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

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

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

Finally we're getting to the heart of it You're admitting that I'm right, but claiming
that your interpretation of the rules makes more sense. I think you should forward your
thoughts to the Coast Guard.

The claim you're making is that when they say "all vessels" they really mean "all vessels
that are moving too fast." However, they don't say "reduce to a safer speed," the say
"shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can be held on course." They clearly
say exactly what I've been saying; clearly refute exactly what you're claiming.

You also make the bizarre claim that powerboats must avoid sailboats that the re unable to
see. The sailboat must sound its signal every 2 minutes. At 8 knots, the sailboat
travels 1600 feet. By what magical method does the powerboat avoid a sailboat that could
be 1/4 mile away, or could be dead ahead at 50 feet?

Your strongest argument is the absurd claim that they didn't really mean "All vessels
....shall reduce speed" because some vessels are already stopped. You know that's a stupid
argument, but its the best you've got. You lost this one Neal, big time. I got my
quarterly rules fix, and you come out looking like a total buffoon! Just hope the CG
isn't reading 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
news

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

Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/28/2003 15:58 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


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

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

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.

Semi right....mostly wrong

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.

You have no valid 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

Wrong



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.

Wrong

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.

Never heard of narrow channels and safety fairways, I see



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.

As Jeff said....stupid


The same goes for a sailboat. There is no way a sailboat can
reduce speed to zero.

not too good a sailor, are you?

Even if it lets the sails shake, rattle and
roll it still will be making some way either forwards, backwards
or sideways,

much like a motor vessel

furthermore it will not be operating at a safe speed
as required.

wrong


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.

stupid AND wrong



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.

Show us where these exceptions are stated .... include legal precedence



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.

Wrong


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.

Wrong....typically

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 .

EG Shen's reading and as you can see, having a good laugh

Must I remind you I am STILL a Captain in good standing.

ROFLMAO

Maybe you should check with your friend at the office
again.

Have a nice evening, friend.

S.Simon

Shen

Now Shen44 is also reduced to name calling. Shen44,
like his buddy Jeff has admitted he cannot respond
to facts and valid arguments so he resorts to a child's
game. I'm glad you are retired so you cannot run
down any more sailboats because you would
rather call somebody stupid than learn the Rules
as they apply to a sailboat. To do this you would
have to actually sail a sailboat which is something
you probably never have done. One who speaks
through ignorance is often wrong.




"Shen44" wrote in message ...

As Jeff said....stupid

not too good a sailor, are you?

stupid AND wrong