A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
I'm not sure if you have some special spin on the phrase "legally made to", but if
your
refusal to start the engine when it was clearly appropriate caused an accident, you
could
be wholy liable.

Not so. Since an engine is NOT a requirement a working engine is also
not a requirement. All one need claim is the engine would not start and
one would be in the clear. There is no legal requirement to have a working
engine on a sailboat.


You're actually telling us that you don't have abide by the rules because you'll simply
perjure to avoid prosecution? I think we can see now how you aquired your "sea time"!

Fact 4) An auxiliary sailboat does not need to have installed
the lights for a motor vessel unless and until it
turns on the motor.

True. It also doesn't need lights during the day in good visibility. Running lights
are
not "required equipment," but their appropriate use is. What's the point?

The point is your statement about Bobsprit's boat needing lower
running lights in addition to any masthead tricolor he might install
is totally wrong.


Is that what this is all about? I was advising RB, taking into account the nature of his
boat and his sailing. He has already told us that he frequently powers back to his slip
at night; he clearly needs lower sidelights. To advise otherwise would be reprehensible.



Fact 5) Anybody who claims an auxiliary sailboat must have
the lights of a motor vessel in addition to the masthead
tricolor is clearly wrong considering the above facts.


"Must"? Clearly not. So what's the point? You're not required to have any lights.
But
failure to have them limits your options.

You are required to some sort of legal lights to
operate legally at night. Bobsprit does not need
to have lower running lights in addition to the
masthead tricolor as you stated in order for him
to operate at night. He can sail at night his whole
life with tricolor only and be legal.


Only if he never powers at night. He has told us that he frequently does.


It just so happens that this sound signal is also that of a NUC, RAM,
etc. This means that any motor vessel hearing the required signal
knows that according to the Rules it shall take action early and
adequately to avoid a close quarters situation.

Rule 19 doesn't differentiate between signals - ALL vessels must respond to ALL
signals!
Did you ever even read the rules?

Yes, and the way a motor vessel responds to the signal
of a saiboat, NUC, RAM etc. in restricted visibility
is to take action early and adequately to avoid a close
quarters situation.


That is the same way a sailboat responds to a powerboat.

The proper response of a sailboat upon hearing the fog signal
of a motor vessel is to maintain course and heading and slow
down or change course only if a danger of collision exists
because the motor vessel fails to take the appropriate action
stated above. In other words the sailboat stands on until
it becomes clear that continuing to do so will result in
a collision because the motor vessel did not follow the
Rules that apply to motor vessels.


You're doing a good job of stating how the rules apply for "vessels in sight of one
another."

However, in restricted visibility the rule is different. Your standin at the test
probably knew this, but since you have never read it: "Except where it has been
determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every vessel ... shall reduce her
speed"

Thus the presumption is that there is a risk of collision. Since hearing one signal is
not necessarily enough to determine the situation, it is generally appropriate for all
vessels to reduce speed. There is no mention of different categories of boats.



If a close quarters
situation eventuates it is solely the motor vessel's fault for not
fulfilling its obligations under the Rules. The sailboat has not
violated any Rule to cause the close quarters situation. The motor
vessel has.

If your point is that with the sail down the aux does not have to get out of the way
of
the powerboat, this is correct. However, if the situations were reversed, i.e. in the
fog: a powerboat stopped, and a sailboat at full speed, it now becomes the sailboat's
responsibility to avoid the powerboat.

This is totally incorrect. A motor vessel underway but not making way
is still obligated to stay clear of a sailboat and not cause a close quarters
situation. It has a motor and it must use that motor to keep clear.

Is this is why the rule says: "She shall if necessary take all her way off" ? So just how
much does a license cost nowadays?


The
only exception is if the motor vessel is higher in the pecking order than
the sailboat, i.e. NUC, RAM, etc. According to your silly statement any
motor vessel could stop in the path of a sailboat on purpose and it would
be the sailboat's responsibility to keep clear.

Rule 19 explicitly requires it: . What part of "She shall if necessary take all her way
off" do you not understand?

Wrong. The sailboat is
the stand-on vessel and must maintain course and speed. The motor vessel
must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters situation.

What pecking order? There's no pecking order in Restricted Visibility. Anyone who
actually passed the test would know this.

You have tried to claim
there is no pecking order in restricted vis. but there clearly is a
pecking order because the motor vessel knows when it hears the
sound signal of a sailboat, NUC, RAM etc. that a vessel is in the
area with which the motor vessel must avoid a close quarters situation.

The concept of "pecking order" implies a priority that the rules explicitly say does
not
exist. "ALL VESSELS ... MUST REDUCE SPEED" It is true that sounding the "other"
signal

You seem to ignore Rule 6 which talks about safe speed.

RULE 6

Safe Speed

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.


Reducing speed to zero for a sailboat is not operating at
a safe speed.

It is clear that there is no speed safe for you.


All vessels must reduce speed applies only to those vessels
having speed to reduce. A sailboat going along at two or three
knots in a fog does not fit the definition. It it reduces speed any
more than it will not be operating at a safe speed as required
by Rule 6


There may be such a specific case - but you might have to justify your actions in court.
Oh, I forgot, you souwl simply lie. That sure makes things easy for you, doesn't it?


A Coast Guard vessel tied up to and repairing an aid to navigation
is in the category of "all vessels" and you are trying to say it must
reduce speed? It can't reduce speed because it has no speed to reduce.

stupid.

The same goes for a sailboat. There is no way a sailboat can
reduce speed to zero. Even if it lets the sails shake, rattle and
roll it still will be making some way either forwards, backwards
or sideways, furthermore it will not be operating at a safe speed
as required.

equally stupid


Again you attempt to make a sailboat adhere to rules that are
meant only for motor vessels that can use their powerful
engines and thrusters to stop dead in the water.


Start at the beginning: Rule 1(a) "These rules apply to all vessels"

conveys additional information that indicates extra caution is needed; it does NOT
give a
vessel standon status.

I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to understand it but
when a motor vessel is required by the Rules to take
action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation with any vessel signaling it is a sailboat, NUC,
RAM in restricted visibility then that means by definition
that the motor vessel is the give-way vessel.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to this affect. On the contrary, the rules are
quite explicit that there is no concept of "standon" in restricted visibility.


Taking action
to avoid a close quarters situation is giving way. It doesn't
get any simpler than that.

There clearly IS a pecking order and hence there IS, by definition,
a stand-on vessel and a give-way vessel in restricted vis.

The fact that one vessel should exercise special caution doesn't make the other vessel
"standon."

I'm not talking about special caution. I am talking about
a motor vessels obligation to avoid a close quarters
situation with a sailboat, NUC, RAM, etc. in a fog


But the sailboat, NUC, RAM, etc. have the same responsibility in the fog.


Yes, it does make a pecking order. Taking action early
and adequately to avoid a close quarters situation is giving way.
Giving way means the vessel giving way is the give way vessel.


I achieved a higher score

Score on what? You never took the CG test. You lied on your sea service. You're a fraud,
Simp.

than you did because I understand the
Rules.

You never read the rules.

I know the expected answers but the expected answers
don't cover the above situations with a sailboat in a fog.

You should be ashamed for being so closed-minded that
you refuse to believe what is so evident.

I think you need a good flogging at the mast!


You must be happy the CG doesn't monitor this group. Oh, I forgot, the CG does monitor
this group. Good luck, Neal.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
I'm not sure if you have some special spin on the phrase "legally made to", but if
your
refusal to start the engine when it was clearly appropriate caused an accident, you
could
be wholy liable.

Not so. Since an engine is NOT a requirement a working engine is also
not a requirement. All one need claim is the engine would not start and
one would be in the clear. There is no legal requirement to have a working
engine on a sailboat.


You're actually telling us that you don't have abide by the rules because you'll simply
perjure to avoid prosecution? I think we can see now how you aquired your "sea time"!



The point is that whether one says the motor won't start
or the motor, indeed, won't start has the very same result.
You cannot legislate a working motor in a sailboat.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Fact 4) An auxiliary sailboat does not need to have installed
the lights for a motor vessel unless and until it
turns on the motor.

True. It also doesn't need lights during the day in good visibility. Running lights
are
not "required equipment," but their appropriate use is. What's the point?

The point is your statement about Bobsprit's boat needing lower
running lights in addition to any masthead tricolor he might install
is totally wrong.


Is that what this is all about? I was advising RB, taking into account the nature of his
boat and his sailing. He has already told us that he frequently powers back to his slip
at night; he clearly needs lower sidelights. To advise otherwise would be reprehensible.

Your advice was incomplete and wrong. Your wording
was wrong. The idea it conveyed was wrong. When
you tell somebody he must have lower running lights
in addition to the tricolor you need to include the qualifiers
and you did not include them. You made a blanket
generalization based on a motor boat bias.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 16:05
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44


Is this is why the rule says: "She shall if necessary take all her way
off" ? So just how
much does a license cost nowadays?

It does not say take all way off so you stop in the path
of the sailboat. First, the motor vessel is required to
take necessary action to avoid a close quarters situation.

Taking all way off is only necessary if the motor vessel
fails in its obligation to stay clear of the sailboat. To
further compound its violation of the Rules only an
idiot motor boat operator would come to a stop right
in the path of a sailboat.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Simple Simon wrote:
It just so happens that this sound signal is also that of a NUC, RAM,
etc. This means that any motor vessel hearing the required signal
knows that according to the Rules it shall take action early and
adequately to avoid a close quarters situation.

Rule 19 doesn't differentiate between signals - ALL vessels must respond to ALL
signals!
Did you ever even read the rules?

Yes, and the way a motor vessel responds to the signal
of a saiboat, NUC, RAM etc. in restricted visibility
is to take action early and adequately to avoid a close
quarters situation.


That is the same way a sailboat responds to a powerboat.

Wrong. A sailboat upon hearing the signal of a powerboat
knows the powerboat is mandated by the Rules to avoid
a close quarters situation. The sailboat knows the motor
boat is either going to slow down and stop or change
course. In either case the sailboat, if it does the same,
will only worsen the situation because it might well be
taking an action that will make matters worse and that
is prohibited in the Rules. What if the sailboat decides
to turn to the right and the motorboat has turned to the
left then chances of a collision would be greatly increased.

It is clear by the different sound signals that since the
motor vessel must take action to avoid a close quarters
situation that it is not necessary for the sailboat to do the
same. In a fog how's the sailboat to know what the
motorboat is doing if the sailboat is changing its course?



The proper response of a sailboat upon hearing the fog signal
of a motor vessel is to maintain course and heading and slow
down or change course only if a danger of collision exists
because the motor vessel fails to take the appropriate action
stated above. In other words the sailboat stands on until
it becomes clear that continuing to do so will result in
a collision because the motor vessel did not follow the
Rules that apply to motor vessels.


You're doing a good job of stating how the rules apply for "vessels in sight of one
another."

This is how it works in a fog as well.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
However, in restricted visibility the rule is different. Your standin at the test
probably knew this, but since you have never read it: "Except where it has been
determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every vessel ... shall reduce her
speed"


I already told you about a billion times that a sailboat
already is operating at a safe speed. Reducing speed
to a safe speed when one is already operating at a safe
speed is not possible.

Thus the presumption is that there is a risk of collision. Since hearing one signal is
not necessarily enough to determine the situation, it is generally appropriate for all
vessels to reduce speed. There is no mention of different categories of boats.

All vessels that are operating too fast for the condition
of restricted visibility must reduce their speed to a
safe speed. The only vessel that IS ABLE TO operate
at an unsafe speed is the motor vessel. This reduces
your argument to a pile of rubble.


The
only exception is if the motor vessel is higher in the pecking order than
the sailboat, i.e. NUC, RAM, etc. According to your silly statement any
motor vessel could stop in the path of a sailboat on purpose and it would
be the sailboat's responsibility to keep clear.

Rule 19 explicitly requires it: . What part of "She shall if necessary take all her way
off" do you not understand?

I understand it all and in the case of the sailboat it is not
"necessary because any decent sailboat can turn faster
than she can take all weigh off. How do you expect
a sailboat to stop her foward progress? Does your
sailboat have brakes or something? Again this
rule is for motorboats that can reverse their propeller
and take way off. A sailboat cannot do so so it
cannot be expected to do so.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...


What pecking order? There's no pecking order in Restricted Visibility. Anyone who
actually passed the test would know this.

You have tried to claim
there is no pecking order in restricted vis. but there clearly is a
pecking order because the motor vessel knows when it hears the
sound signal of a sailboat, NUC, RAM etc. that a vessel is in the
area with which the motor vessel must avoid a close quarters situation.

The concept of "pecking order" implies a priority that the rules explicitly say does
not
exist. "ALL VESSELS ... MUST REDUCE SPEED" It is true that sounding the "other"
signal

You seem to ignore Rule 6 which talks about safe speed.

RULE 6

Safe Speed

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.


Reducing speed to zero for a sailboat is not operating at
a safe speed.

It is clear that there is no speed safe for you.

It is also clear that you have no answer for my arguments.


All vessels must reduce speed applies only to those vessels
having speed to reduce. A sailboat going along at two or three
knots in a fog does not fit the definition. It it reduces speed any
more than it will not be operating at a safe speed as required
by Rule 6


There may be such a specific case - but you might have to justify your actions in court.
Oh, I forgot, you souwl simply lie. That sure makes things easy for you, doesn't it?

I don't need to lie. I need only to state the facts based
on my superior understanding of the position of a sailboat
with respect to the Rules. Never forget the Rules were
written primarily to control motor boat irresponsibility.

Sailboats hold a privileged position in most of the Rules.
About the only case where a sailboat must kowtow to
a motor boat is when a sailboat is overtaking and you
and I know that rarely, if ever, happens.



A Coast Guard vessel tied up to and repairing an aid to navigation
is in the category of "all vessels" and you are trying to say it must
reduce speed? It can't reduce speed because it has no speed to reduce.

stupid.

Not stupid. It is a case that refutes your insistence on 'all vessels' having
to reduce speed. It show that what the Rule really says is all vessels
that are speeding must reduce speed. The implication is so clear that
it is not stated because it would be redundant.


The same goes for a sailboat. There is no way a sailboat can
reduce speed to zero. Even if it lets the sails shake, rattle and
roll it still will be making some way either forwards, backwards
or sideways, furthermore it will not be operating at a safe speed
as required.

equally stupid

Not stupid. It shows how your insistence that a sailboat
must reduce speed to zero is not possible and not safe
and a violation of the requirement that it operate at a safe speed.


Again you attempt to make a sailboat adhere to rules that are
meant only for motor vessels that can use their powerful
engines and thrusters to stop dead in the water.


Start at the beginning: Rule 1(a) "These rules apply to all vessels"


We have been through that already. 'All vessels' includes that Coast
Guard vessel tied up to and doing work on an aid to navigation.
The rule literally states that that Coast Guard vessel must reduce
its speed to a safe speed and even stop if necessary. It simply does
not apply. It follows that 'all vessels' clearly does not mean all
vessels. There are exceptions. A sailboat is another such exception.


I'm sorry if you are too stubborn to understand it but
when a motor vessel is required by the Rules to take
action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation with any vessel signaling it is a sailboat, NUC,
RAM in restricted visibility then that means by definition
that the motor vessel is the give-way vessel.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to this affect. On the contrary, the rules are
quite explicit that there is no concept of "standon" in restricted visibility.

There is no written rule to that affect. You are correct there.
But, and it's a big but, the consequences of the Rules when
followed in their spirit and letter makes any sailboat, NUC, RAM
etc. a stand-on vessel by virtue of the fact that motor vessels
must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters
situation whenever it becomes aware that any vessel that sounds
a fog signal saying "Here I am, you know my status. My status
is you must avoid a close quarters situation with me because
I may not be able to do so." This mandates the motor boat
give way. Suddenly even if the Rules don't specifically state it,
you have a give way vessel and once you have a give way
vessel you have a pecking order. Believe it.

I'm on a roll. I only wish Shen44 could read these posts
and come to realize the limitations of his understanding
of the Rules as well .


Must I remind you I am STILL a Captain in good standing.
Maybe you should check with your friend at the office
again.

Have a nice evening, friend.

S.Simon

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

Your demonstrating extreme ignorance Simp. Why don't you go back to a persona with a
triple digit IQ and reading skill better than the forth grade?

You're actually claiming a sailboat doesn't have to turn on its engine to save a life,
because there's a possibility it won't start? What's the meaning of this?

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
I'm not sure if you have some special spin on the phrase "legally made to", but if
your
refusal to start the engine when it was clearly appropriate caused an accident,
you
could
be wholy liable.

Not so. Since an engine is NOT a requirement a working engine is also
not a requirement. All one need claim is the engine would not start and
one would be in the clear. There is no legal requirement to have a working
engine on a sailboat.


You're actually telling us that you don't have abide by the rules because you'll
simply
perjure to avoid prosecution? I think we can see now how you aquired your "sea time"!



The point is that whether one says the motor won't start
or the motor, indeed, won't start has the very same result.
You cannot legislate a working motor in a sailboat.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

Whatever. But your job was well done. Booby now believes his tricolor is legal for
powering.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Fact 4) An auxiliary sailboat does not need to have installed
the lights for a motor vessel unless and until it
turns on the motor.

True. It also doesn't need lights during the day in good visibility. Running
lights
are
not "required equipment," but their appropriate use is. What's the point?

The point is your statement about Bobsprit's boat needing lower
running lights in addition to any masthead tricolor he might install
is totally wrong.


Is that what this is all about? I was advising RB, taking into account the nature of
his
boat and his sailing. He has already told us that he frequently powers back to his
slip
at night; he clearly needs lower sidelights. To advise otherwise would be
reprehensible.

Your advice was incomplete and wrong. Your wording
was wrong. The idea it conveyed was wrong. When
you tell somebody he must have lower running lights
in addition to the tricolor you need to include the qualifiers
and you did not include them. You made a blanket
generalization based on a motor boat bias.

A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 16:05
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44


Is this is why the rule says: "She shall if necessary take all her way
off" ? So just how
much does a license cost nowadays?

It does not say take all way off so you stop in the path
of the sailboat. First, the motor vessel is required to
take necessary action to avoid a close quarters situation.


And just how is the powerboat supposed to do this in thick fog, Putz? The whole point,in
fact the letter of the law is that both boats "shall reduce her speed to the minimum at
which she can be kept on
course. She shall if necessary take all her way off and, in any event,
navigate with extreme caution until danger of collision is over."

I keep repeating the one rule that actually deals with fog, and keep ignoring it. Have
you ever read the rules?

Taking all way off is only necessary if the motor vessel
fails in its obligation to stay clear of the sailboat. To
further compound its violation of the Rules only an
idiot motor boat operator would come to a stop right
in the path of a sailboat.

Please read the rules before commenting further.