that is on the water at night, I would suggest
installing some form of head lights.
Bye James B.
to
badly, I
Dave Richards
>It is possible that the sailors tryed some last second duck to avoid
>the motorboat, though the rules of the road say something like; the
>boat with the right of way must keep its course and speed to give
>the burdened boat opportunity to keep clear.
True, except if a collision is imminent. My understanding is that if you
had the ability to prevent a collision and you did not exercise it, you may
be held liable, whether you were the burdened vessel or not. Having the
right-of-way will not be accepted as an excuse for allowing a collision to
occur.
I don't know if this is international or U.S. law, or whether it's even
true, so I would welcome either a corroboration or a disagreement.
Dave
FIR...@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
be helpful, but you balance that against the loss of night vision.
Headlights would reduce your area of vision to the narrow cone ahead of
you, plus would blind anyone who might be in your line of travel, even
when they are too far away for you to see them. A very dangerous and
discomfiting situation! That's why the regs are specific against shining
your lights at the helm or pilothouse of another vessel. Try getting used
to the night - its amazing what you can see out there.
Carl Hansen
d...@arnor.uucp
out all that well on the water. Realisticaly you aren't
going to illuminate much of the water ahead of you, unless
you put out an awful lot of light. You are, however, going to
make yourself completely night blind. Bright lights actually
tend to obscure what you are doing to outside observers. All you
see is the glare of the light from any distance, with very little
indication of how the vessel is moving.
From many hours of trying to sort out commercial and pleasure
traffic in coastal water (Long island sound, Block island sound,
and vicinity) I think the right answer is bright, properly placed
running lights. I've never had a problem sorting out what traffic
was doing if I had a clear look at its running lights. I've been
driven to extreme frustration by big powerboats roaring along,
blinding me with spotlights and making it impossible to see reds
and greens anywhere on them.
A bright, handheld spot is fine for running channel markers or
picking your way through a mooring field, but it won't help you
find an unlit bouy in a 5 foot chop at night. Trust me. I've tried.
Lastly, anyone who is sitting where they can be hit (ie outside of
a special anchorage in US waters) should be displaying proper lights,
in the case of anchored, one bright white, as high as possible, if
drifting, I'd think that normal running lights would be fine, and of
course underway, full running lights as required by your size. Also,
for those not aware, showing other lights than required which
obscure your required running lights is prohibited by the pilot rules.
- David
Roy Smith
> I have seen boats at night going all out with only runing lights on, which
> let's you seen them, but doesn't allow them any visability to see you.
I don't know about the "going all out" part, but having only the
running lights on is indeed the proper thing to do. Given two boats, each
with only running lights on, and with helmsmen/drivers/lookouts with good
night vision, there should be no problem seeing each other. I was recently
on a sailboat under motor at night in which the owner had her running lights
on but kept the steaming light off. She knew it was supposed to be on, but
said it was too bright (and indeed it was) and destroyed her night vision;
she'd rather have the wrong lights on than not be able to see well. I'm not
sure I agreed with her (the right thing would have been to put in a smaller
bulb) but I could see her point.
> My solution was to use collman lamps when setting still fishing, so as not to
> draw on the battery, by using my running lights.
Well, using your running lights would indeed be the wrong thing to
do, since they indicate that you are under way. Imagine what would happen if
another boat were to approach you, devine from your running lights that they
had the right of way and held their course and speed as required, waiting for
you to maneuver to avoid them? According to COLREGS (rule 26 c), "A vessel
engaged in fishing, other than trawling, shall exhibit (i) two all-round
lights in a vertical line, the upper being red and the lower white ...".
It shouldn't be very difficult or expensive to put together a mast
with these two lights on them (although you may have to special-order the
all-round red light; the standard catalogs don't seem to list those; just
all-round whites and red sectors). You still have to deal with the wearing
down you batter problem, though. At least a coleman lamp that illuminates
your whole deck, while not officially proper, isn't likely to be confused for
a boat under way.
> And when moving, I turn on the running lights, and a pair of 100 watt off
> road lights [...] It's like driving on the water with my brights on. I can
> see anything in front of me for at least 500 feet.
Gaak! Don't do this! It's a bad idea! Havn't you ever had somebody
drive by you on land with their brights on and get blinded by it? Now,
imagine how much worse it is when you've spent the last few hours being very
careful to keep your eyes dark adjusted to preserve your night vision? We're
talking stuff like not letting the folks down below turn on any lights unless
the companionway hatch is fully closed, and even using a red light to
illuminate your compass or read your chart by. When you zap somebody in the
eyes with your headlights you instantly blind them completely. All they can
see is your intense white light totaly blotting out everything else. They
are totally helpless. I know, I've had it done to me.
> Most boats can go as fast, as posted speeds on roads. The only difference
> is the medium that is traveled on.
And what a difference. I havn't noticed any yellow lines painted on
the water telling eastbound boats to stay in this 12-foot wide line and
westbound boats to stay in the other, perhaps with a steel guardrail between
them to encourage compliance. Not to mention that cars (at least on a good
dry road) are a lot easier to turn and stop than a boat in the water. I'd
guess that I can go from 55 MPH to a dead stop in 200 feet if I had to do an
emergency oh-shit-I'm-going-to-die stop in my car. Try and do that in a boat
going 55 and see what happens.
> Plus on most roads you don't have to worry about hiting a stump or rock
> sticking out of the water by about a foot
I would say that if you are worried you won't see the stump because
it's dark and you're going fast, the purdent answer is to go slower, not to
light up the night with headlights.
yet...@merrimack.edu
When my brother bought his '77 MasterCraft, the owner said that the boat and
his other one, an '81 Craft had a way of communicating with each other. One
night, they lucked out.
We are on a small lake in NH. There are no bright lights around, except when
the full moon is out. On this lake, if a boat is out on the lake with its
running lights on, you can see it a mile away, but if it doesn't have lights,
you can't see it two feet in front of you.
My brother was out one night with the 'Craft. He was being stupid and driving
at a high speed (somewhere around 35 miles per hour). My brother had his
lights on. He saw nothing in front of him.
The owner of the '81 Craft was out on the lake going about 5 miles an hour with
no lights on, 11 people in a boat rated for 6, and with about 2" of freeboard.
As my brother approached, the '81 must have sent a message to the '77, because
the fuse box in the '77 shorted out, and the ignition quit. My brother missed
the '81 Craft by about 5 feet. Another couple of seconds, we would have had 15
people dead.
I bring this up for two reasons. I realize that if you're out on the water,
you want to have fun, but you shouldn't be going as fast as my brother was that
night. Secondly, if you're out there, use your lights! I saw case last year
where a rowboat had a VERY near miss with my rowboat. I have lights on my
rowboat, the other rowboat didn't. It scared me to think that two aluminum
boats, one traveling at 5 mph (me) and 15 mph (the other one), could hit each
other. Talk about aluminum cans!
Kevin
UUCP%"yetmank%merrim...@samsung.com"
or
MX%"yet...@merrimack.edu"
"You can still Rock in America" - Night Ranger
Mike Zeleznik
>You are, however, going to
>make yourself completely night blind. Bright lights actually
>tend to obscure what you are doing to outside observers.
>
From my VERY limited experience boating at night, I quickly realized
the importance of NOT losing your night vision (dark adaptation). We were
ill-prepared, and everytime I had to turn the flashlight on the charts to
see where things were, I'd look up and not be able to see as well. This
was in a bay off Long Island Sound, where there were so many lights of
all sorts that it was really confusing.
Mike
Michael Zeleznik zele...@cs.utah.edu 801-581-5617
wtr...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu
> bro...@convex.com (James Brohard) writes
>> And when moving, I turn on the running lights, and a pair of 100 watt off
>> road lights [...] It's like driving on the water with my brights on. I can
>> see anything in front of me for at least 500 feet.
>
> I would say that if you are worried you won't see the stump because
> it's dark and you're going fast, the purdent answer is to go slower, not to
> light up the night with headlights.
>
Son you turn those bright lights on, and you'll see that stump or log
as it comes aft of the transom (if you're lucky). Having spotlights
shining a bit on the illegal side of the law in my state...
Willy
James Brohard
If I do come up on a boat with the my lights on I always turn away so
as not to blind the other person. A spot light would also cause blinding.
As I mentioned before, I have seen several park rangers boats with lights on
them, and have had several rangers check my fishing license, and not one
of them has even said anything about having the lights mounted on my boat.
I only boat on fresh water lakes here in Texas, and not on the sea.
The same problem exist on dark roads at night. A on coming car blinds you
for a few seconds, because your eyes have gotten used to the darkness, but
I don't see the laws stating that you must turn off your lights when being
approached by another car. I think that my mistake was in saying that the
lights I use are as bright as the brights on a car. They aren't that bright.
I don't even travel at half speed at night, but on those moon-less nights
I still think that the lights are the best thing that I added to my boat
as far as safety goes. I personally know of three people that were killed
on lakes in the last 2 years, that had the other person that hit them had
some form of lighting, I'm sure the collision could have been avoided.
It was partly the peoples fault that were killed also, because in both
cases they were out on the water sitting without any lights on at all.
I do agree that with lights on or off that people should travel slowly
on lakes at night. Unfortunetly many people don't seem to agree with that.
No matter how equipped, defensive safe boating while on the water at night
can save lives.
James Brohard
Mike Hughes
>
> P.S. I'm not really sure any of my postings have ever made it to the
> outside world. Did no one have suggestions on where to place
> jacklines? Could someone please email me that this post was
> received? Thanks.
>
I run mine from a cleat aft up one sidedeck to a cleat forward and then
back down the other sidedeck to another cleat aft. Easy, but NOT a good
idea. You can go over the side and be dragged in the water by your
harness. Experiments have shown that you quickly drown if the boat is
moving fast. I know from experience that it is hard to get back aboard
even if the boat is not moving and in spite of the fact that my boat has
less freeboard than most modern designs.
I will eventually install permanent lines of plasic coated steel running
along the cabin trunk and then up the middle of the fordeck. I haven't
worked this out in detail and I don't know yet how I will handle the
cockpit. I want it arranged so that I can't fall outboard of the toe
rail!
Has anybody worked this out in more detail?
--
Mike Hughes
Lofty Pursuits (Public Access for Rapid City SD USA)
bigtex!loft386!mhughes
Heinrich Gantenbein
}bro...@convex.com (James Brohard) writes:
}} I have seen boats at night going all out with only runing lights on, which
}} let's you seen them, but doesn't allow them any visability to see you.
}
} I don't know about the "going all out" part, but having only the
}running lights on is indeed the proper thing to do. Given two boats, each
}} My solution was to use collman lamps when setting still fishing, so as not to
}} draw on the battery, by using my running lights.
}
} Well, using your running lights would indeed be the wrong thing to
}do, since they indicate that you are under way. Imagine what would happen if
}another boat were to approach you, devine from your running lights that they
}had the right of way and held their course and speed as required, waiting for
}you to maneuver to avoid them? According to COLREGS (rule 26 c), "A vessel
}engaged in fishing, other than trawling, shall exhibit (i) two all-round
}lights in a vertical line, the upper being red and the lower white ...".
fishing with a net. I asume that James is the typical sports fisher fishing
with a rod.
Assuming that you are using an anchor, the correct thing to do is to
display an all-round withe light. A collman lamp would probably appropriate,
if carried at the highest point of your vessel.
[stuff about red lights deleted]
}} And when moving, I turn on the running lights, and a pair of 100 watt off
}} road lights [...] It's like driving on the water with my brights on. I can
}} see anything in front of me for at least 500 feet.
}
} Gaak! Don't do this! It's a bad idea! Havn't you ever had somebody
}drive by you on land with their brights on and get blinded by it? Now,
}imagine how much worse it is when you've spent the last few hours being very
}careful to keep your eyes dark adjusted to preserve your night vision? We're
}talking stuff like not letting the folks down below turn on any lights unless
}the companionway hatch is fully closed, and even using a red light to
}illuminate your compass or read your chart by. When you zap somebody in the
}eyes with your headlights you instantly blind them completely. All they can
}see is your intense white light totaly blotting out everything else. They
}are totally helpless. I know, I've had it done to me.
I could no agree more with you. Those bright lights are a bad idea. Good
running lights are the only safe thing. If you are concerned about beeing
seen by running lights designed for bigger boats.
I also agree with the rest of your statements, specifically about going
slower.
--
Heinrich Gantenbein, Software Consultant: I'd rather be sailing.
h...@tsisj1.uucp
..!apple!ditka!tsisj1!hg ...!mips!daver!ditka!tsisj1!hg
Dave Kell
|> I've been
|> driven to extreme frustration by big powerboats roaring along,
|> blinding me with spotlights and making it impossible to see reds
|> and greens anywhere on them.
|>
What's the big attraction of shining a million candle-power searchlight
on a boat more than once? This summer we were out watching the fireworks
with a few thousand other boats in English Bay (that experience was full
of lessons about how to break all the rules, but that's another story).
After it was all over, and the boats were heading back to their harbours,
some big powerboat approached us and shone his searchlight on us over and
over again for about 5 minutes. It drove me crazy.
I suppose now that I think about it, he probably couldn't see my running
lights, or my silhouette against the sky because he was completely blind
from his bright search. If only reading (and understanding) Chapman was
a prerequisite before they'd let you on the water. :<
I'm not really keen on requiring licensing, but there are an AWFUL lot
of boats out there that have no understanding of basic boating rules and
courtesies. I'm sure he doesn't think he's irritating the hell out of me
by shining his light on me, although you might think he'd figure it out
from the finger I was giving him.
dK
Brian Godfrey
Anyone see the recent BoatUS newsletter? They had a picture of a sailboat
with a Ski-Nautique stuck in the side of it. The accident occurred at night,
the sailboat had lights, the ski boat was doing 40MPH, the driver was drunk
(what's new?) A Sheriff witnessed the accident. Fortunately nobody died. The
sailors were knocked out of their boat, but were able to climb back in and
motor back to the dock (with the ski boat just sticking out of the side - it
really looks bizarre.)
--
--Brian M. Godfrey
Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
{uunet|ogicse|tektronix}!sequent!brian -or- br...@sequent.COM
Bob Niemi
> Gaak! Don't do this! It's a bad idea! Havn't you ever had somebody
>drive by you on land with their brights on and get blinded by it? Now,
Reminds me of our Mississippi River trip two years ago. There, barges
light their way with powerful 5 foot diameter arc searchlights (like a
movie premiere). Leaving a lock, two boats in our group were able to run
downstream at night using handheld spots to show the channel marker bouys.
I got caught up in traffic, but monitored their radio traffic as they
met a barge tow a mile downstream:
Pour House: Jeez--like sunlight!
Patti Ann: I don't think he likes our spotlights.
Pour House: Yeah--I'll pull out of the channel and let him pass.
Patti Ann: Me too---
I got out of the channel when I met the barge some minutes later. He lit
me up too. Couldn't see for 5 minutes. :)
I have a remote controlled spot on the bow of my boat. Pointing response
is slow, but I do use it to find (reflective) channel marker bouys.
Because use of a spotlight blinds other boaters, I use it with great
restraint in traffic, and never light up someone else's boat unless
needed (i.e., no running lights--more common than you can beleive).
In most cases, night vision affords excellent visibility; I think the gains
from use of a spot are minimal. A little bit of moonlight works wonders.
When using a handheld spot, I hold it down low outboard the gunwale to
avoid lighting up the front deck.
>> Plus on most roads you don't have to worry about hiting a stump or rock
>> sticking out of the water by about a foot
I have lived on and wrecked equipment in stump-ridden Lake Wisconsin for 20
years so I have some hard-earned expertise in this area. I claim you ain't
gonna see no wet ugly stump with no spotlight at night nohow, in time to
avoid collision at planing speed.
Which brings me to the subject of maintaining the night vision others have
written of on this thread. Here, I think power boat designers, lighting
vendors and instrument manufacturers have long bitten the big one by selling
product designed to blind the boat operator at night. On smaller boats,
standard lighting packages generally use a single all-around stern light
which lights the up the entire topsides. While a simple shield can cure this,
most occasional boaters neither understand their night vision is ruined,
nor would they take the time to fix the problem. My present boat is the
first I have ever owned that even approached a proper job of shielding the
allround light. International lighting (a sternfacing transom light)
helps here, but what was done right lighting my boat was wrecked elsewhere:
Panel instruments seem to be poorly done of late; the Teleflex instruments
in my Carver use an indirect backlighting scheme with a white interior barrel
on the instrument case. For anything but dead-on viewing, the white barrel
is blindingly visible around the side of the instrument dial. I found some
red rubber light filter caps at Sailorman in Ft. Lauderdale which fit nicely
over the 194 bulbs and cut the illumination level to a decent nighttime level.
Now all I have to do is find a way to batten down the backlights for the LCD
readout in the Impulse depth sounder. This engineering marvel also has the
requirement you read it dead on, else one of the bulb filaments is directly
exposed to your eye. With all that light, you would think they could have
shunted some of it to the touch panel switches for night operation. The
flat panel offers no tactile sense--you must shine a flashlight on it to
find the buttons!
Once the depthsounder is fixed I am sure the bright lighting on the LCD for
the Volvo DouProp digital readout of degrees outdrive trim (!!don't laugh
--I find it very handy) will annoy. When I fix that, the cute little
semicircle of very bright LEDs (to provide a quick trim indication) will
get their wires cut.
On the other hand, the cold flourescent backlights on the channel indicator
on the Sitex VHF and the display for the Marinetek loran provide a good
level of illumination for night use.
Finally, very few boats have the technological marvel long seen in the auto
industry: a panel light dimmer. Kudos to Sea Ray on this one. I haven't
seen any on the aftermarket. (Yes, I know--measure the current, mount
a proper sized rheostat--)
Sorry for the length of this, but I feel much better now. :)
Bob Niemi, Astronautics, Madison, WI ..uwvax!astroatc!niemi
George Tatge
questions. Lots of opinions out there.
I recently found myself trying to navigate unknown waters on Lake Powell
after dark. The lake is really low and there are lots of unmarked
shallow rocks. I wasn't out in the dark intentionally, but nevertheless,
there I was.
Problems:
1. It was DARK dark.
2. My stern light completely killed my night vision.
3. I had to run without lights at times (I didn't like it) so
I could see well enough to move.
4. I was forced to use my spotlite at times when I got out of
the main channel. This REALLY killed my night vision.
5. Using a flashlight to read charts hurt my night vision.
Helps:
1. I would have never made it without my depth finder. There was a
200 ft. deep channel that was only a few feet wide. It sure wasn't
easy but I could use the df to help me stay in the narrow, winding
channel.
2. Clear sky. I know zero about celestial navigation (I intend to change
that fault) but the big dipper was very convieniently located in the
main direction I needed to progress. This helped alot because I didn't
have to look down at the compass and get instrument lights in my eyes
nearly as often.
WHAT I REALLY WANT:
1. Some GOOD starlight goggles (not an unweildly pair of binocs).
2. Some way to have running lights that won't ruin my night vision.
3. Full scan sonar, not just a depth finder.
4. Some type of portable signal device that makes it possible to
find a particular point on a winding, hilly, seemingly endless dark
shore.
g (it took me 4 hours to get 2 miles) t
Joel Clark
>What's the big attraction of shining a million candle-power searchlight
>on a boat more than once? This summer we were out watching the fireworks
>with a few thousand other boats in English Bay (that experience was full
>of lessons about how to break all the rules, but that's another story).
>After it was all over, and the boats were heading back to their harbours,
>some big powerboat approached us and shone his searchlight on us over and
>over again for about 5 minutes. It drove me crazy.
>
>===========================================================================
>Dave Kell (604) 293-5753 ke...@mowgli.mpr.ca
>MPR Teltech Ltd. mprgate.mpr.ca!ke...@uunet.uu.net
>8999 Nelson Way
>Burnaby, BC, CANADA
>V5A 4B5
>===========================================================================
Ah yes 4th of July boating. One of the largest 4th of July fireworks displays
west of the Mississippi is at Fort Vancouver, Wa. just across the Columbia
river from Portland, OR. The fireworks are shot over the river. Usually
about 5000 boats anchor in the river under them. As soon as the fireworks
are over about half these boats dash 2 miles upstream to the 48th st County
boat ramp (4 lanes). A very entertaining sight if you are ashore. Rather
frightening if you are in a 20' sailboat in the middle of all these 30-35'
power boats going full throttle. I'm sure it's probably illegal, immoral,
and unsportsmanlike, but I found a few carefully tossed M-80's greatly
increased our maneuvering room, and reduced the impact of their 4' wakes.
joel clark
jo...@isc.intel.com
(503) 629-7732
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
>[...]
>lights on). To anyone that is on the water at night, I would suggest
>installing some form of head lights.
I don't think anybody has pointed out clearly that this is illegal.
Of course I don't know about ligthning rules on inland waters
in the US, but I wanna bet the same rules apply as at sea.
White lights are only permitted at the back of your boat pointing
backwards. Whenever you see a white light you KNOW you are looking
at the back of another boat!
Image the misjudgements made by your fellow boaters when they
see you headlights. I definitely would assume you were going away
from me, instead of coming towards me!!!
I agree with everything that is said on night vision too, but
I don't think anybody pointed my objections out before.
--
# Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen Internet fie...@idca.tds.philips.nl #
# Philips Telecomm. and Data Systems UUCP ...!mcvax!philapd!fierst #
Paul Matulonis
running lights displayed when drift fishing in waters in it's
jurisdiction (not just a single white light).
As for using headlamps while running I can think of no better
means to destroy your night vision and that of everyone else out
on the bay.
---
A little story....I was fishing once many years ago in a little
tin boat sitting in the middle of what is known as the State
Channel under the Captree drawbridge w/o any lights on. Upon
observing a vessel approaching at planing speed I fired up a
spot and shone it on my own boat to alert the captain that I
was there; when it became clear that the approaching vessel was
not going to slow down I aimed the light directly at the
incoming vessel (momentarily). That got a response --- it was
the Suffolk County Marine Patrol and they issued me a summons
for a "blinding light".
---
paul
Roy Smith
> Here on the south shore of Long Island, NY the CG wants to see running
> lights displayed when drift fishing in waters in it's jurisdiction (not
> just a single white light).
Why? I'm not sure what you mean by "drift fishing" but I'm assuming
you mean you're a motorboat just drifting in the current, not anchored, and
with your motor turned off. I would call that a vessel not under command
and would show lights accordingly. Neither running lights nor an anchor
light (the single all-round white light you describe) would be appropriate.
Running lights imply you are, well, running, as I've said before.
If you were drifting with your running lights on and I was on an intercept
course and saw you, I might deduce that I had the right of way and hold my
course and speed waiting for you to maneuver around me. Since you don't
have your motor on, you obviously would be unable to do so. A dangerous
situation. Sure, you might try to start up your motor, but what if it
wouldn't start fast enough?
An anchor light implies that you are anchored. This makes my boat
the give-way vessel, but since you claim to be anchored, it would be
reasonable for me to plan my collision avoidance maneuver on the assumption
that you were going to stay put in one spot. I might judge that I had
enough room to safely pass between you and some 4-foot spot that you are
about to drift safely over with your 1 foot draft but which would snag the
bottom of my 5-foot keel. By the time it became apparent that you, me, and
the rock were all going to be in the same place at the same time, it might
be too late to do anything about it. Again, a dangerous situation.
If you showed lights for "not under command", I would not only know
that it way my job to avoid you, but also that I couldn't count on you to
stay in one place, and would plan on giving you wider than normal passing
room. Seems like the right thing to me.
Craig Campbell
>I'm sure it's probably illegal, immoral,
>and unsportsmanlike, but I found a few carefully tossed M-80's greatly
>increased our maneuvering room, and reduced the impact of their 4' wakes.
>joel clark
Am I the only one who has no idea what a M-80 is?
Any hints?
Merry Christmas,
craig
Roy Smith
> White lights are only permitted at the back of your boat pointing
> backwards. Whenever you see a white light you KNOW you are looking
> at the back of another boat!
That's not quite true. A power boat shows a white light forward
and to the sides as well as behind (above the red and greens also showing
forward and to the sides). Also, at anchor, you are supposed to show a
single all-round white light. So, seeing a single white light without any
colored light below it might mean a boat going away from you, or it might
mean a boat at anchor (in either case, however, Michiel is certainly right;
it can't mean a boat coming towards you, which is the important thing).
I also want to second a few things other people have said. First,
the headlight/spotlight you are shining ahead is probably going to destroy
your own night vision as well as everybody else's and end up doing you more
harm than good. Second, even with the spotlight, the chances of you seeing
a dark slime-covered stump or rock sticking a foot out of the water (or,
just as dangerous, 6 inches below it) in time to do something about it is
basically nil.
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
>pa...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Paul Matulonis) writes:
>> Here on the south shore of Long Island, NY the CG wants to see running
>> lights displayed when drift fishing in waters in it's jurisdiction (not
>> just a single white light).
>
> Why? I'm not sure what you mean by "drift fishing" but I'm assuming
>you mean you're a motorboat just drifting in the current, not anchored, and
>with your motor turned off. I would call that a vessel not under command
>and would show lights accordingly. Neither running lights nor an anchor
>light (the single all-round white light you describe) would be appropriate.
I agree. And your example surely shows that you're right. Except
perhaps that I wouldn't call it a "vessel not under command"
but rather a "vessel unable to manouver". What's in a name ...:-)
I strongly feel that it is vitally important that everybody sticks
to the same *KNOWN* rules. That's what they are there for. A lot
of discussions in this group seem to be discussing what lights
are best to have in certain situations. But the whole subject is
a non issue. There are international rules for lights that
are generally accepted on a world wide basis. They are supplemented,
but *supplemented only* on a local basis for special situations
in coastal of inland areas.
Why don't we start a thread on these internationally accepted rules?
> If you showed lights for "not under command", I would not only know
>that it way my job to avoid you, but also that I couldn't count on you to
>stay in one place, and would plan on giving you wider than normal passing
>room. Seems like the right thing to me.
If I remeber well :-|, those lights are red white red in a straight
vertical line in a (small) mast and all three visible in all
directions (360 degrees).
Another option for fishing ship travelling slowly might be to
have the fishing lights (red above white in a vertical mast, both
360 degrees). Do not change the order of lights, for you will be
mistaken for a pilot vessel.
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
>> White lights are only permitted at the back of your boat pointing
>> backwards. Whenever you see a white light you KNOW you are looking
>> at the back of another boat!
>
> That's not quite true. A power boat shows a white light forward
>and to the sides as well as behind (above the red and greens also showing
>forward and to the sides). Also, at anchor, you are supposed to show a
>single all-round white light.
You're absolutely right of course. I was commenting on the head light
suggestions and assumed the single white light to be bluntly clear
to everyone. However, on second though, you're probably right to
point this out.
> So, seeing a single white light without any
>colored light below it might mean a boat going away from you, or it might
>mean a boat at anchor (in either case, however, Michiel is certainly right;
>it can't mean a boat coming towards you, which is the important thing).
To get this subject really completed, I would like to add that if
your vessel is longer than 50 meters and powered by a mechanical
device (an engine), you are supposed to have two white lights shining
around. On on the foredeck in a mast and one at the back in a mast.
When steaming, the fore light must be placed LOWER than the
light on the back plus the running lights are on. When anchored, it
is the other way around, i.e. the fore light is higher than the
aft light, the running lights are off and there is as much
light on deck as possible. This is why sea going ships look like
christmas trees when anchored. It actually is a rule!
> I also want to second a few things other people have said. First,
>the headlight/spotlight you are shining ahead is probably going to destroy
>your own night vision as well as everybody else's and end up doing you more
>harm than good. Second, even with the spotlight, the chances of you seeing
>a dark slime-covered stump or rock sticking a foot out of the water (or,
>just as dangerous, 6 inches below it) in time to do something about it is
>basically nil.
Right. Please forget about head lights everybody.
yet...@merrimack.edu
I've seen a few people talk about spotlights, so I have make a defense of them.
On our lake in NH, there are A LOT OF STUPID people. People who go out in a
small rowboat with just a flash light, and expect bigger boats to be able to
see them. It usually doesn't work.
That's why I carry a Q-Beam Black Max 400,000 candlepower spotlight. I use it
sparingly, but enough to do a sweep of the lake every couple of minutes to see
if there are any boats in front of me. It's saved a few lives on several
occasions. Besides it makes docking easier if you can shine the light on to
the dock.
It's caused some embarrassing moments too. I once turned on the spotlight and
to what did my wandering eyes did appear
but a guy and a girl making some waves of their own. :*)
As for headlights, I've seen boats with them on, and they don't bother my eyes.
And since I steer away from any boat whether it's coming at me or going away
from me, I didn't get in his way. Going slow like I do at night, there is no
problem with these kinds of lights.
Well folks, I'm done with finals and am off like my car's timing. :*)
Happy Holidays to all and to all a good boat! :*)
Kevin
uucp%"yetmank%merrim...@samsung.com"
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
>[...]
>I recently found myself trying to navigate unknown waters on Lake Powell
>after dark. The lake is really low and there are lots of unmarked
>shallow rocks. I wasn't out in the dark intentionally, but nevertheless,
>there I was.
Sounds like one of the less pleasant experiences...
>[...helps...]
>3. Full scan sonar, not just a depth finder.
Is available in different flavours. I would have to look at home
for types and brands, but I can do that if there is interest.
>4. Some type of portable signal device that makes it possible to
>find a particular point on a winding, hilly, seemingly endless dark
>shore.
Have you ever considered radar? It takes a bit of training, but
it is useful to recognise the shore as long as you have e decent chart.
dwl@dwl@ibm.com
help you (A common problem on lakes) it is a *lot* harder. The right
equipment helps a lot. For starters, your running lights shouldn't be
throwing light forward from the stern or back from the bow. It's worth
making sure that's true. (Amazing what a small piece of black eletrical
tape will do to help sometimes)
A red flashlight or goosneck will often make chart reading possible
without completely ruining your night vision (unless you're red/green
color blind. I race with someone who is and red light simply doesn't
illuminate things for him) Your compass should also be red and dim
enough not to destroy your night vision. Ditto any instruments. A rheostat
to control brightness is often helpful here.
One last, dead serious thought. When worst comes to worst, throw down an
anchor, put up your anchor light and call it a night. You really should be
in a position to do that if there's a chance of being caught out in the dark.
- David
Kevin Ormerod
>> Here on the south shore of Long Island, NY the CG wants to see running
>> lights displayed when drift fishing in waters in it's jurisdiction (not
>> just a single white light).
>
> Why? I'm not sure what you mean by "drift fishing" but I'm assuming
>you mean you're a motorboat just drifting in the current, not anchored, and
>with your motor turned off. I would call that a vessel not under command
Maybe you would Roy, but no Coast Guardsman or maritime court would. Your
argument about not being able to start the engine won't hold either. Now if
your prop was gone or you could PROVE that you had a mechanical failure in
the engine or steering -- well, maybe.
If you are going to quote the COLREGS don't forget the GENERAL PRUDENTIAL
RULE and also consider that courts vary in their decisions based on the
interpretation of phrases such as:
- Immediate Danger
- Perceptible
- Imperatively Required
Disclaimer: I can only teach what's in the book; the rest is my opinion!
George Tatge
>Sounds like one of the less pleasant experiences...
Correct!
>
>>3. Full scan sonar, not just a depth finder.
>
>Is available in different flavours. I would have to look at home
>for types and brands, but I can do that if there is interest.
I'd be interested in "lower cost" ones. The electronics are soon
going to be worth more than my boat.
>
>>4. Some type of portable signal device that makes it possible to
>>find a particular point on a winding, hilly, seemingly endless dark
>>shore.
>
>Have you ever considered radar? It takes a bit of training, but
>it is useful to recognise the shore as long as you have e decent chart.
>
I was thinking of something more along the line of a battery powered
, colored, strobe light, maybe with a remote control on switch or
else very low power consumption. You know, something I could turn
on when I think I'm getting close or else just leave on.
gt
ps. how bout the night goggles?
>
>--
># Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen Internet fie...@idca.tds.philips.nl #
># Philips Telecomm. and Data Systems UUCP ...!mcvax!philapd!fierst #
>----------
Kevin Ormerod
>questions. Lots of opinions out there.
>
>I recently found myself trying to navigate unknown waters on Lake Powell
>after dark. The lake is really low and there are lots of unmarked
>shallow rocks. I wasn't out in the dark intentionally, but nevertheless,
>there I was.
>
>Problems:
>
>1. It was DARK dark.
>
>2. My stern light completely killed my night vision.
Common problem with most, if not all, recreational boats. I have
modified the standard lighting equipment on my last two boats to
solve this problem.
1) raise the height and possibly reposition the location
of the stern light.
2) mount a disk (1/8 plywood or aluminum) about 14 to 16
inches in diameter 3 to 4 inches below the light. This
will place your boat (20 footer or less) in a "cone of
darkness".
3) you may also have to change the style or position of
your bow lights to eliminate any reflection from rails
fittings or the deck itself.
4) Modify ALL other lighting, including instruments, to
soft red.
>3. I had to run without lights at times (I didn't like it) so
>I could see well enough to move.
On boats that weren't modified as described above, I have done
the same. And I don't like it either. But you do what you
have to do to insure your safety and the safety of others. I
was trained in night search and rescue with the USCGAUX and
one technique a lot of people overlook is to simply stop the
engine and listen (appropriate prior to turning out any lights).
>4. I was forced to use my spotlite at times when I got out of
>the main channel. This REALLY killed my night vision.
Sometimes you have to use a spot. If someone is with you, then
one of you should close and cover your eyes while the spot is in
use to protect their night vision.
>5. Using a flashlight to read charts hurt my night vision.
Put red taillight repair tape (available at auto parts stores)
over the lens of your flashlight.
>Helps:
>1. I would have never made it without my depth finder. There was a
>200 ft. deep channel that was only a few feet wide. It sure wasn't
>easy but I could use the df to help me stay in the narrow, winding
>channel.
A depthfinder is considered an important navigational tool.
> (it took me 4 hours to get 2 miles)
Carry some survival gear (a little food & water, a couple blankets,
a first aid kit, and a VHF or CB radio. If it gets really bad, like
fog sets in, just find a protected area and spend the night - I
have.
Frank Cannavale III
Subject: Re: Nighttime Collisions
Summary:
Expires:
References: <94...@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <18...@beguine.UUCP> <4160.2...@cc.helsinki.fi> <L7D^C*_@rpi.edu> <1990Dec12.1...@mprgate.mpr.ca> <110...@convex.convex.com>
Sender:
Reply-To: fr...@ulticorp.UUCP (Frank Cannavale III)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The Ultimate Corp., East Hanover, NJ
Keywords:
In article <110...@convex.convex.com> bro...@convex.com (James Brohard) writes:
>[...]when moving, I turn on
>the running lights, and a pair of 100 watt off road lights, that I got from
>chief auto parts.
I don't believe that you are allowed to use white lights on your bow
while running at night. It's permitted to use a spot light briefly,
but not full time. I'd expect that with 100W lights on, ones night
vision would be pretty poor & one would not be able to see anything
not falling into the beams patterns. Example, the 3-10W running
lights of a sailboat off the starboard bow. Furthermore, the
proximity of bright lights to running lights (relative to other
vessels some distance away) would make it difficult to distinguish
color, and therefore heading of a boat displaying 'headlights'.
I think I remember seeing a prohibition in color regs against
headlights. This idea is not a good idea.
Get a good spot and use that instead. I have a 1M cp remote spot on
my bow pulpit and keep 2 300K cp handspots under the helm seat. They
work very well for spotting buoys and daymarks. Used regularly, it's
rather easy to scan for flotsam. I ran inland from south of Barnegat
inlet (maybe about Tuckerton, NJ) to Pt. Pleasant Canal (this is the
northern end of the ICW) after Labor Day at night. I was able to run
about 20 Knots and as fast as 30Kts without problems. (Stopping
frequently for chart reading, of course.) The lateness in the season
made night traveling easy because there was no other traffic... (2
other boats that night.)
Cruising NY Harbor at night, I just run slowly (a couple of knots) and
scan often with one of the lights. Quickly illuminating a target
causes no problems, and its pretty easy to see what's in within the
'danger zone' of the boat. 'Quickly illuminating' does not mean
hitting the crew on the other vessel with full beam strength. I sweep
the light up from the water and light up not much higher than
waterline. Once you find the boat against background light, it's not
too difficult to pick out running lights. When a tug is suspected, a
quick sweep upwards astern has always shown me the predicted towing
cable.
Works for me.
--
Frank Cannavale III !uunet!ulticorp!frank The Ultimate Corp, E. Hanover, NJ
"The Social Democratic government on Friday began dismantling the welfare state
it built, proposing sharp cuts in benefits and state jobs to stop the country's
economic decline." -- AP Stockholm, Sweden 10/26/90~
Too bad the US Congress doesn't read the news, it could learn something.
Heinrich Gantenbein
Mike Hughes
>
> WHAT I REALLY WANT:
>
What you really want is radar. At about $1000 up (plus installation) it
is not out of the question for even a fairly small boat. I don't have
it myself yet, but after making a night approach to Bermuda on a radar
equipped boat recently, I'm really sold!
Whistler used to make a portable radar which gave an audible tone
whose pitch varied with the distance to a target. I haven't seen it
advertised in years. Does anybody know if it is still available?
Starlight goggles and scanning sonar are both available, but at about
$10,000 each.
I'm impressed with your piloting! People don't often think of the depth
sounder as a navigation tool, but it is one of the most useful.
Mike
Greg Bullough
>
> A depthfinder is considered an important navigational tool.
>
a Willard 8-ton cutter down the Petaluma River on a dark night,
using the depth-finder to stay in the channel. The banks are
ill-defined, especially in semi-moonlight. I'm eternally grateful
to the skipper who trusted me enough to learn how to do it, first-
hand. And to the cast-iron grounding shoe, which I fortunately
didn't need.
Greg
Mark Crafts
that damn pole-light that I have on my boat that does the all too
familiar job of destroying night vision? I figure it should
probably visible from all sides, so a simple cardboard (or whatever)
shield won't do it. If it DOESN'T need to be visible from all sides,
then that's great and I'll just shield it with something opaque.
Mark
Alan Barrow
It drives me crazy also. I am thinking abt trashing the single 32 pt
white light, and going to a transom light, with a 24 pt ? white lite
on a mast at my console. (Like larger boats use.)
You could then put a disk below the light to shield your eyes. No
light should fall on your boat.
In reading chapmans lighting discussion, & the CG regs I have,
it looks like small boats are allowed to use the 32 pt
stern lite, as opposed to the transom & 24 pt lite.
So... it would make you think that you could go to the other style
lights. Any experience with the CG on this?
My situation is complicated by a poling platform for bonefish.
My stern lite is mounted below the platform. it meets regs fine,
but reflects too much light on the deck.
Any ideas?
Alan Barrow