Drunken Sailors...
Ron Dwelle
I've been asked to write an article on:
What shall we do with jet-skis...
Any suggestions?
ocar...@mnsinc.com
Sure. The subject is wrong. The "drunken sailor" is a stereotype but a
jet-ski is a desirable thing.
Turn it around. What's the equivalent in jet-ski terms of a "drunken
sailor"? I don't know the jet-ski world, but "what do we do with
a hot-dog asshole" might ring.
O
FJustice
FJustice
Lloyd Smouse
>Do you know the song, "What shall we do with a drunken sailor"?
>
>I've been asked to write an article on:
>
>Any suggestions?
Boy Do I have a suggestion, however being a gentleman I'll refrain from
sharing it..Lloyd
rob
>
>Ron Dwelle (dwe...@river.it.gvsu.edu) wrote:
>but finally, always...
> Go to his aid if he's having trouble...
>
>Cause we can't expect others to be responsible if we're not.
>
>Can you tell that most of my encounters with PWC riders have been
>less than positive? It's unfortunate and disturbing.
>
>No, I don't hate all PWC riders. But then I've never met any that
>I like either.
My friends story: Recently he rented a 22 ft sailboat,
took his wife's family and her out. As they were motoring
through the channel out to our Bay, the outboard died as a
result of line twisted around the prop. He cleared it but
untill then a couple of PWCers came up and my friend thought
'oh good, help'. Nope, they said (kinda like beavis and butthead)
Hey, havin' trouble? We'll take the chicks if you like, huh huh huh
huh" and left.
Not all pwcers are this way im sure but these guys deserve a tankfukl
of stinkbait.
r
Brian Cunningham
> Do you know the song, "What shall we do with a drunken sailor"?
> I've been asked to write an article on:
> What shall we do with jet-skis...
> Any suggestions?
How about on the repeat...
What do you do with a jet-ski rider,
What do you.. (and so on)...
Then...
Send him for a ride down the closest spillway...
or
Put a bit of sugar in his gas tank...
or
Put a load of buck shot in his backside...
or
Tell the lake patrol about what he's doing...
or
Point at him and laugh when he eats it big time...
or
Wait for him on shore after he has screwed up...
or
Hope that he will know what the hell he's doing...
or
Put a little call through to his parents...
or
Run his little toy boat up onto the rocks...
or
Hope he figures out about that No Wake Zone...
or
Stretch a length of stout line across his path...
or
Hope he doesn't hit your boat's anchor rode...
or
Teach him a bit about the Right of Way...
or
Put a bit of Crisco on his boat seat...
or
Pray that he won't hit you as he passes...
but finally, always...
Go to his aid if he's having trouble...
Cause we can't expect others to be responsible if we're not.
Can you tell that most of my encounters with PWC riders have been
less than positive? It's unfortunate and disturbing.
No, I don't hate all PWC riders. But then I've never met any that
I like either. A few of them have helped windsurfing friends in
trouble (for which I truly thank them), but I treat them kind of
like I treat snakes here in Texas... With respect from a distance.
And if a confrontation cannot be avoided, then like the snakes,
they are truly screwed.
I'm sure several PWC riders will feel the need to flame away. So
be it. Maybe they are the ones I'm talking about. My apologies
to the responsible PWC riders I may have offended. I'll be on
rec.windurfing if anyone needs me.
Anyway, hope this helps...
--
Still hoping to meet a courteous, knowledgeable PWC rider someday...
May your board be fast, your water be clean,
your jibes be smooth and far between...
Brian "Rude Dog" Cunningham /-------------------------------------\
Windsurfing Boardhead, NRA Life & | Owner, Proprietor, Brew Master and |
* bcun...@fd.dsccc.com * | Head Guzzler - Rude Dog Brewing Co. |
* All Usual Disclaimers Apply * \-------------------------------------/
Bic Hip Hop and Presto, Mistral Screamer, Tiga 260, Dynafiber, Windwing,
Gulftech, and a 1/2 ton Chevy chase truck :-) Life is Good....
My opinions/writings are subject to copyright enforcement at my discretion
Lloyd Smouse
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.950914...@river.it.gvsu.edu> Ron Dwelle <dwe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
>
>> I've been asked to write an article on:
>> What shall we do with jet-skis...
>
>
>places.
Way to go Sweden..Lloyd..
Jeff Swedberg
water do a wonderful job on jet skiis...
Sailou
Diego
bay its not uncommon to be sprayed (intentionally) & have them cut across
ones bow (within 10').Monitoring The calls to the harbor partrol Ive found
that a great percentage are concerning PWC'ers & their mischief.So the
question was "what to do about jet skiers"?I like Swedens
solution............
OUTLAW THE BASTARDS!
sea-ya Lou SD bay &
the world
old sailors never die.....they just crawl to
trawlers..................NOT!
Dennis L. Copfer
>Not to try and start a jet ski rider bashing session, but a very close
>friend of mine was tubing and was hit by a 39 year old DWI jet skier.
Sorry about your friend. My uncle just died from the stupid actions
of a few folks, too.
>After 6 mos of theropy my friend will walk again, but since no liscience
>is required to operate a jet ski, the man was simply fined. He was not
>charged with DWI.
The problem isn't the lack of a license, but the lack of enforced
responsibility of reckless actions. Even if he had a license, he'd
still get to pilot his boat/jet-ski, whatever.
> I agree.... They should need to pass a U.S. Cost Guard class to
>operate a machine. And if that doesn't help..... Outlaw 'em.
^^^^^^^^^^
You're right! We should outlaw the stupid people from normal society.
My 75 hp outboard costs less than the jet-ski and could do as much, or
more damage. Any I sure don't want all power boats outlawed!
dc
Karen D Zimmerman
friend of mine was tubing and was hit by a 39 year old DWI jet skier.
is required to operate a jet ski, the man was simply fined. He was not
charged with DWI.
operate a machine. And if that doesn't help..... Outlaw 'em.
--
swim sail swim sail splash swim giggle swim sail swim roll slide swim sail:)
Karen Z. "The Fish" \\\ o o
217 Funnelle Hall, Oswego N.Y. |\/ \ o
kzim...@oswego.oswego.edu \ o \o
/ /
|/\ /
//
steve
you are being very lenient on the issue. How does your tubing freind
feel about this. As a former oswego student i know that drinking is big
up there but responsibility should never be shrugged off.
Ramiro Fernandez
>Does anyone have the facts about the recent collision near Miami
>of a PWC with Gloria Estefan's boat? It happened on Sunday 9/24
>I think! As long as we are bashing PWCers we may as well add this
>highly visible item to the discussion. Perhaps it will raise the
>awareness of a very serious problem. I think there was a fatality
>mentioned. It's unfortunate!
>Regards
>Stu Evans
True. Two college students: man(29) and girlfiriend(22) on a rented
Waverunner out for one last spin before returning home. They hit
Gloria Stefan's boat on the port side. Man got caught in the props
and was killed, but woman survived with minor injuries. No alcohol
involved (so far).
BTW, on Friday afternoon near Ft Lauderdale, three individuals on
a 26 ft Wellcraft out for ride (doing 40+ on a no wake zone) became
airborne and landed in the mangroves. One person killed and two
seriously injured.
As a boater and PWC rider I totally agree that this is a very serious
problem and should be addressed SOON.
The issue is HOW? Education? Regulation?
MikeT1946
>> What shall we do with jet-skis...
They're fast. You have to lead them more to score good hits...
-- Mike
evans@consun31
Ken Weise
>From: mike...@aol.com (MikeT1946)
>Subject: Re: Drunken Sailors...
>Date: 25 Sep 1995 15:12:51 -0400
>-- Mike
Being a wind bagger, I have to plan way ahead. It's hard to be on just the
right tack, at just the right time to nail one, but we try anyways. If it
appears that I'll miss, my crew gets out the giant fly swatter and bats the
guy down.
****************************************
* Ken Weise, VE160 Chassis Engineering *
* (313) 31-77228 *
* At, but not for, Ford Motor Company *
* **************************************
Gary R. Wagstaff II
Install a swivel gun... Once you get the hang of it...wow! 8-)
Cheers,
Gary
Brian Cunningham
> In <43n66f$l...@tpd.dsccc.com>, bcun...@fd.spd.dsccc.com (Brian Cunningham) writes:
> [clip]
> >No, I don't hate all PWC riders. But then I've never met any that
> >I like either. A few of them have helped windsurfing friends in
> >trouble (for which I truly thank them),
>
You assume that I met the folks who helped my friends. I didn't. Like
I said. The courteous ones are out there, I just haven't met them.
I've only heard the stories of the positive encounters (and I like to believe
that they are true).
> Do you just dismiss these encounters as not relevant ?
I think they were very relevant encounters. That's why I mentioned them.
I was trying to be fair to the PWC riders that are nice. If I had thought
they weren't relevant, then I wouldn't have mentioned them.
> >but I treat them kind of
> >like I treat snakes here in Texas... With respect from a distance.
> >And if a confrontation cannot be avoided, then like the snakes,
> >they are truly screwed.
> >
> I treat boats the way a motorcyclist should treat cars on the road.
> Which relies on two main themes:
> 1. You're invisible to all cars (boats)
Invisibility when flying a 6.5 square meter sail on a 16 foot mast is a
neat trick that I've yet to master. How does somebody go about not
seeing a sail on a board? They're big and colorful like a flag. I'm
not invisible. People just have selective recognition and attention.
> 2. Everyone's out to get you
I'm not quite that paranoid... yet. But I do try to sail defensively.
I also try not to push my right of way if it's not that critical to do
so. I have no problem with bearing off a bit and ducking somebody's
stern. But that assumes that the person who is not paying attention in
the first place is going to maintain their speed. If they suddenly slow
down after I've committed to ducking behind them, then there is a real
possibility of serious carnage. My weight plus the weight of my gear
travelling at 20-30 MPH has enough potential energy that no one is a
winner in a collision.
> Keeps me out of accidents, and keeps my relationships with boaters OK
> for the most part. Note that I have had boaters come straight at me while
> idling offshore (more than once). One time I was sitting on the ski just
> enjoying the water (it was not running). Took me a few _very long_ seconds
> to realize this guy wasn't going to turn and wasn't even paying attention.
> I meet plenty of ignorant people who go out, buy a boat, and take it out
> without having the first clue. I also meet plenty of well informed
> boaters.
As have I. I just have yet to personally meet, let alone become friends
with, a PWC rider who I thought had a clue about boating safety and common
courtesy.
> >--
> >Still hoping to meet a courteous, knowledgeable PWC rider someday...
> >
> Go take at look at alt.sport.jet-ski, you'll find plenty.
Netting is a great way to learn things and meet people. But I would
really prefer to meet them at the lake too. It would be _great_ to
develop a friendship with a PWC rider that we could count on for help
in difficult situations. After all, I know I can count on any of the
people I windsurf with to help out. But a person on a board can only
do so much sometimes.
BTW, If I see someone on a PWC that looks like they are having trouble,
I will stop by and offer assistance (despite getting my head bit off
on several of those occasions). I can't do much more that offer to go
get more help, but it's a start toward solving a crisis.
I continue to stand by _everything_ I said in my original post. If
you have a problem with that, I'm sorry. Feel free to email me if
you wish to discuss my experiences further. Afterall, that's all I
was talking about in the first place (well, except for the rescues
which are positive comments).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric Aupperlee "Nature and nature's laws lay hid in the night,
> God said, 'Let Tesla be', and all was light"
> *These statements are mine* -- Dr. B.A. Behrend, _Man Out of Time_
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
May your board be fast, your water be clean,
your jibes be smooth and far between...
Brian "Rude Dog" Cunningham /-------------------------------------\
Windsurfing Boardhead, NRA Life & | Owner, Proprietor, Brew Master and |
* bcun...@fd.dsccc.com * | Head Guzzler - Rude Dog Brewing Co. |
* All Usual Disclaimers Apply * \-------------------------------------/
Bic Hip Hop and Presto, Mistral Screamer, Tiga 260, Dynafiber, Windwing,
Gulftech, and a 1/2 ton Chevy/14' Wells Cargo Chase Rig :-) Life is Good.
Cameron Thorpe
After reading this title I was surprised to find it all about Jet toys
or PWC's
I would like to point out these are "BOATIES" NOT "SAILORS". Sailors
sail on yachts which have masts and sails. I object to the title
"Drunken Sailors" as PWC riders are NOT SAILORS. They are "Boaties" and
so are Sailors the title casts Sailors in a bad light when they are not
involved in this discussion.
Just a minor but important point. Be careful in the words you chose to
use.
Cameron Thorpe
cth...@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Joe Rukenbrod
<cth...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> I would like to point out these are "BOATIES" NOT "SAILORS". Sailors
> sail on yachts which have masts and sails. I object to the title
> "Drunken Sailors" as PWC riders are NOT SAILORS.
Some stuff deleted.
I would like to point out that my Webester's defines a sailor as a mariner
or one who travels by water. Looks to me like that includes PWCs and
power boats. And, by the way, members of the US Navy and US Coast Guard
are also referred to as sailors, few of their vessels are powered by
sail. Unable to find boatie in my dictionary.
Joe Rukenbrod, S/V Oona, Tartan T-27, former Coast Guardsman.
RECARTER
riders shouldn't post in the boating BBS. Boaters typically don't like
PWC operators. From the commentary here, the feeling appears mutual.
Geoff Cashman
1) This is not a "BBS". It's a newsgroup. There's a huge difference.
2) A person "riding" a PWC is usually operating it, else how would it
go? Your logic is rather...well, choose whatever derogatory phrase
you would like.
3) All types of water craft have something in common...I find no
fault at all with PWCers posting here. They too, just like the rest
of us, need to follow on-the-water rules.
I've never been on a PWC, nor do I have any desire too. I get
quite enough rush hanging from a trapeze wire on a boat with
the bow wave stuck around the centerboard. Am I a rider
or an operator of the boat? If I go sailing with some friends,
and I do nothing on that trip with the sails or tiller, am
I operating the boat or riding? If I am riding, is it wrong
for me to post my experiences on rec.boats?
A little levity, ok?
- Geoff
Scott Kirkham
>PWCs are not boats.
Tell that to the taxman and the lawmakers. Last I looked, I had to have
hull ID numbers for both my boat and my PWC.
> You operate a boat. You ride a PWC.
And you paddle a canoe. Does this mean that it is not a boat, but
instead a freshman ruching a college fraternity?
I operate both my boat and my PWCs. I ride *in* my boat. I ride *on* my
PWC.
> PWC
>riders shouldn't post in the boating BBS.
I won't post in the boating _BBS_, but I will post on rec.boats when I
see fit to do so.
> Boaters typically don't like
>PWC operators.
Sounds like a personal problem. I don't know if you can generalize by
saying that boaters *typically* don't like PWC operators. (You said
operators when referring to PWC *riders*. Kinda negates your first
argument that PWC are not boats because you don't operate them.)
> From the commentary here, the feeling appears mutual.
>
I don't have any problem with boaters. I have met PWC operators that are
true jerks and I have met boat operators that are jerks also. But I have
also met people of both kinds that are very nice people who just want to
have fun playing with their toys, whether they be made by SeaRay or
SeaDoo.
Scott Kirkham
GParkins
a highly visible majority, Jet ski drivers are getting quite a bit of bad
press. I agree with the bad press because although anyone can cite
examples of responsible jetskiers and obnoxious rag-flappers, it is the
majorities of these groups that we are dealing with.
Is licensing the answer? Perhaps more rigorous enforcement of existing
laws? I'm not sure, but I'll bet we see both, as waterborne jackasses of
all types pressure our legislators to turn our waterways into wet
highways. Speed limits, radar traps, BWI roadblocks, etc, etc.
To stave off hyperregulation of a recreational activity, this particular
conflict needs to be addressed and resolved quickly. Perhaps jetskiers
need to be told that they cannot operate their craft within the wake
created by another boat (No waves in the area? Too bad. Buy a kayak or
move to Hawaii. Stay the hell away from my boat, though) Perhaps
Jetskiers need special areas marked off for PWC (I hate that
acronym...sounds too PC for me) operation. Again tough nuts if you don't
like it. Y'all should have told your buddies to quit driving into other
boats.
One more gripe and I'll shut up. If you jetskiers insist on bitching
about sail/powerboaters not seeing you, running you down, etc, try
accepting a little responsibility for your own actions. Yes, in some
cases, I'm sure you had the right-of-way. So what? Sometimes, I have the
right-of-way over a frieghter heading my way. Physics and common sense
usually tell me to yield my rights, in a case like that.
Comments?
Bruce Holms
>PWCs are not boats.
Tell that to the Coast Guard, and all the state registration agencies.
>You operate a boat. You ride a PWC.
While operatiing these VESSELS, you ride ON a PWC and IN a traditional boat.
>PWC riders shouldn't post in the boating BBS.
They have just as much right to post here and defend themselves from
people like you as anyone else does. Just as you have the right to
post in the PWC group, sky diving, or alt.barney.die.die.die if you
so desired.
>Boaters typically don't like
>PWC operators. From the commentary here, the feeling appears mutual.
>
From what I have seen here, sail boaters dont like power boaters,
commercial operators dont think anyone but them have a right to use the
water, waterskiiers hate anyone disturbing the glass, outboard operators
hate jet boat operators, etc, etc, etc.
The list goes on and the divisiveness is really getting rediculous.
--
Bruce Holms
bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com
http://www.geopages.com/SunsetStrip/1082/
Bruce Holms
>Time for my $.02 It seems to me that through the irresponsible actions of
>a highly visible majority, Jet ski drivers are getting quite a bit of bad
>press. I agree with the bad press because although anyone can cite
>examples of responsible jetskiers and obnoxious rag-flappers, it is the
>majorities of these groups that we are dealing with.
>
Majority? You are completely misinformed and incorrect. Nothing could be so
further from the truth.
>Jetskiers need special areas marked off for PWC (I hate that
>acronym...sounds too PC for me) operation. Again tough nuts if you don't
>like it. Y'all should have told your buddies to quit driving into other
>boats.
And the boat operator that hit the party boat on the Colorado River above
Lake Havasu killing 4 people over Labor Day weekend should have been told
that too. Irresponsibility is not owned by PWC operators alone, but is borne
by a great number of boaters of all types.
Yep lets segregate all of us into postage stamp sized areas. Fisherman
have their acre, waterskiiers have their acre, PWC have their acre,
sail boaters have thier acre, sail boarders have their acre, kayakers and
canoeers have their acre, oops, no, better give them each their own,
jet boat operators have their acre, outboard operators have their acre...
have I left anyone out? Are there any acres left?
>One more gripe and I'll shut up. If you jetskiers insist on bitching
>about sail/powerboaters not seeing you, running you down, etc, try
>accepting a little responsibility for your own actions. Yes, in some
>cases, I'm sure you had the right-of-way. So what? Sometimes, I have the
>right-of-way over a frieghter heading my way. Physics and common sense
>usually tell me to yield my rights, in a case like that.
Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA. I accept
responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept responsibility for
morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I go,
PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
just as ignorant and irresponsible.
So what? Sounds like you are part of the problem.
GParkins
>Majority? You are completely misinformed and incorrect. Nothing could
be so >further from the truth.
I concede your point, athough not completely. Although there has always
been acrimony between sailors and powerboaters and commercial seamen, the
actions of a percentage of the PWC operators seem to have united the above
3 groups against PWC's in general.
>Irresponsibility is not owned by PWC operators alone, but is borne
>by a great number of boaters of all types.
I agree 100%. There are lots of folks, myself included, who could improve
their seamanship.
>Yep lets segregate all of us into postage stamp sized areas. Fisherman
>have their acre, waterskiiers have their acre, PWC have their acre,
>sail boaters have thier acre, sail boarders have their acre, kayakers and
>canoeers have their acre, oops, no, better give them each their own,
>jet boat operators have their acre, outboard operators have their acre...
>have I left anyone out? Are there any acres left?
This is exactly what I'd hope to avoid. However, it seems that if some
solution acceptable to the majority of waterway users is not found (and
enforced), this is the kind of crap we'll all have to deal with.
>Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA.
Unless the vessel that they are in conflict with is restricted in its
manuverability. Again, common sense and common courtesy sure seem like
they could go a long ways on this subject....
I'd also say it's a safe bet to say that most sailboaters and most
powerboaters have significantly more exposure to and training on the rules
of the road. It seems to indicate that PWC'ers need more exposure and
training. Unfortunately, it gives less excuse to the sail and power folks
for acting like everywhere they go is their own private pond.
Dennis L. Copfer
>All too frequently we see yachts motor-sailing and motoring
>insisting on the other vessel giving way despite the fact that they
>are no longer under sail. One other little moan, overtaking vessels,
>no matter how propelled (including yachts), must keep clear of the
>vessel being overtaken. Both of which have happened to me just
>recently.
Oh, you mean it's possible that boaters who are traveling fast on the
lake and are overtaking a PWC should actually anticipate they might
turn quickly (who'd a thunk it?) or they might share some of the
responsibility? Gee, with all the griping about their
unpredictability, I haven't seen that thread. I use the common sense
(and lawful) rule of giving them a wide berth.
>I studied for the RYA Offshore a couple of years ago and can
>thoroughly recommend it as a way of meeting people who share a
>common love of the sea. The differences we had were settled
>amicably in the bar afterwards.
>See you on the sea,
Wish I was there to share the sea and a drink. :D
dc
David King
of the rules or choose to ignore them is common sense. An idiot is still
an idiot, whether he (or she) is on a sailboat, a PWC, or for that matter
on Usenet.
The most recent Soundings had a nice article on right of way. As they
pointed out, a sailboat does have the right of way if not under power,
but does that really matter when you're in the way of a huge freighter
that may take a mile or more to alter course or up to 5 miles to stop (if
the skipper is even able to see you at all)?
Having said that, PWCs are relatively cheap, and can be rented with almost
no qualification other than a credit card. This makes it easy for the
idiots to get into real trouble. Sailboats by contrast are expensive, which
cuts down on a large number of potential troublemakers; they're also slow,
which means an inexperienced user usually has an opportunity to see trouble
coming.
Personally, I favor licensing, if the point is to really educate boaters. While
it's easy to point to driver's licenses as not being able to stop tens of
thousands of accidents each year, I think common sense tells us that things
would be much worse without even the minimal drivers ed courses most people
take.
On the other hand, this is an argument that tends to inflame passions so
much that there's usually no sense in arguing it.
IMHO
David
Doug
<<SNIP>>
> Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA. I accept
> responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept responsibility for
> morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I go,
> PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
> just as ignorant and irresponsible.
>
>
> Bruce Holms
> bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com
> http://www.geopages.com/SunsetStrip/1082/
>
I don't know about CA but in the UK and in particular Poole harbour
too many yachts seem to think they always have the right of way.
IRPCS states that yachts must give way to "vessels constrained in
their ability to manoeuvre" and "vessels engaged in fishing".
All too frequently we see yachts motor-sailing and motoring
insisting on the other vessel giving way despite the fact that they
are no longer under sail. One other little moan, overtaking vessels,
no matter how propelled (including yachts), must keep clear of the
vessel being overtaken. Both of which have happened to me just
recently.
I studied for the RYA Offshore a couple of years ago and can
thoroughly recommend it as a way of meeting people who share a
common love of the sea. The differences we had were settled
amicably in the bar afterwards.
See you on the sea,
Doug
Jim Maynard
<bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com> writes:
(snip,snip)
>Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA. I accept
>responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept responsibility for
>morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I go,
>PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
>just as ignorant and irresponsible.
Bruce, boats under sail do not always have the right of way, not even
in California. In restricted visibility, when vessels are not in sight
of one another Rule 19 (COLREGS and U.S. Inland Rules) gives _nobody_
"stand on" privileges. For vessels in sight of one another, Rule 13
(the Overtaking Rule) takes precedence over most of the others, including
Rule 18 (the "pecking order" rule that says that power-driven vessels
give way to sailing vessels). Both those rules (13 and 18) explicitly
state that Rule 13 takes precedence over Rule 18. If _any_ vessel overtakes
another vessel, she is required to keep out of the way of the vessel
she is overtaking. If a sailing vessel overtakes a power-driven vessel,
the sailing vessel is give-way, the power-driven vessel stand-on.
Don't laugh, it happens. I have overtaken power-driven vessels while
under oars. (To be sure, the power-driven vessel was using an electric
trolling motor, and was going rather slowly.) And when I did, my rowboat
was the give-way vessel....
Jim Maynard, K7KK -- Salem, Oregon, USA
jmay...@teleport.com (Home), iim...@iim.ups.com (Work)
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout...." (COLREGS Rule 5)
Fred Stearns
>
>Bruce Holms <bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com> wrote:
>
><<SNIP>>
>
accept
>> responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept
responsibility for
>> morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I
go,
>> PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
>> just as ignorant and irresponsible.
>>
>>
>> Bruce Holms
>> bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com
>> http://www.geopages.com/SunsetStrip/1082/
>>
>
>too many yachts seem to think they always have the right of way.
>IRPCS states that yachts must give way to "vessels constrained in
>their ability to manoeuvre" and "vessels engaged in fishing".
>
>All too frequently we see yachts motor-sailing and motoring
>insisting on the other vessel giving way despite the fact that they
>are no longer under sail. One other little moan, overtaking vessels,
>no matter how propelled (including yachts), must keep clear of the
>vessel being overtaken. Both of which have happened to me just
>recently.
>
>I studied for the RYA Offshore a couple of years ago and can
>thoroughly recommend it as a way of meeting people who share a
>common love of the sea. The differences we had were settled
>amicably in the bar afterwards.
>
>See you on the sea,
>
>Doug
I think that you got it almost right. Sailboats under sail alone must
still yield to Tankers, Aircraft Carrierss (witness the America's Cup),
and other boats which have less manuverability than they do. This is
especially true when one of these larger vessels is in a ship channel
and cannot take any action to aviod any other vessel without running
aground. Of course vessels engaged in commercial fishing, pushing or
pulling barges, etc. all have the right of way. The rule of relative
tonnage is not valid. But I look at it as the rule of relative
manuverability being the guiding rule. Turned into more common
language, Aircraft Carriers and Super Tankers yield only to each other
and PWCs yield to everyone else on the water. Those of us in between
have to use common sense. Is it too much to ask for each of us to look
out and avoid running afoul of the others trying to enjoy the water, or
earn a liveliood from the water? I better stop before I get on my soap
box.
David James Miller
|> Doug <do...@winning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|>
|> >All too frequently we see yachts motor-sailing and motoring
|> >insisting on the other vessel giving way despite the fact that they
|> >are no longer under sail. One other little moan, overtaking vessels,
|> >no matter how propelled (including yachts), must keep clear of the
|> >vessel being overtaken. Both of which have happened to me just
|> >recently.
|>
|> lake and are overtaking a PWC should actually anticipate they might
|> turn quickly (who'd a thunk it?) or they might share some of the
|> responsibility? Gee, with all the griping about their
Actually, when being overtaken, it is the duty of the operator to maintain
course, while the operator of the passing vessel must give way.
|> unpredictability, I haven't seen that thread. I use the common sense
|> (and lawful) rule of giving them a wide berth.
I too give any vessel I overtake a wide berth.
|>
|> >I studied for the RYA Offshore a couple of years ago and can
|> >thoroughly recommend it as a way of meeting people who share a
|> >common love of the sea. The differences we had were settled
|> >amicably in the bar afterwards.
|>
|> >See you on the sea,
|>
|> Wish I was there to share the sea and a drink. :D
|>
|> dc
|>
--
David James Miller Search Engine Development
LEXIS-NEXIS, B5F4 (513) 865-7441
PO Box 933 dav...@lexis-nexis.com
Dayton Ohio 45401 I speak for me, not LEXIS-NEXIS
John F. Hughes
>Doug <do...@winning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>One other little moan, overtaking vessels,
>>no matter how propelled (including yachts), must keep clear of the
>>vessel being overtaken.
>
>lake and are overtaking a PWC should actually anticipate they might
>turn quickly (who'd a thunk it?)
No..it's not quite like that. The stand-on vessel has a responsibility to
maintain course.
And as far as I can tell, the regs are pretty quiet about what happens
if, say, I'm motoring up a river, and want to pass boat A, which is also
motoring up river; but boat A, at about the point where I'll be passing
it, leaving it to stbd, wants to turn hard to port to tuck into a little
creek. According to the rules, I have to alter course to go around boat
A rather than just running up his/her transom; but once I've done so,
boat A seems to be obliged to maintain course until I've passed, possibly
going beyond the creek entrance... Of course, the regs *don't* say that
boat A has to maintain *speed* -- just course -- so perhaps the right
answer is that I pass to the left of A, who slows down and turns a bit
after I've passed.
Of course the *prudent* mariner stays away from other vessels, particuarly
when unsure of the skills of their operators, maintaining a distance
large enough to allow time to correct for the *other* person's mistakes.
> or they might share some of the
>responsibility? Gee, with all the griping about their
>unpredictability, I haven't seen that thread. I use the common sense
>(and lawful) rule of giving them a wide berth.
That logic would be fine if the premise were correct. "Keep clear of
the vessel being overtaken" doesn't mean "keep far enough away that
the overtaken vessel can do anything at all, no matter how wacky or
unpredictable, without bearing any responsibility."
-John
Brian Cunningham
> Doug <do...@winning.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh, you mean it's possible that boaters who are traveling fast on the
> lake and are overtaking a PWC should actually anticipate they might
> turn quickly (who'd a thunk it?) or they might share some of the
> responsibility? Gee, with all the griping about their
> unpredictability, I haven't seen that thread. I use the common sense
> (and lawful) rule of giving them a wide berth.
> dc
I believe, but could be wrong, that the vessel be overtaken has a
responsibility to maintain his course until the passing vessel
has made it by. I'll check my regs book when I get home.
The problem we have where we sail is a demolition derby kind of
thing. The PWC riders are cruising the shore line, while the
sailboarders are heading straight out and back. We've taken
to not coming close to shore while sailing and that has helped
reduce the number of close calls immensely. Anyways...
--
May your board be fast, your water be clean,
your jibes be smooth and far between...
Brian "Rude Dog" Cunningham /-------------------------------------\
Windsurfing Boardhead, NRA Life & | Owner, Proprietor, Brew Master and |
* bcun...@fd.dsccc.com * | Head Guzzler - Rude Dog Homebrewing |
Dennis L. Copfer
> But I look at it as the rule of relative
>manuverability being the guiding rule. Turned into more common
>language, Aircraft Carriers and Super Tankers yield only to each other
>and PWCs yield to everyone else on the water. Those of us in between
>have to use common sense. Is it too much to ask for each of us to look
>out and avoid running afoul of the others trying to enjoy the water, or
>earn a liveliood from the water? I better stop before I get on my soap
>box.
dav...@meaddata.com (David James Miller) wrote:
>Actually, when being overtaken, it is the duty of the operator to maintain
>course, while the operator of the passing vessel must give way.
OK, Fred says the PWCs should clear out and David says the PWCs should
maintain course when they're being over taken. I'll follow Fred's
advice, chance the ticket, and not get run over! (Of course, with
five kids the evolution thing doesn't matter much to anybody but me
and my family!)
dc
dc
Larry DeMers
MARINE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS SEMINAR, PART 5
By Cameron Clarke "S/V JUPITER"
First short intro:
While cruising the Pacific Coast, Mexico, Central America, and the
Caribbean, I conducted several hands-on seminars for cruising sailors
to learn about and improve their electrical systems. I now wish to
present this same material to others, via a multi-part
posting of articles to help you understand and troubleshoot your boat's
electrical system. This self-directed seminar aims to help you
understand the material without diagrams or graphics. If you feel you
need the specific diagrams and graphics, you may request them. Send
mailto:cam...@unix.infoserve.net and request "diagrams for marine seminar".
For a more complete introduction, see posting titled "MARINE
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS SEMINAR, INTRODUCTION".
Copyright notice (C) 1995: No material presented may be copied in
whole or part without the express and prior written consent of the
author. This will attempt to defeat revised or incomplete information
from being distributed.
If you or your group would like to reprint or forward copies, please
mailto:cam...@unix.infoserve.net and request prior permission. And
withstanding any other matters we embark:
S SELF-DIRECTED SEMINAR can be found at the following URL:
http://seclab.cs.ucdavis.edu/~wee/marine.seminar.html
* Learn how to decrease your charging time and increase your
battery efficiency with simple, do-it-yourself wiring changes.
* Learn about your batteries. What types are best suited to your
application? Gel-cell verses liquid electrolyte. Also learn about
Ni-cad and alkaline batteries. How to care for each of these.
* Learn about battery charging devices. What is good, bad, and how
are they different? Includes alternators, generators, shore power
chargers, wind power, and solar power.
* Learn about regulators and other charge controllers including
internal/external regulators, multi-state, by-pass, and shunt
types.
* Learn about "electrolysis", its causes and cures.
* Learn how to trouble shoot electrical problems with your multi-
meter.
* Learn preventative maintenance for your electrical system.
To learn more about the author's vessel, point your browser to:
http://seclab.cs.ucdavis.edu/~wee/jupiter.html
Many thanks to my friends for providing this space. If you have
comments or suggestions, mailto:cam...@unix.infoserve.net
Part 5: REGULATORS
A regulator controls the amount of charge current produced by a
device. Our discussion will focus on regulators as they are applied
to alternators. Marine alternator regulators, or controllers, vary
the applied field current (to the alternator) thereby limiting the
generated output current (mechanical amplifier) and voltage so as
to charge a connected battery and prevent overcharge. In this part,
we learn about internal vs. external types, remote sense options,
multi-state regulators, By-pass and Shunt types.
First let's define a few terms.
Field Current - The current applied to the alternator by its regulator
to produce and control the alternator's output current
Sense Voltage - The voltage the regulator measures to adjust the field
current (the regulator's means to determine what is happening).
Output Current - Current produced the alternator as a form of mechanical
amplification of the field current applied to the alternator.
Battery Voltage - A voltage measurement made at the battery terminals.
Internal Regulator - A device mounted inside the alternator that controls
and varies the alternator's output current.
External Regulator - A device mounted outside the alternator that controls
and varies the alternator's output current.
Remote Sense - A separate wire path to measure an input (battery) voltage
which is not affected by the internal loading of the regulator.
Multi-State - Having more than one state of charge, i.e. being able to adapt
to the differing requirements of bulk, absorbtion, and float phases
of battery charging.
Gassing Point - The voltage level where the acid solution in a lead-acid
battery begins to boil producing hydrogen & oxygen gasses.
Float Voltage - The voltage level, that if maintained, produces neither
charge, nor discharge of the battery.
Equalization Voltage - A high voltage of about 16 volts applied to a
lead-acid battery to effect a cleansing action on the plates. Can
be very distructive and dangerous.
Although the controlling devices differ slightly, both the alternator
and DC generator function the same, i.e. more speed or increased field
current produces more output and visa versa. Remember, the typical
regulator cannot control the speed of the engine which is most likely
doing other work. It can, however, vary the field current to regulate
the current output at any given engine speed. By varying the field
current, the regulator controls the alternator's or generator's output
so as to properly charge the battery. How does the regulator accomplish
this? The regulator compares the battery voltage (sense voltage) to a
reference voltage within the regulator. If the sensed voltage is too
low, the regulator increases the field current by increasing the
voltage to the field winding. This, in turn, increases the total output
current of the alternator. thus charging the battery. When battery voltage
rises to a pre-determined voltage and the regulator senses a voltage
greater than the set value, then it decreases the field current by
decreasing the voltage applied to the field winding, which in turn,
reduces the total current output of the alternator. It really is that
simple.
However, there are a few problems. If the regulator senses a voltage
that does not necessarily correspond directly with the battery voltage,
then it will control the field winding in proportion to the sense
voltage, and may either over or under charge the battery. How can this
happen? There are many ways, poor or loose electrical connection, a
badly corroded wire, loose or corroded battery terminal, improper wire
size, voltage drop in the charging path either positive or negative
side, a battery isolation diode in path, etc. Get the idea? The
regulator can only do its job properly, if and only if, everything it
depends upon is working properly. It is no wonder that so many of us
have difficulty with batteries. When experiencing some charging problems,
first check all the connections in the wiring path before suspecting
a faulty component. Remember from Part 1 our methods to measure voltage
drop in a wire path. This is always a good place to start troubleshooting.
How does the regulator know how to charge a battery? Well, there a few
theories on this, and they basically fall into two methods of thinking,
normal verses multi-state charging. Normal charging brings battery
voltage up to a predetermined level, often 13.8 volts, and prevents
the alternator from producing more by regulating the field current down
when the battery reaches that point. This is common in automotive, farm,
or general boat use. It is simple and reliable. Multi-state charging
defines, depending upon whom you speak with, up to four states of
charge for lead-acid batteries. For those of you with my diagrams,
refer to the graph of Voltage vs Capacity, the temperature compensation,
and 4 Cycles to Battery Charging tables. These four states are known as
Bulk Charge, Absorbtion, Float, and Equalization. Let's define...
Bulk charge is the phase that brings the battery up to about 65% of its
capacity. It can be initiated at any time the battery is less than 65%
charged (65% full) and is broken into two parts. Let's say we have a 100
amp-hour 12V battery that is just about fully drained, down to 5% capacity.
That would mean it contains about 5 amp-hours. Please note this condition
is rare and the open circuit, fully rested, battery voltage would be close
to 11.2 volts. Now we begin charging with our engine's alternator. The
regulator applies maximum field current to the alternator. The alternator
at maximum current output is then charging the battery. This continues
until the battery reaches about 13.8 volts, the end of the first part
of the bulk charge phase accounting for the lowest 40% of capacity. If
we terminated charge at this point the battery would contain 40% capacity,
or 40 amp-hours in our example. If we plot the rising battery voltage
against time (see 4 cycles to Battery Charging chart), we would notice
the voltage rises fairly linear with respect to time. As the system
continues to charge (part two of the bulk charge phase accounting for the
next 25% of capacity), the battery voltage rises non-linear with respect
to time, taking a little more time for each additional fraction of a volt.
This can continue until the battery reaches its gassing point about 14.4
volts in wet cell (gel 14.2 volts), the end of the bulk charge phase.
During the second part, depending upon the regulator, the field current
may either remain at maximum, or be slightly decreased. Terminating
charge at this point, produces about 65% capacity or 65 amp-hours.
Now, let's make a point of distinction. The normal charge method is
identical to this bulk charge method up until the battery voltage rises
just above float voltage (about 13.5 volts) to say 13.8 volts, or 40%
capacity. Float voltage is the level, that if maintained, will neither
charge, nor discharge the battery, but will remain the same. As Normal
charge is just above float level, it will eventually, over a considerable
period of time, bring the battery to 100% and even slightly over because
normal charge will regulate the alternator so as to maintain this level
for the entire time the system is charging. You will notice the ammeter
indicating less and less charge current as time continues until only
some small charge current remains so that, after fully charged,
will stay charged. In practice, the wiring losses will compensate for
the slightly over float voltage setting of the regulator, and because
the battery warms up as it charges, the net effect will be the maintenance
of float level after some considerable time, and there is no danger of
overcharge.
Differing here, the Multi-state regulator will continue to increase
battery voltage until it reaches the gassing point (about 14.4 volts),
at which point it maintains that level of voltage until it determines
the battery is very nearly fully charged. This is know as the Absorbtion
phase which holds the battery voltage at a constant level during
charge and accounts for about 35% of battery capacity. It is important
to realize that the battery will be in absorbtion phase any time the
voltage is greater than float voltage, only the phase can be completed
in less time at or near the gassing point voltage than near the float
level.
After absorbtion phase, the multi-state regulator then it toggles itself,
bringing the battery voltage down to the normal float voltage and acts
just like a normal regulator maintaining the float level. The maintenance
of float level is also know as "finishing phase". When this condition is
reached, you can shut the engine off at any time knowing the battery is
fully charged.
Why consider a multi-state regulator? Because with it, you can recharge
a battery that is drained below 90% capacity faster, and extend the life
of batteries that are periodically discharged to 50% or lower levels.
Will it harm the ship's electronics? No. Marine electronica can withstand
voltages as high as 16 volts. Ther are several VHF radios that cannot
withstand voltages much higher than 16 volts even if they are turned off.
It is interesting to note that I have replace many RF Power modules in
VHF radios using the S-AV6 Power module where the owner has inadvertantly
allowed battery voltage to exceed 16 volts, in the case of unattended
or unregulated wind generators, etc. This has happened even though the
radios were turned off, but the breaker or circuit to the radio was on.
Essentially the RF Power module is always connected to the power leads,
without running through the radio's power switch. When the Power exceeds
some voltage greater than 16 volts, the fuse blows. When the owner replaces
the fuse with a higher current one (a no no) becuase it has blown several
times before, the next time it blows the power module! It is an expensive
lesson!
OK, that brings us to Equalization, the process of bringing battery voltage
up to 16 volts and holding there for an hour or less. This causes rapid
water loss, and alot of internal agitation of the acid with the plates. It
is done to knock off scale, and oxidation from the plates and to make a
large bank of series-parallel batteries perform more uniformly. Although
this may need be done in large photovoltaic systems of 1000's of amp-hour
capacities, I do not feel it need be done for the typical marine house
battery system. But at least you know about it. If you decide that your
batteries need this punishment, then by all means, make sure to disconnect
everything else from the batteries!
Let's return to normal verses multi-state charging methods. Normal charging
is the most common method and works well when an engine is started and run
a long enough period of time to replenish the small drain on a battery. For
instance, in automotive use, the biggest load on the battery is to start
the engine. I large number of amps are required to crank the engine over.
Then once started, the alternator not only charges the battery, replacing
the amps consumed during starting, but also provide the amps necessary to
power all the other electrical devices, radio, electric fan, wipers, lights,
etc. The battery only has to be big enough to allow reliable engine starting
in a wide range of environmental conditions. In practice the starting of
an engine consumes less than 10% of the battery capacity. As a consequence,
the battery charges to a full state quickly using the normal charge method,
i.e. bring voltage up to float level and hold there until shut off.
In the multi-state method, it is believed a battery can be more rapidly
charged by bringing the voltage up to near the gassing point, holding
there until very nearly 100% charged, and then allowing to fall to float
level and hold there until shut off. Doing this with a battery that is
very nearly full, like the typical automotive use, may even harm the battery
by pitting the lead plates more quickly, and should be advoided. However,
under typical cruising demands, the house batteries are drained to about
50% capacity, and sometimes more, so many folks like to charge their
batteries more quickly, as it may take a normal method eight to twenty
hours to charge a house battery from 50% level. Review our discussion of
the electro-chemical-mechanical effects of batteries in Part 3. Whereas
a properly designed battery and charging system can be recharged in as
little as two hours with a multi-state regulator. The reasons to charge
more quickly are numerous, less engine heat introduced into cabin in
tropical climes, less fuel consumption, less wear on engine (especially
light loads which tends to clog diesel injectors), as well as prolonging
the battery life by removing deposits from battery plates which occur
during deeper discharges.
In my estimation, for what it is worth, a cruiser needs both methods. At
certain times, the normal charge is necessary, like motorsailing or
powerboat passagemaking. For long periods at anchor, the more rapid
charge method offered by a multi-state regulator is necessary to replenish
the house batteries and extend their life. Although there are many devices
available, AutoMac, Ample Power 3-Step, Balmar BRS, Cruising Design, none
addresses the full spectrum of cruising needs. That is why I designed my
own, the CAC charge controller, which has a switch to enable either normal
or fast multi-state charge modes. I refer to it as a multi-state multi-mode
charge coltroller for marine use. OK, enough plug, you can read about it
under "CAC Charge Controller" which you will find posted with this seminar
series.
Unless, you have purchased one of the above mentioned regulators, you most
likely have a normal charging type. But before you run off to purchase a
multi-state regulator, there are a few things to do first. Determine your
modus operandi, the way you use your battery system. Only if you periodically
use 40% or more of your battery capacity should you consider a multi-state
regulator system. Review Part 1 and make sure all your connections are
adequate. Then go back to Part 2 and review wiring to the alternator, both
the output and the ground. Often I have been able to make a simple upgrade
in wire size, or move a wire to allow batteries to charge quicker without
replacing the regulator. It is cheap and simple, and no regulator, no matter
how expensive will cure any defect in the charge path wiring. Do this first!
Next, determine if your regulator is internal or external to the alternator.
You may have to ask a friend. If it is internal or even mounted on the case
of the alternator, you may still be able to replace it with a different one
made by Lestek in Texas to accomplish your goals at less cost. Next, if
your regulator has a remote sense wire, make sure it goes to the proper
place to measure the battery. This will be some point not in the charge
path. DO NOT overlook the ground path. A properly configured external
regulator requires a minimum of six wires to do the job right. Many models
use only four wires and the results will be somewhat diminished. Four wire
models share a common ground for voltage sense and field current, and as
a result the regulator will error in voltage sensing.
You can connect two isolated banks of batteries to one engine alternator.
The diode isolator will cause a 0.6 to 1 volt drop between the alternator
and battery. A couple regulators allow multiple battery voltage sensors
(CAC included) which is the best way. It is important to note that if one
of the banks is very nearly charged, the voltage drop in the isolation
diode associated with it (internal to battery isolator) will be less as
there is less current flowing through the diode, and if not measured
separately, may be overcharged by sensing the other, less charged battery.
Which is to say, if you compensate for battery isolator voltage drop
by the insertion of a sense voltage diode, or adjustable regulator, you
may damage one of your batteries. Using multiple sensors, will prevent
overcharge of any battery in the system, but may fool the system into
thinking the whole system is very nearly charged even though one battery
bank is not (due to differing voltage drops in the isolator).
When we talked about batteries in Part 3, I pointed out that you get the
most amp-hours usage for your investment when the batteries are used to
about 50% level and then recharged. A simple system to achieve this is
to direct the current flow via a battery switch, so you can manually
direct the charge to a particular battery bank. After trying so many
means, this is the system I settled on, a battery selector switch, and
multiple sensors.
Now we need to discuss two other regulators that can be found on a few
boats.
The By-Pass Regulator ia a regulator that redirects current to another load
in order to regulate or reduce current to a primary load. Sometimes used in
Photovoltaic (solar) systems, it is more common for wind ot tow generators.
Effectively it dumps excess generating capacity from the uncontrollable
source into a resistive load, perhaps a water heater, so as not to over-
charge the primary load. It can be a simple voltage sensor that operates
a relay to switch power loads.
The Shunt Regulator ia regulator that increases the load applied to the
generating device (usually solar panels) to maintain a set voltage. These
devices are suitable to small generating capacities (about 5 amps or less)
and dissapate the excess power as heat. Take care in mounting them and
provide for adequate ventilation. The most common use is on Solar panels
but is effective for Ni-Cad batteries as well.
My favorite Photovoltaic regulator is the Pulse Width Modulated controller
made by Heliotrope. It can be set for a variety of voltages, is quiet, and
regulates by switching the load on and off very fast, modifying the on time
in proportion to the charge required.
Submissions:
If you have a specific problem you wish to have addressed, please
send it in. Include your vessel type and size, what area you sail in,
as well as any pertinent information to the problem.
To obtain related graphics for all parts, or submit comments, send
mailto:cam...@unix.infoserve.net
End "MARINE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS SEMINAR, PART 5"
--=====================_812904966==_--
Jim Maynard
>The 1994-95 edition of "ABC's of the California Boating Law" on page 12
>simply states that "motorboats shall keep out of the way of sailing
>vessels where courses involve the risk of collision."
>The 1995 "California Boating Safety Course" booklet further states on
>page 22 "Sailboats and boats propelled by oars and paddles have the
>right-of-way over motorboats because they are less maneuverable."
>A figure accompanies the text stating that when meeting boats under sail
>the sailing vessel is to maintain course and speed while the motorboat
>must stay clear and shows the motorboat altering course to do so.
>I may be missing much information since I do not have a copy of the
>official complete navigation rules, but the above suggests to me that
>this is tantamount to saying sailing vessels (which are actually under
>sail and not under power) always have the right of way. It seems to me
>to be the best course of action to take. Obviously emergency situations
>where collisions are immanent or reduced visibility situations can alter
>the situation entirely.
You are, indeed, missing much information because you do not have a
copy of the complete, official navigation rules. "The ABC's of California
Boating Law" does try to give good advice, but a little booklet like that
cannopt be a really accurate guide to the navigation rules.
It's not "sailboats," but "sailing vessels" that have the right-of-way
over "power boats" (i.e., "power-driven vessels"). Rule 3(c) defines a
"sailing vessel" as "any vessel under sail, provided thatpropelling machinery,
if fitted, is not being used." Also, the "right-of-way" of sailing vessels
over power-driven vessels is not absolute. Rule 18, which establishes the
pecking order, reads
"Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require,
(a) power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.
...."
Rule 13 is the overtaking rule, and both Rule 13 and Rule 18 explicitly state
that it takes precedence. If you're overtaking another vessel (that is,
approaching her from more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam), you are
required to keep out of her way. Unlike some of the other rules, this
rule does not require that "risk of collision" exist before it comes into
force. If you're overtaking another vessel, it's your responsibility to
keep out of her way: you are the give-way vessel, and she is the
stand-on vessel. Rule 13 applies to _all_ vessels: power-driven, sailing,
manually-propelled, whatever.
Most of the Rules do _not_ address the question of manually propelled
vessels such as rowboats and kayaks. Contrary to the impression given
by that California boaters guide, the rules do not explicitly address
the issue of right-of-way between a power-driven vessels and a rowboat
-- except in the overtaking situation, Rule 13. Likewise for right-of-way
between rowboats and sailing vessels -- except in the overtaking situation,
Rule 13. Those situation probably do, however, fall _implicitly_ under
Rule 2(a) as "special circumstances" and "the ordinary practice of seamen,"
so I would expect that a power-boater who collides with a rowboat in a
meeting or crossing situation would still be held to be at fault.
By the way, those other terms mentioned in Rule 18 - "vessel not
under command," "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver,"
"vessel engaged in fishing," etc, - are defined in Rule 3. Don't think
that just because you have some trolling lines out that you have
right-of-way over over other vessels! You really do need to study
the official rule book!
Larry DeMers
Eric Aupperlee
>
>Having said that, PWCs are relatively cheap, and can be rented with almost
>no qualification other than a credit card. This makes it easy for the
>idiots to get into real trouble. Sailboats by contrast are expensive, which
>cuts down on a large number of potential troublemakers; they're also slow,
>which means an inexperienced user usually has an opportunity to see trouble
>coming.
>
The average sit down costs around $5000-$6500
Now, as far as renters go...I think they should ban renting PWC all
together. I wouldn't open up a shop on the corner renting motorcycles
to anyone who walks up, why the hell should they allow renting of PWC ?
Because that's what the tourists want, and at $50 per 1/2 hour they
make a good deal of money. The hell with safety or proper training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Aupperlee
"Fire me, boy !"
*These statements are mine*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Holms
>Bruce Holms <bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com> wrote:
>
><<SNIP>>
>
>> Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA. I accept
>> responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept responsibility for
>> morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I go,
>> PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
>> just as ignorant and irresponsible.
>
>too many yachts seem to think they always have the right of way.
>IRPCS states that yachts must give way to "vessels constrained in
>their ability to manoeuvre" and "vessels engaged in fishing".
>
>insisting on the other vessel giving way despite the fact that they
>no matter how propelled (including yachts), must keep clear of the
>recently.
>
The 1994-95 edition of "ABC's of the California Boating Law" on page 12
simply states that "motorboats shall keep out of the way of sailing
vessels where courses involve the risk of collision."
The 1995 "California Boating Safety Course" booklet further states on
page 22 "Sailboats and boats propelled by oars and paddles have the
right-of-way over motorboats because they are less maneuverable."
A figure accompanies the text stating that when meeting boats under sail
the sailing vessel is to maintain course and speed while the motorboat
must stay clear and shows the motorboat altering course to do so.
I may be missing much information since I do not have a copy of the
official complete navigation rules, but the above suggests to me that
this is tantamount to saying sailing vessels (which are actually under
sail and not under power) always have the right of way. It seems to me
to be the best course of action to take. Obviously emergency situations
where collisions are immanent or reduced visibility situations can alter
the situation entirely.
--
Kent Crispin
>The 1994-95 edition of "ABC's of the California Boating Law" on page 12
>simply states that "motorboats shall keep out of the way of sailing
>vessels where courses involve the risk of collision."
>
>The 1995 "California Boating Safety Course" booklet further states on
>page 22 "Sailboats and boats propelled by oars and paddles have the
>right-of-way over motorboats because they are less maneuverable."
>
>A figure accompanies the text stating that when meeting boats under sail
>the sailing vessel is to maintain course and speed while the motorboat
>must stay clear and shows the motorboat altering course to do so.
>
>I may be missing much information since I do not have a copy of the
>official complete navigation rules, but the above suggests to me that
>this is tantamount to saying sailing vessels (which are actually under
>sail and not under power) always have the right of way. It seems to me
>to be the best course of action to take. Obviously emergency situations
>where collisions are immanent or reduced visibility situations can alter
>the situation entirely.
I guess I usually understand "motorboat" to mean a small power boat
with, usually, an outboard motor. In that context the text makes
perfect sense.
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
ke...@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
kb6rca
Flip214
>official complete navigation rules, but the above suggests to me that
>this is tantamount to saying sailing vessels (which are actually under
>sail and not under power) always have the right of way. It seems to me
>to be the best course of action to take. Obviously emergency situations
>where collisions are immanent or reduced visibility situations can alter
>the situation entirely.
FALSE the rules of the road pecking order are as follows:
Overtaken vessels
Vessels not under command
Vessels restricted in their ability to manuver
Vessels constrained by draft (must be power driven)
Vessels engaged in fishing or trawling
SAILING
POWER DRIVEN
Sea planes
Actually sail boats only have the right of way over 2 of 8 coast guard
defined vessels.
Furthermore any vessel less than 20 meters is not to impede a vessel which
may be restricted in a narrow channel.
Also a sailboat with sails raised and the motor running is not by
definition a sailing vessel it is a power vessel.
Just had to add my $.02
Captain Greg
Peter W. Meek
: Oh, you mean it's possible that boaters who are traveling fast on the
: lake and are overtaking a PWC should actually anticipate they might
: turn quickly (who'd a thunk it?) or they might share some of the
: responsibility? Gee, with all the griping about their
: unpredictability, I haven't seen that thread. I use the common sense
: (and lawful) rule of giving them a wide berth.
You (general 'you') had better not turn suddenly and expect to
keep any "right-of-way". The actual terminology (stand-on vessel)
gives a clue as to what you must do to keep the right-of-way.
If you change speed or direction you become the give-way vessel,
instantly! Look before you change course or speed and decide
whether YOU are prepared (or even able) to get out of everyone
else's way.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
"Companionship is no small thing to create"
Ivan Doig
Lloyd Sumpter
: >One more gripe and I'll shut up. If you jetskiers insist on bitching
: >about sail/powerboaters not seeing you, running you down, etc, try
: >accepting a little responsibility for your own actions. Yes, in some
: >cases, I'm sure you had the right-of-way. So what? Sometimes, I have the
: >right-of-way over a frieghter heading my way. Physics and common sense
: >usually tell me to yield my rights, in a case like that.
There is a law in the International Rules of the Sea that says that
you must "take all reasonable action to avoid a collision". This means
that if the other boat clearly can't see you, you have a RESPONSIBILITY
to get out of the way.
: Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA. I accept
: responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept responsibility for
: morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I go,
: PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
: just as ignorant and irresponsible.
Sailboats DO NOT have the right of way over commercial vessels in
shipping lanes (International!). Also, they have no right of way at all
in designated areas (such as Vancouver Harbour).
: Bruce Holms
: bho...@itchy.nafb.trw.com
: http://www.geopages.com/SunsetStrip/1082/
--
=============================================================================
Lloyd Sumpter E-mail to lsum...@portal.ca
"I'm doing everything I can, and stop calling me Shirley!"
Bruce Holms
>still yield to Tankers, Aircraft Carrierss (witness the America's Cup),
>and other boats which have less manuverability than they do. This is
>especially true when one of these larger vessels is in a ship channel
>and cannot take any action to aviod any other vessel without running
>aground. Of course vessels engaged in commercial fishing, pushing or
>pulling barges, etc. all have the right of way. The rule of relative
>manuverability being the guiding rule. Turned into more common
>language, Aircraft Carriers and Super Tankers yield only to each other
>and PWCs yield to everyone else on the water. Those of us in between
>have to use common sense. Is it too much to ask for each of us to look
>out and avoid running afoul of the others trying to enjoy the water, or
>earn a liveliood from the water? I better stop before I get on my soap
>box.
I agree with you except for one thing. PWC are not required to yield to
everyone on the water. As Class A inboard motor boats they are subject
to the same rights-of-way as other motor boats. Having said that,
I will agree with your general reasoning that since they are generally
more maneuverable than most other boats, they *should* give right-of-way
to those around them who are less so. I admit that I do not always
yield my right-of-way, however 90% of the time I do.
--
Bruce Holms
than you, the right-of-way. The day you insist on your right-of-way is
the day you may end up in the water. Without your boat.
Dean Meledones
>
>The best course of action in general is to give those with less maneuverability
>than you, the right-of-way. The day you insist on your right-of-way is
>the day you may end up in the water. Without your boat.
>
Thank you I think this sums it up. Not only is this the underlying thread to the
rules, it's prudent advice and plain common sense.
--
"There is nothing -- absolutely nothing --
half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats."
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Meledones de...@designworks.com
Messing About Shirts shi...@designworks.com
John F. Hughes
>The best course of action in general is to give those with less maneuverability
>than you, the right-of-way.
Jeez. Why didn't the committee that wrote the Colregs think of that? They
could have saved themselves a *lot* of trouble.
(sarcasm mode off). Of course, what the Colregs folks did was to think
of *exactly* that, and to codify it so that the determination of
"manueverability" was easy to make at a distance. That codification
sometimes fails to accurately rank vessels' manueverability.
But it does do a pretty decent job in general, and lets folks know
who's who from a good distance.
The problem arises when people go telling everyone in sight "the rules,"
but get them wrong. Then the Colregs rules get all screwed up, and
people get in trouble.
And Bruce still doesn't have the SFB to quit cross-posting on this
non-crusing topic.
-John
Seth Alberts
> >>One more gripe and I'll shut up. If you jetskiers insist on bitching
> >>about sail/powerboaters not seeing you, running you down, etc, try
> >>accepting a little responsibility for your own actions. Yes, in some
> >>cases, I'm sure you had the right-of-way. So what? Sometimes, I have the
> >>right-of-way over a frieghter heading my way. Physics and common sense
> >>usually tell me to yield my rights, in a case like that.
> >
> >
> >Boats under sail always have the right of way, at least in CA. I accept
> >responsibility for all my OWN actions. I cannot accept responsibility for
> >morons who choose to ignore or simply do not follow rules. Where I go,
> >PWC are only half the problem. The other half is boaters who can be
> >just as ignorant and irresponsible.
>
> Since when do "Boats under sail always have the right of way OVER A
> FRIEGHTER running in a channel? ALWAYS?????
>
I believe the previous poster was refering to right of way questions between
boats under sail and pwc's or pleasure craft under power (which can include
a sailboat that is motoring). Perhaps a brief review of right of way precedence
is in order:
On this list a vessel has right of way over every vessel listed below
it. Vessels
are required (by Colregs & the Inland Waterway Rules) to give way to vessels
that have the right of way. The stand on vessel is required to maintain
its course
and speed unless a change is required to avoid a collision.
1 - A vessel not underway
2 - A vessel restricted to a channel by depth
3 - A commercial vessel engaged in fishing (only while it's nets / lines are in
the water)
4 - A human powered vessel (rowboat, canoe, etc...)
5 - A sailboat operating under sail
6 - Any vessel operating under power that does not meet 2 or 3 above
(includes sailboats that are motoring, pwc's, pleasure craft, commercial
vessels that are not engaged in fishing, ....)
In general the easier a vessel can change course the less likely it is to have
the right of way.
Seth
--
Any opinions you think you find are mine. I don't speak for Rockwell or NASA and they don't speak for me,
Alb...@rockwell2.jsc.nasa.gov or Spac...@aol.com
S/V "Bounder", PP-ASEL, PADI OW
M Charlton
In July I was privleged? to witness a near collision and the ensueing
arguement between a 35' cruiser and a 25' sailboat the cruiser was
proceeding at 25 knots in a fairly restricted waterway when the sail boat
approached from the port side . The sailboat failed to give way and only
the application of full reverse and some serious evasive action on the
part of the cruiser averted the collision. The sailboater screamed at
the cruiser captain that he had right of way because he was under sail;
the problem is that the only sail he had up was a jib and it was flapping
as he motored along at 15 knots.
I see dozens of sailboats motoring under full sail pretending to be
sailing and at night showing the wrong lights to push right of way I find
this to be a little more annoying and dangerous than a pwc hopping a
ferry wake in broad daylight.
Fred Stearns
writes:
>fste...@ix.netcom.com (Fred Stearns ) wrote:
>
>> But I look at it as the rule of relative
>>manuverability being the guiding rule. Turned into more common
>>language, Aircraft Carriers and Super Tankers yield only to each
other
>>and PWCs yield to everyone else on the water. Those of us in between
>>have to use common sense. Is it too much to ask for each of us to
look
>>out and avoid running afoul of the others trying to enjoy the water,
or
>>earn a liveliood from the water? I better stop before I get on my
soap
>>box.
>
>
>
>>Actually, when being overtaken, it is the duty of the operator to
maintain
>>course, while the operator of the passing vessel must give way.
>
>OK, Fred says the PWCs should clear out and David says the PWCs should
>maintain course when they're being over taken. I'll follow Fred's
>advice, chance the ticket, and not get run over! (Of course, with
>five kids the evolution thing doesn't matter much to anybody but me
>and my family!)
>
>dc
>
>dc
>
the vessel doing the passing is required to stay clear of the vessel it
is passing. In the unlikely event that you can get a PWC to go in a
single direction long enough and slow enough to actually pass it, then
you must keep clear of the PWC while you are actually passing the
thing. When all else fails, the COLREGS require that all collisions be
avoided. Therefore, avoiding an idiot who will not follow the COLREGS
himself/herself if mandatory, if at all possible. Remember, the idiot
in question probably has never heard of any on-the-water right of way
rules and could probably care less. For this reason, I use the
relative manuverability rule. I cannot avoid a PWC (or a drug runner
either) headed at me while I am on the lake in my sailboat as they are
moving far faster than I can.
Mark Armstrong soft
>
>This list isn't really correct. The pecking order goes more like
>this:
>
>1) Vessel Not Under Command
>2) Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver
>3) Vessel Constrained By Draft
>4) Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations
>5) Vessel Under Sail(Sailboat)
>6) Vessel Under Power(not engaged in any of the above)
>7) Seaplanes
>
At a near by bay, the right side of the channel entering the bay is
shallow. I need 5' of water, there is about 3 1/2'. So we I leave the
bay, I stay of the left side of the channel dodging all the other boats
comming in. So I would assume I have rights under #3, Vessel Constrained
By Draft. Is this correct in a channel?
Second, what if another boat is entering the channel which also has
a 5' draft. Before the another boat enters the channel, I would assume
he is the give way boat under #2, Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver.
I am in the channel, he is in open water. What about if were are both in the
channel?
Another question on #4, Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations. Is this just
for commercial fishing boats (we always give boats trolling the right away,
even did it once while racing).
Mark
Dave Kinzer
> On this list a vessel has right of way over every vessel listed below
>it. Vessels
[List deleated]
The problem with this list, and any others like it, are that they
are abbreviations of the actual rules, and are inevitably wrong.
If you want to know the rules, go read the rules. If the rules
could be made shorter than the actual text, they would have been.
It is a disservice to fellow boaters to attempt to educate them
in this manner. People who read these lists and then believe they
actually know what is going on are an accident waiting to happen.
-dave
'r.b.cruising' removed since this is a general (not a cruising specific) topic.
Michael Lansing
Seth Wrote:
> I believe the previous poster was refering to right of way
questions between
> boats under sail and pwc's or pleasure craft under power (which
can include
> a sailboat that is motoring). Perhaps a brief review of right of
way precedence
> is in order:
>
> On this list a vessel has right of way over every vessel listed
below
> it. Vessels
> are required (by Colregs & the Inland Waterway Rules) to give way
to vessels
> that have the right of way. The stand on vessel is required to
maintain
> its course
> and speed unless a change is required to avoid a collision.
>
> 1 - A vessel not underway
> 2 - A vessel restricted to a channel by depth
> 3 - A commercial vessel engaged in fishing (only while it's nets /
lines are in
> the water)
> 4 - A human powered vessel (rowboat, canoe, etc...)
> 5 - A sailboat operating under sail
> 6 - Any vessel operating under power that does not meet 2 or 3
above
> (includes sailboats that are motoring, pwc's, pleasure
craft, commercial
> vessels that are not engaged in fishing, ....)
>
> In general the easier a vessel can change course the less likely
it is to have
> the right of way.
>
> Seth
This list isn't really correct. The pecking order goes more like
this:
1) Vessel Not Under Command
2) Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver
3) Vessel Constrained By Draft
4) Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations
5) Vessel Under Sail(Sailboat)
6) Vessel Under Power(not engaged in any of the above)
7) Seaplanes
Capt. Mike Lansing
"No Slack"
RECARTER
that the burdened vessel isn't responding. This is to avoid confusion.
I'm sure that you've walked down a busy sidewalk many times, and in an
attempt to pass a person headed in the opposite direction, have bumped
into them because the two of you couldn't agree on which side to pass!
I understand that it is better to yield your right of way rather than
risk a collision, but beware! If you are right-of-way vessel and you
yield to a burdened vessel early, you will be held at-fault if there is a
collision.
RECARTER
channel over a vessel that are constrained by their draft, according to
the inland rules of the road (where else would a channel be?). This
would include a freighter. Of course, if the freighter can't turn, he
won't, so this is not one of those times to press your right-of-way. If
there were a collision, the freighter may try and state that he was
restricted in his ability to maneuver. He would need to show that he
couldn't stop or turn.
Even though a sailboat may have right-of-way over a freighter in a
channel, I don't know anyone who would expect a freighter to yield.
As far as Maine, I've cruised there many times in a large sailboat there
are thousands of beautiful islands (there are well marked channels
wherein I yield to freighters). I've seen many small boats though I've
never taken any trips in one. Fog is a problem in the area. I wouldn't
even venture out in a dinghy without a good compass, one mounted so that
it can be seen without holding it.
During the summer, fog normally lifts by late morning (though not
always), and returns late evening. The worst times for fog are July and
August. In September, the water warms a little, helping reduce the fog
somewhat. In October, the weather can become chancy, especially late in
the month.
Peter W. Meek
Reply-To: pwm...@mail.msen.com
Distribution:
Jack Dale (jd...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca) wrote:
: An easy way to remember who is stand-on and who is give-way is the
: following mneumonic:
: Over Overtaken
: Night Not under Command
: Room Restricted in Ability to Maneuver
: For Fishing
: Sale Sailboat
: Plus Power
: Snacks Seaplane
In addition to the exception regarding traffic separation
schemes, there is Rule 9, which governs narrrow channels.
The only exception mentioned in Rule 9 is Rule 13 (over-
taking), so I suppose it would go second in this list.
BTW, Rule 9 (b) is another exception to the "sailboat
always has right-of-way" over-generalization.
(In general, Rule 9 says that traffic along the channel
is stand-on in relation to traffic crossing or sitting
still in the channel. It also codifies the courteous
practice of slowing or moving aside to let overtaking traffic
pass with the least disruption to the passage of either.)
As a side note, remember that drifting (but functional)
boats are under command but not under way -- this means
they may (under certain circumstances) be required to
fire up their engines and move out of the way. Much
different than anchored.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
"I am at the point of life where...my velocity has slowed
enough that I notice society's more." [Ivan Doig]
tmcl...@cbnews.cb.att.com
>In article <NEWTNews.8135118...@Dragon.orl.mmc.com> Michael Lansing <mlan...@Dragon.orl.mmc.com> writes:
>>
>>this:
>>
>>1) Vessel Not Under Command
>>2) Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver
>>3) Vessel Constrained By Draft
>>4) Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations
>>5) Vessel Under Sail(Sailboat)
>>6) Vessel Under Power(not engaged in any of the above)
>>7) Seaplanes
>>
>
>shallow. I need 5' of water, there is about 3 1/2'. So we I leave the
>bay, I stay of the left side of the channel dodging all the other boats
>comming in. So I would assume I have rights under #3, Vessel Constrained
>By Draft. Is this correct in a channel?
From the Inland Rules: you should stay as close to starboard as is safe.
§ 2009. Narrow channels (Rule 9)
(a) Keeping near to outer limit of channel or fairway which lies on
vessel's starboard side; exception
(i) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or
fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or
fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and
practicable.
>
>Second, what if another boat is entering the channel which also has
>a 5' draft. Before the another boat enters the channel, I would assume
>he is the give way boat under #2, Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver.
>I am in the channel, he is in open water. What about if were are both in the
>channel?
>
It's not that complicated. If you are head-on to each other, each should
stay as far to her starboard as is safe and pass port to port. If you
are going in the same direction, it's a simple overtaking/overtaken
situation: Overtaken is already as far starboard as is safe, Overtaker
would pass Overtaken's port side (toward the middle of the channel). If
there isn't enough room for the overtaker to pass on port, then she
has to wait. (If there's no room, there's no room.)
>
>Another question on #4, Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations. Is this just
>for commercial fishing boats (we always give boats trolling the right away,
>even did it once while racing).
>
Maneuverability is the key. From the Inland Rules:
§ 2003. Definitions (Rule 3)
For the purpose of these Rules and this chapter, except where the context
otherwise requires:
...
(d) The term 'vessel engaged in fishing' means any vessel fishing with
nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restricts
maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with rolling
lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict
maneuverability;
It's not commercial/non-commercial; if the apparatus does not restrict the
vessel's ability it is not a 'vessel engaged in fishing' under the rules.
"If it doesn't resrtict, you have to be quick."
-- Capt. J. "Ahab" Cochran, U.S.N. (Ret.)
trm
RWho42
alb...@rockwell2.jsc.nasa.gov (Seth Alberts) writes:
>I believe the previous poster was refering to right of way questions
between
>boats under sail and pwc's or pleasure craft under power (which can
include
>a sailboat that is motoring). Perhaps a brief review of right of way
>precedence
>is in order:
And proper information given to new users of the water...
"I have a sailboard, I don't have to worry about right-of-way rules. My
instructor told us that sailboards always have the right-of-way..." Sad
but true story.
I guess in a sense this is correct, vessels not under command have
right-of-way...
<grin>
Randy Hough
Margaret C. Collins
-- there is just Inland and Internationa l, 72 CLOLOREGS). I just took a
Coast Guard course a few months ago, and the fishermen in the class groused
about sailors not giving the right of way -- and the instructor gave the
below list without the fishing entry. Is there agreement that it refers
only to commercial vessels?
I have a cautionary tale regarding refusing the right of way. Several
years ago I was crewing on an Ensign (small sailboat) and the Captain was
having trouble finding the entrance to a harbor at night. Hours later,
exhausted, we finally found the entrance and had enough wind to overcome a
strong outgoing current. We were in the channel when we heard a LOUD blast
-- and I promptly suggested we run for cover. The captain insisted we
were closed-hauled on a starboard tack and we should stay our course
(because WE HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY-- he is usually far more cautious). About
30 seconds later a light from the heavens beamed down on our tiny little
boat, and suddenly bearing down on us was the most enormous hull I have
ever seen -- the outgoing ferry (it looked just like the collision scene
in a B-movie). Hey, we were convinced -- we yielded. None too soon. When
in doubt --yield (unless every one seems to clearly understand that you are
the stand on vessel.
Margaret (mcollins @nyc.pipeline.com)
On Oct 12, 1995 08:25:39 in article <Re: Right of Way (was Re: Drunken
Sailors...)>, 'Michael Lansing <mlan...@Dragon.orl.mmc.com>' wrote:
>This list isn't really correct. The pecking order goes more like
>this:
>
>1) Vessel Not Under Command
>2) Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver
>3) Vessel Constrained By Draft
>4) Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations
>5) Vessel Under Sail(Sailboat)
>6) Vessel Under Power(not engaged in any of the above)
>7) Seaplanes
>
>"No Slack"
>
Randolph Bentson
Caitlin B <cait...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid you're wrong, vessels constrained by draft always (except
>when overtaking) have the right of way over sailboats.
Yes, this is what the rules say -- but what about the case where the
sailboat is constrained by draft to the same channel as another vessel?
Does this revert to the case of two vessels constrained by draft, or
must the sailboat still give way (and if so, how?)?
> Speaking of required dayshapes, how many of you display the black
>cone (pointy end down) when motor-sailing? How about a black ball when at
>anchor, or rapid ringing of a bell for 5 sec every minute when anchor in
>reduced visibility?
I've got both day shapes and have used them. I admit I haven't used
a bell -- I haven't yet encountered the situation which requires it.
Caitlin B
their status as "constrained" by displaying a dayshape (black cylinder)
during the day and special lights, (red over red over red) in addition to
normal running lights, at night. Since these lights and dayshapes are
optional in this case, (most special lights and dayshapes are required)
common sense and the "unwritten law of gross tonnage" should play into
your decision to maintain course and speed--I don't think many captains
would risk another Exxon Valdes incident to avoid driving you out of the
channel! Don't you think it would be absurd to require a 30,000 ton
freighter drawing 30+ feet to yield to a 6' draft sailboat when in a
channel!!!??? When you study the rules they do (for the most part) adhere
to the universal laws of common sense!
Speaking of required dayshapes, how many of you display the black
cone (pointy end down) when motor-sailing? How about a black ball when at
anchor, or rapid ringing of a bell for 5 sec every minute when anchor in
reduced visibility?
of the road and a few hours studying them would be a great investment for
many of you.
Fair winds,
Dan
Nikki Locke
m...@sisd.kodak.com (Mark Armstrong soft) writes:
> At a near by bay, the right side of the channel entering the bay is
> shallow. I need 5' of water, there is about 3 1/2'. So we I leave the
> bay, I stay of the left side of the channel dodging all the other boats
> comming in. So I would assume I have rights under #3, Vessel Constrained
> By Draft. Is this correct in a channel?
Technically, I believe you only have such rights if you are displaying the
correct marks and/or lights to indicate to other boats that you are
so constrained.
It is quite unusual to see ships displaying correct day marks these days,
but then it is usually pretty obvious that a ship needs plenty of depth.
Deducing the depth required by a sailboat is not so easy, so the onus is
on you to let everyone know.
> Second, what if another boat is entering the channel which also has
> a 5' draft. Before the another boat enters the channel, I would assume
> he is the give way boat under #2, Vessel Restricted In Ability To Maneuver.
> I am in the channel, he is in open water. What about if were are both in the
> channel?
Pass port to port, as usual.
> Another question on #4, Vessel Engaged In Fishing Operations. Is this just
> for commercial fishing boats (we always give boats trolling the right away,
> even did it once while racing).
For any boats whose fishing gear restrict their ability to manoeuvre.
However, common sense and good manners indicate that a pleasure craft
should keep out of the way of a commercial craft wherever possible. And
politeness to other water users is usually appreciated. Remember that you
should make it clear that you intend to keep out of the way well _before_
the ColRegs apply - you don't want to become the official stand-on vessel
and then break the regs by changing course!
--
Nikki Locke,Trumphurst Ltd.(PC & Unix consultancy) ni...@trmphrst.demon.co.uk
trmphrst.demon.co.uk is NOT affiliated with ANY other sites at demon.co.uk.
Peter W. Meek
<in part on: engaged in fishing>
: Maneuverability is the key. From the Inland Rules:
: § 2003. Definitions (Rule 3)
: For the purpose of these Rules and this chapter, except where the context
: otherwise requires:
: ...
: (d) The term 'vessel engaged in fishing' means any vessel fishing with
: nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restricts
: maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with rolling
: lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict
: maneuverability;
: It's not commercial/non-commercial; if the apparatus does not restrict the
: vessel's ability it is not a 'vessel engaged in fishing' under the rules.
Right; it isn't whether maneuvering would spoil the fishing or lose
some equipment (you have to make up your own mind where it's safe
to fish) but whether the equipment laid out PHYSICALLY!! prevents
the boat from maneuvering. If the boat COULD get out of the way of
Mad Max in a homicidal rage at the wheel of the Exxon Valdez, then
it is OBLIGATED to get out of the way of boats higher in the
stand-on hierarchy.
But as several posters have pointed out, it's easy enough to
change course early enough (to demonstrate that no danger of
collision exists) and let the other guy keep trolling on
his chosen course.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
...I studied with diligence Neptune's laws,
and these laws I tried to obey... <Joshua Slocum>
John F. Hughes
>In <45198d$l...@redstone.interpath.net>, d...@cmsnet.com (David King) writes:
>>Having said that, PWCs are relatively cheap, and can be rented with almost
>>no qualification other than a credit card. [...]
> I wouldn't call a craft that can cost up to $8000 cheap.
> The average sit down costs around $5000-$6500
I would call that "relatively cheap," which is what the original poster
did -- relative to the costs of most other forms of boats, especially
power boats. And I'd not have posted it to rec.boats.cruising, since it's
unrelated to the charter-topics of that group.
-John Hughes
Eric Aupperlee
and these are also the majority of the boats I encounter on the water.
(Relative is in the eye of the beholder...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Aupperlee
"Fire me, boy !"
*These statements are mine* -- The Human Bullet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Thrasher
California. At the risk of being pedantic, a few modifications to the
"sailboats uber alles" rule.
The Collision Regulations (ColRegs) award right of way based upon degrees
of maneuverability. A sailing vessel is actually rather low on the
hierarchy, with right of way only over motor vessels and not always then.
Vessels with greater right of way (and lesser maneuverability) include
those constrained by draft, restricted in ability to maneuver, and not
under command.
Surprisingly, a vessel under sail doesn't have right of way over a vessel
under power when overtaking. Again, the rationale is that the faster
vessel has greater maneuverability.
I have yet to figure out who has right of way when a row boat and a
sailboat are in risk of collision. At that speed, collisions may be
harmless. (Note the tongue buried deeply in cheek.)
--
Charles Thrasher "...There is nothing but shines,
a010...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us 'though it shine darkly..."
Dan Ball
>
>From what I have seen here, sail boaters dont like power boaters,
>commercial operators dont think anyone but them have a right to use the
>water, waterskiiers hate anyone disturbing the glass, outboard operators
>hate jet boat operators, etc, etc, etc.
>The list goes on and the divisiveness is really getting rediculous.
>
Amen!!!!!! Can't we all lighten up a bit and act like we actually LIKE
boating and boaters? This is beginning to look like a newsgroup for
wannabe maritime lawyers.
Brian Smith
: However, if the vessel in question is adrift because of some
: "exceptional circumstance" (steering failure, engine breakdown, out of
: gas, etc) that prevents her from keeping out of the way of other vessels,
: she is considered "not under command" and always has the right of way --
: unless she is overtaking another vessel, which seems quite unlikely to me.
: Vessels not under command must display two red lights, one over the other
: at night, and during the day two black balls, one over the other to
: indicate their status.
This has nothing to do with the rules in question, but it has just reminded me
of my Fireballing days--we had a cruiser owner in the club who used to drift
around on the starting line yelling "Not in control", as if that somehow gave
him the right of way. Funny thing is that others used to give way to him.
(My wife didn't--once when she was racing a Dabchick she told him to get the
"hell out of it" because she was on starboard. She wasn't, but he did not
seem to know the difference because he did keep clear :-)
Once I talked to him about his strange practice and discovered that he was
quite convinced that he could get rights that way. Actually, he was confusing
his "not in control" with "not under command" and for him they were the same
thing.
Now back to the regular topic...
B.S!
Andy Champ
: I have yet to figure out who has right of way when a row boat and a
: harmless. (Note the tongue buried deeply in cheek.)
We have a rowing club on our lake occasionally.... if we go out, they come
in, a freeboard of 6 ins doesn't go well with planing dinghies...
however I belive a rowboat counts as a powered vessel.
Andy
Tiltrider1
not give you right away over Vessels unter VTS Authority.
Dave Tiltrider
Seattle, Wa
RECARTER
Jim Maynard
>From: RECARTER <RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>
>Subject: Re: Drunken Sailors...
>Date: 19 Oct 1995 16:07:18 GMT
>s...@gate.net (Steve Weingart) wrote:
>>In article <45m5c8$b...@news.sanders.lockheed.com>,
>> RECARTER <RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
>>>If my memory serves me well, sailboats do indeed have right-of-way in a
>>>channel over a vessel that are constrained by their draft, according to
>>>the inland rules of the road (where else would a channel be?). This
>>>would include a freighter. Of course, if the freighter can't turn, he
>>>won't, so this is not one of those times to press your right-of-way. If
>>>there were a collision, the freighter may try and state that he was
>>>restricted in his ability to maneuver. He would need to show that he
>>>couldn't stop or turn.
>>
>>Sailboats do not have right of way over commercial fishing vessels engaged in
>>fishing
>I didn't say they did
>>or vessels constrained by draft or manuverability.
>Yes, they do according to the inland rules
Sorry, Steve, the classification of "vessel constrained by her draft"
is omitted from the U.S. Inland Rules.
The Inland Rules do, like the International Rules, have "vessels
restricted in maneuverability," which are defined (in Rule 3) to be
vessels that by the nature of their work are restricted in ability to
maneuver.
Consult Rules 18 and 9. Rules 18, the "pecking order rule" gives sailboats
a higher place on the pecking order than power-driven, but it applies only
"where Rules 9, 10, and 13 do not otherwise require." Rule 9(b) requires
that vessels shorter than 20m, and sailing vessels regardless of their
length, must avoid impeding the passage of a vessel that is confined to
a channel -as a freighter in a channel would be. Rule 8(f) makes it
plain that a vessel that is required to avoid impeding the passage of another
vessel is not relieved of that requirement when risk of collision exists.
It's not just a matter of it being unwise for a sailing vessel to
press her "pecking order" (Rule 18) privileges over large vessels in
channels. She DOES NOT HAVE that Rule 18 privilege when Rule 9 requires
her to avoid impeding the passage of large vessels confined to channels.
Jim Maynard, K7KK -- Salem, Oregon, USA
jmay...@teleport.com (Home), iim...@iim.ups.com (Work)
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout...." (COLREGS Rule 5)
Martin Searle
RECARTER <RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
>If my memory serves me well, sailboats do indeed have right-of-way in a
>channel over a vessel that are constrained by their draft, according to
>the inland rules of the road (where else would a channel be?). This
>would include a freighter. Of course, if the freighter can't turn, he
>won't, so this is not one of those times to press your right-of-way. If
>there were a collision, the freighter may try and state that he was
>restricted in his ability to maneuver. He would need to show that he
>couldn't stop or turn.
>
Hi,
I used to sail a boat in a narrow estuary (Sheerness in Kent at the
confluence of three rivers : Thames,Medway and Swale), and I had to give
way to all sorts of large cargo ships, from channel ferries to Container
ships. The important thing to note is that even when they are overtaking
you they have right of way, because they are navigating a narrow shipping
channel and quite frankly you aren't, because your boat only draws 6 or 8
feet whilst their's may draw anything upto 20 feet. Plus also you have to
remember that such ships are not very manoeverable and take a large amount
of distance to stop, thus keeping clear is a good way to stay alive. Plus
also you in a small sailboat is liable to be run over and guess what they
won't know they've done it ;-), a thirty foot yacht is no match for a
20,000 tonne container ship. I sailed a small 14ft dinghy there, and had
no motor to drive off if I got into difficulty, and once vividly remember
being stuck with no wind and a massive container ship approaching, it was
a case of paddle like crazy to get to the other side of the river away
from the docks !, it passed about 40feet away, a little too close IMHO.
By the way the above is a valid legally since a vessel constrained to a
narrow channel has priority over sailing vessels and everything but
moored vessels. It's an unwritten rule that the more manoeverable a
vessel is it should be that one that gives way to the less manoeverable one.
On the open sea, I guess that you should keep well clear of any large
commercial ship due to it's slow manoevering speed.
Martin Searle
Jon Klapper
channel. Nobody was seriously injured thankfully. The tug pilot was held responsible. (It appears that he did it purposfully) This close
call has resulted in a new respect between sailors and commercial (tug, water taxi, tour boats) vessels. We are painfully polite to
each other. Its quite nice.
Then there are those few idiot power boaters who thing that $100K gives them the right to act like fools. I have been told to get the
hell out of the way because I shouldn,t have my sails up in the harbor (even though there is no motor on my boat), I am in the
channel (no channel exists inside Fort McHenry), stop fooling around by zig zagging (tacking) or just get the hell out of the way
because my boat is bigger than yours.
Some day we will have licensing for pleasure craft. I can't wait. It may not be a guarantee that everyone will respect right of way rules
(witness our urban streets) but at least they will know what fools they are.
We once tried to report a particularly obnoxious power boater for almost running us down. Couldn't even get the marine police to
take our report. Think I'll stick to weekday sailing. Its much quieter.
Silverback
: In article <45m5c8$b...@news.sanders.lockheed.com>,
: RECARTER <RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
: >If my memory serves me well, sailboats do indeed have right-of-way in a
: >channel over a vessel that are constrained by their draft, according to
: >the inland rules of the road (where else would a channel be?). This
: >would include a freighter. Of course, if the freighter can't turn, he
: >won't, so this is not one of those times to press your right-of-way. If
: >there were a collision, the freighter may try and state that he was
: >restricted in his ability to maneuver. He would need to show that he
: >couldn't stop or turn.
As a licensed master I will tell you that your memory does not serve you
correctly.
Rule 9 lists a number of special provisions which apply to vessels in
narrow channels or fairways.
The pertinent one being: Vessels of less than 20 meters in length, or
sailboats shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can safely
navigate only within the channel or fairway.
Also a narrow channel or faiway can be located in any waters, not just
inland.
Also remember that most US documented vessels 65 feet of greater are
Inspected, which means that they must be operated by licensed personnel.
Which means that the person conning the vessel is most likely a licensed
mate or master. The point being that a licensed mate or master navigates
for a living, and probably knows the rules of the road better than most
recreational boaters.
: Hi,
RECARTER
Bob Early
//In article <45m5c8$b...@news.sanders.lockheed.com>,
//RECARTER <RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
//>If my memory serves me well, sailboats do indeed have right-of-way
in a
//>channel over a vessel that are constrained by their draft,
according to
//>the inland rules of the road (where else would a channel be?).
This
//>would include a freighter. Of course, if the freighter can't turn,
he
//>won't, so this is not one of those times to press your
right-of-way. If
//>there were a collision, the freighter may try and state that he was
//>restricted in his ability to maneuver. He would need to show that
he
//>couldn't stop or turn.
//>
//[snip]
//feet whilst their's may draw anything upto 20 feet. Plus also you
have to
//remember that such ships are not very manoeverable and take a large
amount
//of distance to stop, thus keeping clear is a good way to stay alive.
Plus
//also you in a small sailboat is liable to be run over and guess what
they
//won't know they've done it ;-), a thirty foot yacht is no match for
a
//20,000 tonne container ship. I sailed a small 14ft dinghy there, and
had
[more off the topic].
There is a fantastic 'scale of the problem' published in SAIL
magazine, I think in December (front cover) showing a sailboat,
perhaps a 30' whatever, and in the background bearing up the shipping
lane something of the size of an Ocean Going 6 deck ferry, like the
'Prince of Wales' or 'Bay of Fundy' for those familiar with the US NE
Newfoundland ferries out of what was Bar Harbor, Maine.
It could be argued maybe the photo was taken by a long range camera
scope, but in the full picture inside the cover, it appeared like a
1/4 mile separation. Like, even if that ship did turn, I *personally*
would not want to be near that ships props or rudder!
Perhaps those sailors like warm brown pants?
/Bob .. still dreaming ..
John Carpenter
I sail and am glad to have it when I do, but the rule actually states
that the vessel least able to manouver has the right of way. A vessel
restricted by its draft has the right of way as does a commercial
fisherman with his nets or lines out. A sailboat with his motor running,
whether or not sails are up, is no different that any other motorboat.
Common sense and courtesy go a long way on the water. Don't press your
luck with a vessel many times your size. Being right won't keep you alive.
James Norman
Jim Maynard
quoted M.A.S...@ukc.ac.uk (Martin Searle),
who quoted RECARTER <RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>:
>If my memory serves me well, sailboats do indeed have right-of-way
>in a channel over a vessel that are constrained by their draft,
>according to the inland rules of the road (where else would a
>channel be?). This would include a freighter. Of course,
>if the freighter can't turn, he won't, so this is not one of those
>times to press your right-of-way. If there were a collision, the
>freighter may try and state that he was restricted in his ability
>to maneuver. He would need to show that he couldn't stop or turn.
Whoever originally said this (RECARTER, according to Bob Early's
posting) is sadly misinformed about the navigation rules.
1. The term "vessel constrained by her draft" exists only in
the international COLREGS (IRPCS), not in the U.S. Inland
Rules. Compare Rule 3(h) of the International Rules (which
defines "vessel constrained by her draft") with Rule 3 of
the U.S. Inland Rules, where International Rule 3(h) is
omitted and international rules 3(i) to 3(l) are renumbered
as Inland Rules 3(h) to 3(k), respectively.
2. Rule 18(d)(i) of the International Rules explicitly states that
"Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel
restricted in her ability to maneuvre sall, if the circumstances
of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel
constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28."
So sailing vessels do NOT have right of way over vessels
constrained by their draft.
3. Not just any freighter is a vessel constrained by her draft.
4. In narrow channels, Rule 9 applies. (The pecking order rule,
Rule 18, begins by stating that Rules 9, 10, and 13 take
priority over Rule 18.) And Rule 9(b) states that "A vessel
of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate
only within a narrow channel or fairway."
Jim Maynard
See the definition of a "vessel constrained by her draft," in
International Rule 3(h).
4. In narrow channels, Rule 9 applies. (The pecking order rule,
Rule 18, begins by stating that Rules 9, 10, and 13 take
priority over Rule 18.) And Rule 9(b) states that "A vessel
of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate
only within a narrow channel or fairway."
So sailing vessels do NOT have right of way over freighters
in narrow channels.
5. RECARTER says, "If there were a collision the freighter may
try and state that he was restricted in his ability to
maneuver. He would need to show that he couldn't stop or
turn."
Again, Rule 3 has a definition of "restricted in
ability to maneuver." It includes the requirement that the
restriction in maneuverability be caused by the nature of
the vessel's work. Also, the privilege of claiming restricted
in maneuverability status for the purposes of the pecking order
(Rule 18) carries with it the obligation (under Rule 27) to
show the proper lights (by night or fog) or dayshapes (by day).
The applicable rule here is Rule 9(b), quoted above.
Paul Kamen
Debates about racing rules come up all the time over in rec.boats.racing,
and one thing that's made a big improvement in the signal/noise ratio is
the availability of an ascii version of the racing rules to seach and
download.
Do you have the COLREGS in electronic form? Anyone have pointers to where
we could all get our own copies?
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/user/pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
RECARTER
replied to a posting using colregs as amunition. He attempted to prove
that sailboaters don't know the rules of the road. I don't remember the
exact details of the thread. My posting was placed because I found his
counter to be annoying. Vessels constrained by draft do not have the
right of way over sailing vessels under the inland rules of the road, nor
do vessels under 20m have to give right of way to vessels over 20m.
READ THE RULES AGAIN. In particular, read the definitions in the front
of the colregs.
If the rules intended to give right of way to vessels over 20m they would
have been worded "vessels under 20m shall keep clear of".
If you are under 20m, you have the right of way so long as you don't
prevent a vessel over 20m from using the channel. As my original
posting, and my other replies have indicated, I don't expect a freighter
captain to know the rules of the road this well. Even if he does, he may
not adhere to them, so don't push it.
Note: If you have the right of way, you are legaly bound to hold course
until there is risk of collision. Right of way is also a burden.
t.r.mcloughlin
>
> Thanx for quoting chapter and verse on this.[snip]
> Do you have the COLREGS in electronic form? Anyone have pointers to where
> we could all get our own copies?
I haven't yet found a copy of the International Rules online, but the
Inland Rules are part of the United States Code (Title 33, Chapter 34)
and can be found at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/ch34.html
You'll find everything from definitions of "vessel" and "sailing vessel"
and "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver", to interesting rules
like this one (Rule 6):
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that
she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision
and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions.
Enjoy.
trm
Bill C.
I am a newcomer to sailing and this newsgroup. During my training it was
explained that sailboats are placed high on the "pecking order" because
they are more restricted in their ability to maneuver than most other
vessels. Some other vessels may be equally or more restricted. When
viewed in that light it seems to make more sense and we can see that a
sailboat does not necessarily have right of way in every situation.
I also like the idea I have seen in numerous posting.... we could be dead
right.
Bill
t.r.mcloughlin
confusing. I think the point is that under certain conditions, a sailing
or <20m vessel in a channel may have the same status as a bigger ship,
and under other condition, a sailing vessel loses her special status.
RECARTER says:
[snip]
> If the rules intended to give right of way to vessels over 20m they would
> have been worded "vessels under 20m shall keep clear of".
>
> If you are under 20m, you have the right of way so long as you don't
> prevent a vessel over 20m from using the channel. As my original[snip]
> Jim Maynard says:[snip]
"A vessel
> > of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall
> > not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate
> > only within a narrow channel or fairway."
> >
> > So sailing vessels do NOT have right of way over freighters
> > in narrow channels.
Let's set up a few scenarios and see what to do:
Situation 1:
Narrow channel {
East/West centerline
controling depth = 30 ft;
depth outside channel = 5 ft.
width = 2 freighters can pass; }
Freighter 1 {
Heading West;
10 knots;
Keeping close to starboard of channel (North side);
Draft 20 ft; }
Freighter 2 {
Heading East;
10 knots;
Keeping close to starboard of channel (South side).
Draft 20 ft; }
Problem Vessel <20m {
Heading East;
5 knots;
Keeping close to starboard of channel (South side).
Draft 6 ft; }
Picture {
5 5 5 5 5 5 N
30 <-F1-| 30 W + E
30 |-F2-> |-PV-> 30 S
5 5 5 5 5 5
}
What should the Problem Vessel do? Is she impeding the passage of
the freighters?
My answer: Because she can only navigate in the narrow channel,
her status is the same as the big boys. The rules can
not compell her to go aground or play freighter sandwich.
Overtaking rules apply. And it wouldn't matter if she were
motoring or sailing.
Situation 2:
Change:
Problem Vessel's Draft is now 2 ft.
What should the Problem Vessel do? Is she impeding the passage of
the freighters?
My answer: Because she can operate outside the channel, she must move
to starboard or she impedes the passage of the freighters.
And it wouldn't matter if she were motoring or sailing.
Situation 3:
Change:
Problem Vessel <20m {
Heading North;
5 knots, sailing;
Crossing channel
Draft 2 ft; }
Picture {
5 5 5 5 5 5 N
30 <-F1-| 30 W + E
30 /\ 30 S
30 PV 30
30 -- 30
30 |-F2-> 30
5 5 5 5 5 5
}
What should the Problem Vessel do? Is she impeding the passage of
the freighters?
My answer: Eventhough she is sailing, she will impede the passage of
the freighter on her current course. She is required to
change her course to keep clear of both freighters. The
freighters have the right to use the channel without having
to avoid small boat traffic.
Comments?
trm
Colin...@barclays.co.uk
: This question of {vessel <20m + channel + impede passage} can be
: or <20m vessel in a channel may have the same status as a bigger ship,
: and under other condition, a sailing vessel loses her special status.
: RECARTER says:
: [snip]
: > If the rules intended to give right of way to vessels over 20m they would
: > have been worded "vessels under 20m shall keep clear of".
: >
: > If you are under 20m, you have the right of way so long as you don't
: > prevent a vessel over 20m from using the channel. As my original[snip]
What is this `right-of-way'. As far as I remember the terms used in the
IRPCS are `stand-on' and `give-way', nowhere is the term right-of-way used.
--
Colin Walls |
Colin...@barclays.co.uk (work)| Die Tat ist alles,
Co...@murorum.demon.co.uk (home) | nichts der Ruhm.
Tel: 01565-614531 |
t.r.mcloughlin
>
> What is this `right-of-way'. As far as I remember the terms used in the
> IRPCS are `stand-on' and `give-way', nowhere is the term right-of-way used.
(right-of-way) = the opposite of (keep-out-of-the-way)
And as to where these terms actually appear in the Rules, I don't have
the IRPCS (COLREGS) handy, but the US Inland Rules can be found at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/ch34.html
I did a little searching: the terms 'stand-on', 'give-way', and
'right-of-way' all appear in the rules, but not too often:
The term 'right-of-way' only appears in 2 rules:
§ 2009. Narrow channels (Rule 9).
§ 2014. Head-on situation (Rule 14).
in this context:
.... a power-driven vessel operating in narrow channels or
fairways on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters
specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound
with a following current shall have the right-of-way over
an upbound vessel....
The terms 'stand-on' and 'give-way' appear only in 2 rules:
§ 2016. Action by give-way vessel (Rule 16).
§ 2017. Action by stand-on vessel (Rule 17).
The terms are *not* defined [in § 2003. Definitions (Rule 3)].
Rules 16 and 17 imply that the give-way vessel is the
one which "... is directed to keep out of the way of another
vessel...", and the stand-on vessel is the one that is expected
"...to keep course and speed...".
What terms do the rules use? The rules identify the vessel that shall
"... keep out of the way of ..." another vessel. This phrase is used
in 7 rules:
§ 2003. Definitions (Rule 3).
§ 2012. Sailing vessels (Rule 12).
§ 2013. Overtaking (Rule 13).
§ 2015. Crossing situation (Rule 15).
§ 2016. Action by give-way vessel (Rule 16).
§ 2017. Action by stand-on vessel (Rule 17).
§ 2018. Responsibilities between vessels (Rule 18).
[pecking order rule]
I guess people use 'right-of-way' vessel because it's easier than
'keep-out-of-the-way' vessel.
trm
mark johnson
RECA...@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com "RECARTER" writes:
> seam...@aol.com (Sea Money) wrote:
> >I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ORIGINAL POSTING BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE QUESTION HERE
> >SEEMS TO BE WHO HAS RIGHT OF WAY A SAIL BOAT OR A FREIGHTER? MY RULE TO
> >SAIL BY IS THE LAW OF GROSS TONNAGE. HE WHO IS BIGGER HAS RIGHT OF WAY!
>
> Not a good idea. You should really know who has right-of-way. If you
> do, you are legally obliged to hold course until there is danger of
> collision.
>
> I always yield my right of way to large commercial traffic, but I do it
> knowing that I have right-of-way, and I do it early enough to aviod
> confusion.
>
>
The point of knowing and obeying the Right-of-Way, is that there
are two boats knowing what the is going to do, rather than one
who is doing his own thing and the other, wondering whats going to
happen next.
As said early action is needed, and avoiding action should be
obvious, ie a 10 degree change of course is not really
good enough as the other ship/boat has to see that you are making
a change of course.
A video by the RYA has a quote in it saying 'wood gives way to plastic,
plastic gives way to steel'.
regards
--
mark johnson
RECARTER
This might have something to do with the fact that the inland rules are
particular to the US. I don't know who publishes your version of the
international rules, so they may not be worded exactly the same.
I'm not sure of the exact quote, but it is something like this:
The US and Brittan are two countries separated by a common language.
Rich Carter
Colin...@barclays.co.uk wrote:
>t.r.mcloughlin (post...@no.email.please) wrote:
>: This question of {vessel <20m + channel + impede passage} can be
>: confusing. I think the point is that under certain conditions, a sailing
>: or <20m vessel in a channel may have the same status as a bigger ship,
>: and under other condition, a sailing vessel loses her special status.
>
>: RECARTER says:
>: [snip]
>: > If the rules intended to give right of way to vessels over 20m they would
>: > have been worded "vessels under 20m shall keep clear of".
>: >
>: > If you are under 20m, you have the right of way so long as you don't
>: > prevent a vessel over 20m from using the channel. As my original[snip]
>
>What is this `right-of-way'. As far as I remember the terms used in the
>IRPCS are `stand-on' and `give-way', nowhere is the term right-of-way used.
>
John Worthington
(Laurence Mermonstein) wrote:
> Just saw yr ltr and not original. How do you have
> right of way over a commercia freighter?
> Working ships have right of way over pleasure ships.
> The basic parameters for right of way is most manuverable
> has to give way, thus power has to give way to sail in
> most cases, but a commercial freighter has right of way
> over sail. When it takes you 1/2 mile to stop and a 1/4
> mile to turn you pretty much have right of way.
>
> Larry M
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the COLREGS. While I agree that as a practical
matter of course, I get out the way of freighters, your statement is
false.
There is nothing in the COLREGS that says that a working ship has the
right of way over a pleasure ship.
jw