otnmbrd wrote:
Interesting points, and an obvious reason not to think on too narrow a
plain, as does our friend Neal

Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, you state the common argument. However, there is nothing that
says that a NUC is
completely out of control, nor is there anything that says that a RAM
is only slightly
restricted.


It does state that a NUC is "unable" This is one that I think may
require an individual "case" from the courts to unravel, as it's not
necessarily "cut and dried".


Several years ago the new Boston Harbor Tunnel was lowered in 300 foot
sections to the
bottom of a 100 foot trench, and placed within inches of the pervious
section. The
vessels doing this work were clearly RAMs, and during the final stages
would have been
completely unable to move without risking the lives of the divers below.


The possibility here, is to change from RAM to NUC to "tied to the
dock". At a point they were RAM, but at a point this may have changed.

Actually, in retrospect, they'd be hard pressed to ever be able to show
NUC .... but someone could BG say they were anchored at some point.
Main point being, that there are possibilities and as long as nothing
happened, no harm no foul, but if something did, this is one that would
have to settle in court.

A small twin

engine vessel, with limited power in one engine, might declare itself
a NUC because it
would have difficulty turning in one direction. In the case, the RAMs
have priority over
the NUC.


Would disagree with this. He would be limited in speed, but not
maneuverability, if he could use rudders and both engines at reduced
speed or astern, and would be just a motor boat with a problem, not NUC.

In either case, you still bring up an interesting point, and I don't
have a solid answer, for or against.

otn


http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/twt-bui.htm

I have been told that this issue has been formally raised a number of
times and the CG and
IMO have refused to clarify it any further than to say that the
vessels involved will have
to figure it out, the same way the two RAMs or two NUCs would have to
do their best to
resolve the situation.



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


Jeff Morris wrote:


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a
NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says
that.


I think that although you are technically correct, you will find the
courts will find otherwise.
A NUC is unable to maneuver, while a RAM is "only" restricted in it's
ability to maneuver ....both vessels are deemed unable to "keep out of
the way".
Also, if you note rule 18, NUC always precedes RAM in the list which is
an indication of it's status.

otn