A very clever misreading of what Farwell's is saying. First of all, this is the forth
time I posted that - are you saying this is the first time you read it? I have said over
and over that this concisely states my position - I can only assume that you are really
capitulating totally and in full agreement with me.

However ...

The essential point we have discussed is not that the powerboat must approach the
"hampered vessel" with extra caution - that is obviously so and we stated that many times.

The question is whether the "hampered vessel" becomes "standon." You have stated many
times that this is so - that a sailboat is allowed, even required to continue at full
speed - even hull regardless of the requirements of rule 18. Farwell's in no way supports
this claim. You conveniently ignore the statement: "Strictly, they must behave themselves
the same as any other vessel." This is the point where your argument falls apart. The
hampered vessel is specifically NOT a "standon" vessel; they are under the same
requirement to slow down as the powerboat.

There is absolutely nothing in Farwell's that supports your claim. Indeed there are
significant sections that discuss the general intent and wording of the rules. They are
quite explicit in claiming that the precise wording must be followed For instance "To
avoid liability for a collision, the requirements MUST be obeyed." They go on to describe
the limited grounds on which departure is permitted: to avoid imminent collision, and
cases where it made no difference in the outcome.

They are also quite emphatic that the rules apply equally to all vessels, of all type, all
sizes, all ownership. This is one of the fundamental principals of the rules. Your claim
that Rule 19 does not apply to sailboats because powerboats cause more accidents is
ludicrous.

Much of the book is devoted to showing how the rules were adjusted over the years, using
very precise wording so that misunderstandings are minimized. Your claim that Farwell's
wording "there is no such explicit status" somehow proves that the status therefore exists
makes a mockery of this. In fact, you went on to simply shift the words around to give
them a different meaning. Farwell did not say "the status is not stated as explicitly,"
he said there "is no such explicit status." You are admitted that the rules don't what
you've been claiming; now you're just saying that they must mean it because you want it so
badly.

Once again you have simply claimed that because a boat should exercise extra caution, a
pecking order , along with standon and giveway status is implied. But you still haven't
presented anything that supports that claim.

And your final statements prove you don't understand the rules at all. No where does it
say "motor vessel must not impede ... vessels higher on the pecking order." The phrase
"shall not impede" has special meaning and is used in very precise contexts. In
particular, smaller vessel are required not to impeded larger vessels in narrow channels
and TSS's. It is also used in similar manner wrt CBD's. The rule that you are referring
to is actually saying, amongst other things, that the vessel that shall not be impeded may
still have giveway obligations. Again, misusing this rule cast serious doubts on
whether you actually took the test as you claim.


Sorry Neal, you still have a losing position.


"Simple Simon" wrote

Thank you Jeff for proving I am right. Though this Farwell
is no ultimate authority in my opinion he does speak the truth
when he says.

"While the rules for vessels in sight of one another give a pecking for give-way
status among hampered vessels, there is no such explicit status in restricted
visibility. Despite the provisions of unique signals for hampered vessels, Rule
19 - the conduct of vessels in restricted visibility - affords them no specific
rights. Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as any other vessel, but
clearly the distinctive signals for them have the obvious purposes of causing
ordinary vessels to approach them with greater caution"

He says there is no such 'explicit' status in restricted visibility.

The definition of explicit is 'clearly and precisely expressed'.

So, what Farwell is saying is "There is no such clearly and
precisely expressed pecking order in restricted visibility".

But, simply because it is not clearly and precisely expressed
does not mean it does not exist. On the contrary, saying it
in not AS CLEARLY AND PRECISELY EXPRESSED
implies that it IS EXPRESSED but less clearly and precisely.

Note that he does NOT state there is no pecking order at all.
He merely maintains that the pecking order in restricted visibility
is not as clearly and precisely expressed - meaning a pecking
order exists but is not as clearly delineated. The reason being
that the pecking order is basically broken down into two
main groups - motor boats vs. all other vessels above them
in the in sight pecking order combined into one big group of
vessels sounding the fog signal of one prolonged/two short
blasts.

This is exactly as I have maintained from the start when I
said there IS a pecking order in restricted visibility although
it is an abbreviated pecking order of motorboats giving
way to all vessels sounding the fog signal of one prolonged/
two short blasts.

Farwell backs me up when he says: "the distinctive signals
for them have the obvious purposes of causing ordinary
vessels to approach them with greater caution"

"Them" meaning all vessels sounding one prolonged/two
short blast fog signal.

So, since ordinary vessels (motor boats) must approach
with GREATER caution (sailboats, RAMS, NUCs, etc.) it
means motor boats are the burdened vessels. Burdened
vessels must give way. Give way means there is a pecking
order.

Furthermore it is stated in the Rules covering all conditions
of visibility that motor vessels must not impede and must
avoid a close quarters situation with those vessels above
them in the pecking order then it follows that motor vessels
are the give way vessel in ALL CONDITIONS OF VISIBILITY,
ONE INSTANCE OF WHICH IS RESTRICTED VISIBILITY.

You guys lose yet again.

S.Simon.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
And yet, when we look in the standard textbook on the topic, written by Annapolis
professors (both chairmen of the Navigation Department), it agrees completely with
what
Shen and I have been saying. OK, since you insist, we'll repeat it again:

From "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road," Naval Institute Press:

"While the rules for vessels in sight of one another give a pecking for give-way
status among hampered vessels, there is no such explicit status in restricted
visibility. Despite the provisions of unique signals for hampered vessels, Rule
19 - the conduct of vessels in restricted visibility - affords them no specific
rights. Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as any other vessel, but
clearly the distinctive signals for them have the obvious purposes of causing
ordinary vessels to approach them with greater caution"

Neal is now trying to tell us that these gentlemen are completely wrong, and he's
staking
his reputation as a letter carrier on it.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I have used the wording of the Rules to PROVE that there
is a pecking order in fog until I'm blue in the face yet you
stubborn, motorboat, collision causers refuse to see the
light. I no pressing need to continue to **** into the wind.

Your responses have proven to any sane man who reads
them that you are dangerously irresponsible and seek only
to hold onto your misconceptions and your powerboat
pride. Rather than see reason you would rather go on
killing and maiming.

Look at the statistics is you don't wish to believe the
facts I have presented until I'm weary of it. The statistics
are enough to prove that the fault lies with the motor
vessel 98 percent of the time. This means the motor
boat operater is at fault 98 percent of the time. Rather
than argue with someone who is your superior in
every way - IQ, knowledge, time at sea in a sailboat,
better scores on the written Master's license test,
superior college education (beats your GED every time)
etc. etc. etc. - you should just stop your stubborn
refusal to believe the facts and listen to the reason
and logic which I have presented probably a dozen
or more times.

But, noooooooo! You would rather continue to
go about in a mental fog in an advection fog and
continue to have collisions. But, try to remember
your actions speak louder than your lame words.

S.Simon

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...
LOL...Neal, you have never been able to show any logical proof, or legal
proof to back up your claims about situations in fog. In all honesty,
you've never even been able to use the wording of the rules, to show
justification for your views.
I especially find it interesting that you always conveniently disappear
or stop posting, whenever the subject of a powerdriven vessel (engaged
in towing) and a sailing vessel making the same signal, in fog, arises.
.... i.e. you are totally unable to verify, prove, explain, document,
etc. any of your self professed nonsense.
You keep spouting about your license (is it current?)....personally, all
your license has ever proved to me, is that a "license" is no guarantee
as to a person's ability or professionalism .... you possess neither.
I did not expect you to try or in any way be able, to answer Shen's
questions and "kicker" about the tug in fog ..... your experience level
(as has become even more obvious with your statement about visibility in
fog) is on the low end of the "totem pole" .... problem is .... your
abilities appear even lower.
The only purpose you serve, in discussing "Rules" questions, is to show
others how easily the "rules" can be misinterpreted and how not knowing
their meaning and/or intent can lead to possible serious problems, from
viewing your responses.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
I tried my best to clue that clueless pair in on the
facts of the matter when it comes to the practical
aspects of the Rules and how they apply to sailboats
but to no avail. I'm afraid trying to instruct Shen44 and
Jeff is like teaching a special education class for Down's
syndrome children. Their attention span is way to
short and their IQ is way too limited. They even
attempted to start a discussion of court cases
and we all know there isn't a judge in the world
who knows what sailing is all about. The bottom
line and unfortunate fact is motorboat Captains
like Shen44 and Jeff have a mentality that makes
it dangerous for them to operate large motor
boats. There is no telling how many small boats
they have run down because of their insistence
that might makes right.

What kind of a fool does it take to deny there
is a pecking order in a fog when there is one
signal for a motor vessel and another different
signal for sailboats, and those above sailboats
in the pecking order. The fact of the matter
is upon hearing one prolonged and two short
blasts a motor boat captain must assume the
worst. He must assume he is hearing the
signal of a NUC until more information becomes
available. Since a NUC, by definition has some
sort of mechanical or operational problem that
makes it impossible for it maneuver according
to the Rules the motor vessel operator knows
the Rules require him to avoid causing a close
quarters situation. In other words the motor
vessel must give way and that makes the
motor vessel the give way vessel. When there
is a give way vessel there is a pecking order.
End of sentence. Period. End of discussion.

I have stated the facts in the above paragraph
until I am blue in the typing fingers and the
dense duo cannot get it through their thick
skulls that they are wrong and I am right.

There comes a point when it becomes pointless
to continue a discussion with such morons and
dunderheads as Jeff and Shen44. Until and
unless I ever meet them in person where I
can pound some sense into their block heads
and kick their scrawny asses halfway across
the barroom they will have to remain stupid
and ignorant.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...

EG See you bailed out of the "Rules" thread, when things got too hard
on ya ..... alas, twas expected.....