| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up
and he can't read any newsgroups. Simple Simon wrote: Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC. Sailing wise, sails up or down, he is incapable of maneuvering since he is becalmed. However, since he has an engine,(and assuming it's available to be used) he should be ready to turn off these lights and light himself as a powerdriven vessel, if the need arises and he is capable of immediately starting and using that engine, but he prefers to be a traditionalist and use sail only when possible. Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? A powerdriven vessel, underway (as long as the engine is capable of immediate maneuver) I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. See above What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon Will be interested in seeing this "trap" otn |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
I don't see any replies yet . . .
He he! I've got 'em on the run. I can see them now flipping thru the pages of the Rules, scratching their heads and muttering, "What's he up to? We gotta get this one right. He's already made us look bad on numerous occasions. We can't let him continue to make us look stupid. Etc. etc. Go ahead, gentlemen. Shake in your boots like Janet Reno on speed. I don't blame you one bit. S.Simon "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
EG.....look before you leap
Simple Simon wrote: I don't see any replies yet . . . He he! I've got 'em on the run. I can see them now flipping thru the pages of the Rules, scratching their heads and muttering, "What's he up to? We gotta get this one right. He's already made us look bad on numerous occasions. We can't let him continue to make us look stupid. Etc. etc. Go ahead, gentlemen. Shake in your boots like Janet Reno on speed. I don't blame you one bit. S.Simon "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
"otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up and he can't read any newsgroups. Simple Simon wrote: Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC. Not under command means some failure of mechanical systems that means the vessel cannot maneuver. Lack of wind is not such a circumstance. No, I think even Jeff and Shen44 would agree with me that NUC is not applicable here Sailing wise, sails up or down, he is incapable of maneuvering since he is becalmed. However, since he has an engine,(and assuming it's available to be used) he should be ready to turn off these lights and light himself as a powerdriven vessel, if the need arises and he is capable of immediately starting and using that engine, but he prefers to be a traditionalist and use sail only when possible. I would agree with you here. I recall there is a rule that in restricted vis. a vessel should have her engine ready for emergency use. I suppose it would be prudent and seamanlike to have it ready to go even if visibility was not resticted. Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? A powerdriven vessel, underway (as long as the engine is capable of immediate maneuver) I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. See above What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon Will be interested in seeing this "trap" otn You will see it when the jaws slam shut on your buddies. (If they give the wrong answers) Part of the trap is at least one of my opinions above is a ruse to lead them astray. S.Simon |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Thanks for your answer but I'm not letting Shen44 and
Jeff let you do their dirty work for them and be the fall guy for their being a little afraid to participate. I'll give them till tomorrow at about this time to get their acts together then I'll handle you all at the same time. Three motorboaters against one sailor is about even odds, don't you think? "otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up and he can't read any newsgroups. Simple Simon wrote: Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC. Sailing wise, sails up or down, he is incapable of maneuvering since he is becalmed. However, since he has an engine,(and assuming it's available to be used) he should be ready to turn off these lights and light himself as a powerdriven vessel, if the need arises and he is capable of immediately starting and using that engine, but he prefers to be a traditionalist and use sail only when possible. Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? A powerdriven vessel, underway (as long as the engine is capable of immediate maneuver) I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. See above What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon Will be interested in seeing this "trap" otn |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Simple Simon wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up and he can't read any newsgroups. Simple Simon wrote: Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC. Not under command means some failure of mechanical systems that means the vessel cannot maneuver. Lack of wind is not such a circumstance. No, I think even Jeff and Shen44 would agree with me that NUC is not applicable here Suggest you re-read what NUC means. Sailing wise, sails up or down, he is incapable of maneuvering since he is becalmed. However, since he has an engine,(and assuming it's available to be used) he should be ready to turn off these lights and light himself as a powerdriven vessel, if the need arises and he is capable of immediately starting and using that engine, but he prefers to be a traditionalist and use sail only when possible. I would agree with you here. I recall there is a rule that in restricted vis. a vessel should have her engine ready for emergency use. I suppose it would be prudent and seamanlike to have it ready to go even if visibility was not resticted. LOL...You really don't know the rules, do you? Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? First off, "not making way" is basically immaterial. However, I just noticed that the jib is a "wind-up", which means it "may" be available for immediate use. In this case, the boat could leave it's lights for powerdriven, on,(if the engine was immediately available) but if he decides to use the jib then he would have to change to "sail" A powerdriven vessel, underway (as long as the engine is capable of immediate maneuver) I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. See above What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon Will be interested in seeing this "trap" otn You will see it when the jaws slam shut on your buddies. (If they give the wrong answers) Part of the trap is at least one of my opinions above is a ruse to lead them astray. S.Simon ROFL |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
I'm not sure I want to play this game since you've already said you have laid a trap for
us. However, I'll toss out a few thoughts. First of all, you've posed two essentially identical situations that have different histories. You claim that the appropriate lights are based on what transpired at some point in the distant past. I don't think that is an appropriate basis for answering the question "which lights should be used?" I'm not saying the one is right and the other is wrong, I saying that if one, or the other, lights are OK they would be OK for either case. It is not clear to be that there is a hard and fast answer. Before I get into that, let me point out that there are a number of situations explicitly not covered in the rules. An infinite number, actually, when you consider that there is virtually no mention of the possibility of more than two vessels. Further, there are a variety of craft not discussed - where to row boats fit in the pecking order? Other vague issues - is a disabled boat a NUC if it isn't displaying NUC signals? What if it displays obvious signs that it is disabled? How does moving astern alter the rules? I've wondered about the issue of sidelights - is it proper to have red/green lights if you're drifting randomly? These issues, and all others not explicitly covered in other rules, fall under Rule 2. It is the responsibility of the various vessels to figure it out and act in a prudent manner. But back to the specific case. Is a sailboat with the sails furled still a sailboat? Technically no, because it is not "under sail." Is it a powerboat? Maybe, if it does have an engine. As an aside, a sailboat must start the engine if the circumstances requires it. Is it row boat? Maybe - Canadian Law requires, IIRC, a means of alternative propulsion. What about a sailboat making way under bare poles - is that sailing? I don't think a becalmed aux sailboat can claim to be a NUC, since it could comply with the rules if it turned on the engine. Further, being becalmed is a natural part of sailing. But this gets into another subtlety - if you claim to be a NUC (mistakenly, but in good faith) is the other boat bound to honor that? Yes, but the courts haven't looked too kindly on this sort of thing. The point of this is that this is a grey area, that would probably really fall under Rule 2. Then, assuming that ended up in the courts, the standard becomes the "ordinary practice of seamen." So, what would I do in this case? I believe that its appropriate to look at this from the point of view of the other observer. When one sees a drift fishing powerboat, one presumes it is still capable of powering - there is not way to determine if the engine is on or off. Thus, it must act with that status. Likewise, when one sees a boat sailing, one must assume it is a sailboat, unless it quite obviously is really powering. So what if you see a sailboat with the sail down? I am inclined to think that the observer should not presume that a sailboat is really a powerboat because it can't see a sail. Maybe there is a sail, but at an angle where it can't be seen. Thus, the observer should treat it as a sailboat. Further, I don't think its appropriate for the sailboat to display the steaming light if its engine is not immediately available. By doing so the sailboat is saying, "I am prepared to act like a powerboat." If the engine is not warmed up, this is not the case. So I would have to say that the status of the boat should be "sailboat," even though its not under sail. The only real support for this position is that rowboats are allowed to display the same lights as a sailboat, implying that this is appropriate for boats that are not truly anything else. But there's a whole other side to this: is it appropriate for a sailboat to lower sails and drift, especially at night? I've done it during the day - especially at regattas waiting for a race to start, but never at night. Depending of course, on the location, this doesn't feel like it is proper seamanship - when I don't want to go anywhere, I anchor. Whenever I want to drift at night (July 4th comes to mind) I keep an engine running, and display the steaming light. So my bottom line answer has to be: its not proper to get into this situation, but if you must, don't display lights for a powerboat if you're not prepared to act like one. And at the end of the day, the judge will say either "that's what I would have done" or "what a Putz!" -- -jeff "Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c) P.S. What about sea anchors and heaving to? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Good answers but not what I was looking for. You should
have gone to law school. You obfuscate better than you navigate. Here's the facts. (you should have been able to think of them for yourself) Fact 1) An auxiliary sailboat is always a sailboat unless and until the motor is turned on. Fact 2) An auxiliary sailboat is never wrong when running the lights required for a sailboat unless and until the motor is turned on. Fact3) An auxiliary sailboat can never legally be made to turn its engine on and become a motor boat. 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. 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. Now, here comes the kicker. Since an aux. sailboat is a sailboat until the motor is turned on the sailboat must sound the fog signal of a sailboat in restricted visibility provided the motor remains off. 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. 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. It follows that the motor vessel is the give way vessel because it must give way in restricted vis. to the audible signal of those vessels it knows are above it in the pecking order. 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. There clearly IS a pecking order and hence there IS, by definition, a stand-on vessel and a give-way vessel in restricted vis. Case closed, you, Shen44 and otnmbrd lose! "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... I'm not sure I want to play this game since you've already said you have laid a trap for us. However, I'll toss out a few thoughts. First of all, you've posed two essentially identical situations that have different histories. You claim that the appropriate lights are based on what transpired at some point in the distant past. I don't think that is an appropriate basis for answering the question "which lights should be used?" I'm not saying the one is right and the other is wrong, I saying that if one, or the other, lights are OK they would be OK for either case. It is not clear to be that there is a hard and fast answer. Before I get into that, let me point out that there are a number of situations explicitly not covered in the rules. An infinite number, actually, when you consider that there is virtually no mention of the possibility of more than two vessels. Further, there are a variety of craft not discussed - where to row boats fit in the pecking order? Other vague issues - is a disabled boat a NUC if it isn't displaying NUC signals? What if it displays obvious signs that it is disabled? How does moving astern alter the rules? I've wondered about the issue of sidelights - is it proper to have red/green lights if you're drifting randomly? These issues, and all others not explicitly covered in other rules, fall under Rule 2. It is the responsibility of the various vessels to figure it out and act in a prudent manner. But back to the specific case. Is a sailboat with the sails furled still a sailboat? Technically no, because it is not "under sail." Is it a powerboat? Maybe, if it does have an engine. As an aside, a sailboat must start the engine if the circumstances requires it. Is it row boat? Maybe - Canadian Law requires, IIRC, a means of alternative propulsion. What about a sailboat making way under bare poles - is that sailing? I don't think a becalmed aux sailboat can claim to be a NUC, since it could comply with the rules if it turned on the engine. Further, being becalmed is a natural part of sailing. But this gets into another subtlety - if you claim to be a NUC (mistakenly, but in good faith) is the other boat bound to honor that? Yes, but the courts haven't looked too kindly on this sort of thing. The point of this is that this is a grey area, that would probably really fall under Rule 2. Then, assuming that ended up in the courts, the standard becomes the "ordinary practice of seamen." So, what would I do in this case? I believe that its appropriate to look at this from the point of view of the other observer. When one sees a drift fishing powerboat, one presumes it is still capable of powering - there is not way to determine if the engine is on or off. Thus, it must act with that status. Likewise, when one sees a boat sailing, one must assume it is a sailboat, unless it quite obviously is really powering. So what if you see a sailboat with the sail down? I am inclined to think that the observer should not presume that a sailboat is really a powerboat because it can't see a sail. Maybe there is a sail, but at an angle where it can't be seen. Thus, the observer should treat it as a sailboat. Further, I don't think its appropriate for the sailboat to display the steaming light if its engine is not immediately available. By doing so the sailboat is saying, "I am prepared to act like a powerboat." If the engine is not warmed up, this is not the case. So I would have to say that the status of the boat should be "sailboat," even though its not under sail. The only real support for this position is that rowboats are allowed to display the same lights as a sailboat, implying that this is appropriate for boats that are not truly anything else. But there's a whole other side to this: is it appropriate for a sailboat to lower sails and drift, especially at night? I've done it during the day - especially at regattas waiting for a race to start, but never at night. Depending of course, on the location, this doesn't feel like it is proper seamanship - when I don't want to go anywhere, I anchor. Whenever I want to drift at night (July 4th comes to mind) I keep an engine running, and display the steaming light. So my bottom line answer has to be: its not proper to get into this situation, but if you must, don't display lights for a powerboat if you're not prepared to act like one. And at the end of the day, the judge will say either "that's what I would have done" or "what a Putz!" -- -jeff "Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c) P.S. What about sea anchors and heaving to? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? Now, let's do another scene. An auxiliary sailboat motors, like Bobsprit does, out into Long Island sound with the cover on the mainsail and the wind-up jib rolled up tightly. Once well away from the dock the motor is turned off. What is the status of this boat that is underway but not making way? I say it is a motor boat with motor turned off because it used a motor to get to it's present location. This vessel must then use the lower running lights and the steaming light. The use of only the masthead tricolor is incorrect because it is not sailing, did not sail to its position and does not have its sails ready to be put to work. What say you two? Answer thoughtfully because if you answer with a motor boat mentality or otherwise incorrectly I have set a trap out of which you both will find it very difficult to escape (as is the usual case when you two treat with me). S.Simon |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
"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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 than you did because I understand 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! |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
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. Thanks, neal. I checked on this and found you're right. Not surprising that Jeff got it wrong. I intend to install the masthed set, and keep the originals as a "spare." RB |
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. |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in further
discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all. Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone else must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "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
Now you're saying that a sailboat can never go fast enough to cause damage!! This is only
true for one boat I know of! You're even claiming that the rules don't apply to you because you're too incompetent to handle your boat? You've totally lost it, Neal! "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "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
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 ... 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
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 07/28/2003 12:07 Pacific Standard Time snip 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. In fog, how do you know there is a close quarters situation if you cannot see the other guy? Sound can be very deceptive in fog and should not be relied on as anything but "scanty" information ..... so....explain how you can take early action (other than putting the sound hopefully dead astern and praying that you are faster)? 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. Wrong 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 It's foggy... how would they know? 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. How do they know this? It's fog...they can't see..... If a close quarters situation eventuates it is solely the motor vessel's fault for not fulfilling its obligations under the Rules. Typically wrong The sailboat has not violated any Rule to cause the close quarters situation. The motor vessel has. Typically wrong 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. 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. Wrong. The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and must maintain course and speed. The whole of the above, typically wrong The motor vessel must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters situation. Based on what information...."Assumptions shall not be made based on scanty information" 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. ROFL love the way you keep avoiding that towboat 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. Wrong it's just as safe as reducing speed to zero on a powerdriven vessel 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 LOL that's pathetic 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. 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. ROFL 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. ROFL 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. Taking action to avoid a close quarters situation is giving way. It doesn't get any simpler than that. ROFL There clearly IS a pecking order and hence there IS, by definition, a stand-on vessel and a give-way vessel in restricted vis. ROFL 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 How about that sailboat and tug pushing a dinky empty barge....you explained that yet? 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 than you did because I understand 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! ROFL so..... you admit it...you didn't (and still don't) know the subject but you knew the answers from one of those exam helper books and passed the test. Shen |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: (CANDChelp) Date: 07/28/2003 12:13 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 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. Thanks, neal. I checked on this and found you're right. Not surprising that Jeff got it wrong. I intend to install the masthed set, and keep the originals as a "spare." RB Just don't start or use your engine while using the "tricolor" |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 07/28/2003 15:26 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ----- 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. Wrong 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. If he's in fog and can't see the sailboat, how does he know he's stopped in the path of the sailboat? |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
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 ... 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 |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Booby just said that to troll you up from the depths
to which you have sunk recently. Booby acts dumb but he is dumb like a fox. Unlike Doug King, for example, Booby at least knows the difference between a sailboat and a motor boat. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... 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
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... S.Simon wrote: 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 reason for vessels being required to sound fog signals that identify them is because fog signals enable vessels to plot a bearing of another vessel. Further, the reason certain vessels (sailboats, NUC, RAM, etc.) are required to sound a fog signal peculiar to them and different from a motor vessel is so motor vessels can not only become aware of bearing but of what class of vessel is on that bearing. So, a motor vessel upon hearing in a fog a signal of one prolonged and two short blasts knows that the vessel that made the signal bears whatever degrees and is a vessel that may not be able to take action to avoid a collision. The information that is lacking is range, speed and course of the vessel making the fog signal. What is known is that motor vessel must take action early and adequately to avoid a close quarters situation. Most often the best way to avoid a close quarters situation is to change the heading away from a possible close quarters situation with the vessel that may be unable to do the same by virtue of the signal it sounds. This means that the best course of action for a sailboat is to hold course and speed (which speed is already slow and already safe) until and unless a close quarters situation develops. This eliminates variables and allows the motorboat to make sure it is well clear before it gets back onto its intended course. This also means that the motor vessel gives way. It becomes the give-way vessel. Though not specifically stated in the restricted visibility rules this means there is a give way vessel created by the Rules for restricted visibility. This means there is a pecking order also created, though it is an abbreviated pecking order because sailboats, NUC, RAM etc, don't have individual different signals but the same signal identifying their grouping. 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." A sailboat navigating in a fog already is operating at slow and safe speed. She is operating with extreme caution because she knows by the signal heard that a motor vessel is on the prowl and probably going way too fast for the conditions and relying on her radar way too much so she can keep on schedule. A sailboat navigating in a fog cannot, like a motorboat, choose her speed. A sailboat is at the mercy of wind direction and wind speed which is most often low or non-existent in a fog. Any rule that requires a sailboat do take an action she cannot take is not a rule intended to apply to the sailboat. Please read the rules before commenting further. The Rules in and of themselves mean nothing. They only mean something when applied to real life situations on the water between vessels. One cannot make blanket statements based on the Rules alone. Every case is different. Your insistence on saying "all vessels" must slow to a safe speed does not apply to "all vessels". I proved that a couple of times with my example of a Coast Guard vessel tied up to and servicing a navigational aid. Another example would be an anchored vessel. Yet another would be a vessel being towed. It follows that the Rules are meant to be a guiding hand to prevent collisions and not a rigid set of laws to which there are no exceptions or no special circumstances that make them not appear to be what they seem. Your outlook is too stringent, rigorous and inflexible. You will get yourself into trouble because you fail to consider special circumstances such as sailboats already proceeding at slow and safe speeds somehow being required to go even slower to the point where they cannot maneuver with any kind of efficiency. You even want sailboats to stop when I have demonstrated this is often not even possible. Rules, as well-intentioned as they may be, cannot cover all contingencies. People, when writing rules that are primarily motor boat-oriented, cannot understand, let alone foresee, any and all circumstances for sailboats, which boats the operation of they are mostly ignorant. In fact, when collisions occur, it is hugely lopsided and the fault of motor boats the majority of the time. This alone should tell you that it's motorboaters who should listen to sailors and their unique perspective and their superior understanding of the actual, real life workings of the Rules and not vice versa. |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in further discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all. Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone else must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you? Reduced to name-calling because you cannot refute the facts? This method of ending any discussion cries out, "I lost." |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
More name calling. . .
I guess that's the motorboater's life raft when he has foundered. Don't forget to activate your EPIRB, Jeff. It looks like you need to be rescued by your buddies Shen44 and otnmbrd. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Now you're saying that a sailboat can never go fast enough to cause damage!! This is only true for one boat I know of! You're even claiming that the rules don't apply to you because you're too incompetent to handle your boat? You've totally lost it, Neal! "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "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
"Shen44" wrote in message ... Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44 From: "Simple Simon" Date: 07/27/2003 16:35 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "otnmbrd" Gdog Gdog Gdog Gdog G wrote in message nk.net... Mind if I try? Just talked to Shen and his AOL is typically screwing up and he can't read any newsgroups. Simple Simon wrote: Now, I'm going to expand upon my scenario of an auxiliary sailboat with sails up but not making way while underway because the wind is calm. It is now nighttime and . . . The captain decides to take down his sails so they won't be slating back and forth in the left- over swell. His motor is off. He is still underway and not making way but what is he now? Is he a motor vessel with his engine off or is he a sailboat with his sails down? What do you think? My answer would be that he is a sailboat and can legally run a tricolor light at the masthead. My reason is because he has sails even though they are furled. What say you two? I would disagree (but you expected that). I would hoist NUC. Not under command means some failure of mechanical systems that means the vessel cannot maneuver. Lack of wind is not such a circumstance. No, I think even Jeff and Shen44 would agree with me that NUC is not applicable here Where does it say that in the Rules? NUC means a vessel through some exceptional circumstance cannot maneuver as required by these rules .... a becalmed sailboat with no mechanical power seems to fit this bill perfectly. Wrong! Being becalmed is a normal navigational situation for a sailboat. It cannot be considered an exceptional circumstance. Exceptional circumstance mostly means a mechanical failure of some sort. Steering hydraulics kaput on a motor vessel would make her a NUC. Broken rudder on a sailboat would make her a NUC. Shen I'm disappointed in your response. You are clearly ignorant when it comes to sailing. S.Simon. |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
"Shen44" wrote in message ... Subject: A tough question for Jeff and Shen44 From: "Simple Simon" Date: 07/28/2003 15:26 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ----- 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. Wrong 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. If he's in fog and can't see the sailboat, how does he know he's stopped in the path of the sailboat? He's got radar, he's got the bearing from the sound signal. He has plotted a course. Get serious, Shen. |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
"Shen44" wrote in message Typically wrong ... If I'm stopped in my powerboat and you hit me in your sailboat, you were traveling at excessive/unsafe speed Not if you stopped right in front of me. Sailboats don't have brakes you know. You were wrong to stop right in front of me. That makes you the party primarily responsible for the collision. Your motorboat arrogance is showing again. You create a situation that causes a collision and then you seem to think you can blame it on the sailboat. It won't fly. |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
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 |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
I've refuted everything - but it doesn't make a difference if you simply claim that the
rules don't apply to you. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in further discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all. Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone else must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you? Reduced to name-calling because you cannot refute the facts? This method of ending any discussion cries out, "I lost." |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
And you cannot show where they do apply. I
parry your every thrust. You have not thrown away your sword and resorted to name calling. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... I've refuted everything - but it doesn't make a difference if you simply claim that the rules don't apply to you. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... You are an embarrassment to all sailors Neal. Read the rules before you engage in further discussions about them. Your acting like you never read Rule 19 at all. Here, you're actually saying that you don't have to obey the rules, because everyone else must avoid you. What kind of idiot are you? Reduced to name-calling because you cannot refute the facts? This method of ending any discussion cries out, "I lost." |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
I wasn't name calling, I was just summarizing.
OK, I'll take back what I said about the West Wight Potter 15. I'm sure you can pass one with no trouble. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... I said I raised the boot stripe 8" not that the boat was eight inches down in the water. Take a tape and measure 8" along the curve of the hull up above the boot stripe. It might amount to the boat being two or three inches lower in the water. Again you show your presumptions and resulting ignorance. Then you take your errors and compound your folly. It is rather sad really. I'll pray for you. I'll pray that you somehow can an analytical mind so you don't always have to resort to name-calling when you have been defeated in debate. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Now your turning the rules into a novel. Sorry Neal, its not worth reading anymore. This has not been a good week for you, has it? First, you admitted that your boat is so overloaded its down 8 inches on its lines! 8 inches on a small boat! That makes your boat roughly competitive with a West Wright Potter 15, and less seaworthy. Then you admit that not only do you have to power in any wind under 15 knots, you also have to power to get the boat upwind. Then you demonstrate your complete ignorance of the rules, insisting, amongst other things, that no one can force you to start your engine, even to save a life. You've bragged that your boat is soooo slow, its incapable of moving at an unsafe speed. And you actually insist you're such an incompetent seaman that you are totally unable of slowing your boat to comply with the rules. Your have some delusion that everyone can see through the fog to avoid you, claiming that all powerboats have radar. This been a pretty pathetic display for some one that claims to be a "master mariner" with a "fine bluewater craft!" |
A tough question for Jeff and Shen44
Oh, I forgot that English Major thing you have.
Let me explain in simple words: If a sailboat can move 1600 feet between signals, you have a circle, 3200 feet in diameter, where the boat could be two minutes later. This is assuming you could pinpoint its position from the first blast, which is impossible. And you're saying that the other boat is somehow required to know where the sailboat is. As to your debating style, are you actually claiming you can "disprove the rule" with "one exception"? This isn't a mathematical theorem, its a law. It isn't required to be logical, or to conform to your sense of fairness or symmetry; it just is. This explains a lot: your argument is not what the rules require, its whether they make sense to you. You're claiming that the rules are "disproved" because you found an exception. And the exception you found is that they can't require "all vessels" to stop, because some are stopped already. That's pretty lame, Neal, even for you. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... 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? Are your ears so bad that you cannot tell the difference between a sound signal at fifty feet and one at a quarter mile? Mine are not. 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! It is a stupid argument only to stupid people. Any individual who knows how to debate knows it only takes one exception to disprove a rule. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com