On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.

Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

Going back to the original question posed by Ellen: A large sport
fisherman is on a plane (I assume that means 20+ knots) headed towards
a 17 foot low speed sailboat. You claimed we can't tell what type of
situation it really was and that more information is needed saying it
'Always reverts to "least maneuverable vessel"' and further stated
that we have to know if a vessel was "channel bound." I still have
trouble with this: how do you (or really, the person on the sailboat)
even assess the maneuverability of a planing sport fisherman?


I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?
If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.


If this truly was narrow channel situation, planing at 25 knots does
not seem very prudent. And even in this situation, the sailboat is
still the "stand-on" vessel, though it may be obligated "not to
impede," in other words, give the "channel bound" vessel the space to
get around. The rules provide plenty of guidance in this situation
(whatever it really was); you don't have to get into a debate over
which vessel is more maneuverable.

Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.