|
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Oh, I see your problem ... you memorized a mnemonic and now think that everything in the rules depends on the pecking order. Well surprise! There is no pecking order! There happens to be one rule where several relationships are described. These standon/giveway relationships have been dubbed the "pecking order" but only apply in certain situations - In particular, they only apply in conditions of normal visibility. You are correct that towboats are not mentioned, and thus, in normal visibility towboats have no priority unless the declare themselves a RAM, often referred to as an "unruly tow." Exactly as I said. Towboats ain't doodly-squat unless they declare themselves a RAM and show the lights and shapes of a RAM. Otherwise a towboat is just another motorboat and is at the bottom of the pecking order. A sailboat is the stand-on vessel and a towboat is the give-way vessel with respect to the pecking order. BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that. A NUC is the highest vessel in the pecking order. In a situation where a NUC and a RAM are interacting other than an overtaking situation the NUC is the stand-on vessel and the RAM is the give-way vessel. However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There are different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it (below) and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of vessel that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to Farwell. What could be clearer than that? This is where you are incorrect. There is a pecking order in restricted visibility. All vessels that sound the one prolonged/ two short blasts signal are not to be impeded by any vessel that sounds the one prolonged or two prolonged signal. Rule 8 states this very clearly. It just so happens that Rule 35 gives a vessel towing the mandate to sound the signal of a RAM so it becomes a defacto RAM in restricted visibility even though it may not be a RAM in in-sight situations. This measure was put in place because of the danger of hawsers and vessels being towed far behind the towboat that would present a danger to a vessel who can not see what is going on like it can is in-sight situations. It does not, in any way, detract from the meaning of the pecking order. The fact remains that all vessels in a fog that hear the fog signal of one prolonged/two short blasts must not impede and must take action to avoid a close quarters situation. It this isn't a pecking order in a fog then I'm a Pumpernickle loaf. Here, allow me to diagram the restricted visibility pecking order. 1) NUC, RAM (includes towing), CBD, Fishing (includes trawing, long-lining, seinging etc.), Sailing, 2) Power boat I hope this helps S.Simon |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Jeff Morris wrote: BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that. I think that although you are technically correct, you will find the courts will find otherwise. A NUC is unable to maneuver, while a RAM is "only" restricted in it's ability to maneuver ....both vessels are deemed unable to "keep out of the way". Also, if you note rule 18, NUC always precedes RAM in the list which is an indication of it's status. otn |
Neal, the Pumpernickle Loaf
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... snip what we agree on BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that. A NUC is the highest vessel in the pecking order. In a situation where a NUC and a RAM are interacting other than an overtaking situation the NUC is the stand-on vessel and the RAM is the give-way vessel. Absolutely incorrect, Neal. Don't you ever read the rules? There is no rule that tells a RAM that it should keep out of the way of a NUC. Consider: a RAM could be a dredge or a cable layer, or other work vessel completely unable to move or deviate from a course; a NUC may have a minor steering problem. If a risk of collision occurs between the two, they simply have to figure out the best course of action. For the purpose of the pecking order, they are at the same level. However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There are different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it (below) and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of vessel that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to Farwell. What could be clearer than that? This is where you are incorrect. There is a pecking order in restricted visibility. All vessels that sound the one prolonged/ two short blasts signal are not to be impeded by any vessel that sounds the one prolonged or two prolonged signal. Rule 8 states this very clearly. It just so happens that Rule 35 gives a vessel towing the mandate to sound the signal of a RAM so it becomes a defacto RAM in restricted visibility even though it may not be a RAM in in-sight situations. Now you're just playing games. The rule says tow vessels sound the signal. It doesn't say tow vessels become RAMs. There is no reason why the tow sudden has "restricted ability to maneuver." You're just making up nonsense to avoid admitting your error. Be a man, Neal, not a little girl! This measure was put in place because of the danger of hawsers and vessels being towed far behind the towboat that would present a danger to a vessel who can not see what is going on like it can is in-sight situations. It does not, in any way, detract from the meaning of the pecking order. Yes, the hawser and tow is a reason why the towboat should be approached with caution. It does not mean the tow bas become a RAM. The fact remains that all vessels in a fog that hear the fog signal of one prolonged/two short blasts must not impede Nope. It doesn't say that anywhere. You're just making it up. The other little girls didn't let you play in their games, did they? and must take action to avoid a close quarters situation. All vessels have that obligation. Not just vessels other than yours. It this isn't a pecking order in a fog then I'm a Pumpernickle loaf. You said it, not I. Here, allow me to diagram the restricted visibility pecking order. 1) NUC, RAM (includes towing), CBD, Fishing (includes trawing, long-lining, seinging etc.), Sailing, 2) Power boat That is the division (except for your incredibly embarrassing blunder about the towboat) for the sound signals. It in no way creates standon/giveway relationships. I hope this helps I'm sure the judge will find this quite interesting. |
Simon's superior understanding
Regarding "searoom". My Webster "New World Dictionary of the American
Language" defines: searoom, enough open space for maneuvering a ship Says nothing about being at sea..... and as we also know, Neal has too little experience in the Maritime world to know how to apply "impede" to the Rules. otn Jeff Morris wrote: "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message Why is that the professional captains, the standard textbook, and the authors of the rule all agree on its meaning, and yet Neal stands alone in his opinion? Hey, Jeff, I happen to be a professional captain. Is that true? Hoiw much money have you made using your license? And, I just happen to be a greater authority on the English language than some smuck named Farwell. Does this Farwell even have a lowly bachelor's degree? I doubt it. Farwell died a number of years ago, he was the author of the first edition in 1941. The authors of the 6th edition that I've been quoting are Frank E. Basset, Commander, US Navy, US Naval Academy, '58, served as chairman of the Navigation Department of the Naval Academy; and Richard A. Smith, Commander, Royal Navy, graduate of the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth and the Royal Naval College in Greenwich, also served as chairman of the Navigation Department of the Naval Academy, and at the time of publication, commanding officer of HMS Achilles. I think its fair to say they know what they're talking about. 'Shall not impede' means what it says. It is as much a part of the English language as apple pie. Nobody attempts to come up with his own definition of 'apple pie' yet they presume to come up with a definition of 'shall not impede' that is contrary to the dictionary definition. Could it be that those who do so do so out of ignorance? Absolutely wrong. Anyone creating formal rules must define their terms and use them precisely. Even the IMO, the body that formulated the ColRegs, commented on how "shall no impede" was a very specific term, used in a limited sense, and that in particular, rule 8f was added to clarify the meaning of "shall not impede" in rules 9 and 10. You, on the other hand, have refused to acknowledge common usage, as when you claimed the "sea room" could only apply on the high seas, even though Bowditch defines it in terms of being able to maneuver without risk of collision. The ColRegs use it, of course, in the same context. So what's next? Will you claim you know more than Bowditch? Yes, sir, it is very likely the case. Any time some Rube attempts to force his own lame definitions which do not agree with dictionary definitions upon certain words and terms it is because the Rube is uneducated and ignorant. It casts whatever the Rube says in a dubious light. That's a fact. Another fact is those who would give any credit at all to said Rube are ignorant of the English language just as is the Rube. Have you just assumed a new name, Rube? |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
BG See a lot of "oh chit how do I bail out of this mess" BS goin here
Simple Simon wrote: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Oh, I see your problem ... you memorized a mnemonic and now think that everything in the rules depends on the pecking order. Well surprise! There is no pecking order! There happens to be one rule where several relationships are described. These standon/giveway relationships have been dubbed the "pecking order" but only apply in certain situations - In particular, they only apply in conditions of normal visibility. You are correct that towboats are not mentioned, and thus, in normal visibility towboats have no priority unless the declare themselves a RAM, often referred to as an "unruly tow." Exactly as I said. Towboats ain't doodly-squat unless they declare themselves a RAM and show the lights and shapes of a RAM. Otherwise a towboat is just another motorboat and is at the bottom of the pecking order. A sailboat is the stand-on vessel and a towboat is the give-way vessel with respect to the pecking order. We've all said that, but your limited intelligence has been unable to understand it. BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that. A NUC is the highest vessel in the pecking order. In a situation where a NUC and a RAM are interacting other than an overtaking situation the NUC is the stand-on vessel and the RAM is the give-way vessel. However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There are different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it (below) and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of vessel that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to Farwell. What could be clearer than that? This is where you are incorrect. There is a pecking order in restricted visibility. All vessels that sound the one prolonged/ two short blasts signal are not to be impeded by any vessel that sounds the one prolonged or two prolonged signal. Rule 8 states this very clearly. There's a portion of rule 8 you typically always omit ....."if the circumstance of the case admit" In fog, because, (assuming no radar and/or radios) you don't have a clue as to range, heading, speed, relative motion, or type of vessel, then the circumstances of the case DON'T admit, which puts much of rule 8 on the backburner and sends you to Rule 19. It just so happens that Rule 35 gives a vessel towing the mandate to sound the signal of a RAM so it becomes a defacto RAM in restricted visibility even though it may not be a RAM in in-sight situations. This measure was put in place because of the danger of hawsers and vessels being towed far behind the towboat that would present a danger to a vessel who can not see what is going on like it can is in-sight situations. It does not, in any way, detract from the meaning of the pecking order. ROFL I love the way you can twist a simple paragraph into meaning what you wish it to mean. Be that as it may, Rule 35 does NOT give a towing vessel a mandate to sound the signal of a RAM vessel .... Rule 35, STATES, that a towing vessel engage in towing SHALL sound that signal, whether it is RAM or NOT...... Once again proving no pecking order in fog. There is no wording, hint of wording, legal precedence, etc., that you can find or manufacture that shows otherwise. The fact remains that all vessels in a fog that hear the fog signal of one prolonged/two short blasts must not impede and must take action to avoid a close quarters situation. Totally wrong. This, once again shows a total lack of reading comprehension on your part. You cannot take action if you don't know what action to take or if a close quarters situation exist ( Neal's lack of experience in fog, precludes his understanding this fact) It this isn't a pecking order in a fog then I'm a Pumpernickle loaf. You're a moldy Pumpernickle loaf Here, allow me to diagram the restricted visibility pecking order. 1) NUC, RAM (includes towing), CBD, Fishing (includes trawing, long-lining, seinging etc.), Sailing, 2) Power boat I hope this helps Let me know when you take your seat on the IMO committee that creates and modifies Rules of the ROAD. Until then, your imaginary "foggy pecking order" will remain lost in the fog. otn |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Subject: Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/05/2003 14:37 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: As usual, that idiot Shen44 is saying I 'disappeared'. Hey, can't a fellow go sailing without the peanut gallery engaging in wishful thinking? Of course Shen44 wishes his nemesis would just go away but that is not to be his fate, and yours either, Jeff Morris! ROFL Sailing, my stern tube packing!!! You sequestered youself below to try and devise some response (typically lame) to get yourself out of your latest mess But, it is you, Jeff , whom I am addressing here. Fact: there is no such classification in the pecking order of a towboat. A towboat has no status in and of itself. A vessel towing is just another motor vessel until and unless it is restricted in its ability to maneuver. Need I remind you of the pecking order which represents ALL classifications of vessels. New NUC Reels RAM Catch CBD Fish Fishing So Sailing Purchase Power Some Sailplane Now, tell me, Mr. Morris, which of the above does a towboat fit into? Huh? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Oh! You admit that a towboat fits nowhere in the pecking order? It fits into the "power" section of the pecking order.... which typically you don't seem to understand. Well, good! Because that's a fact. A towboat has no special status in the pecking order. Question of semantics. It's special status is a "motorboat". Until and unless a towboat is restricted in its ability to maneuver it remains just another motorboat. Once it becomes restricted in its ability to maneuver it then becomes a RAM. Which we all know, but what does that have to do with the question at hand? I have to wonder just what about the pecking order do you, Shen44 and otnmbrd not understand? We understand it and realize it can't exist in fog for all the reasons you state. |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
otnmbrd wrote: Interesting points, and an obvious reason not to think on too narrow a plain, as does our friend Neal Jeff Morris wrote: Yes, you state the common argument. However, there is nothing that says that a NUC is completely out of control, nor is there anything that says that a RAM is only slightly restricted. It does state that a NUC is "unable" This is one that I think may require an individual "case" from the courts to unravel, as it's not necessarily "cut and dried". Several years ago the new Boston Harbor Tunnel was lowered in 300 foot sections to the bottom of a 100 foot trench, and placed within inches of the pervious section. The vessels doing this work were clearly RAMs, and during the final stages would have been completely unable to move without risking the lives of the divers below. The possibility here, is to change from RAM to NUC to "tied to the dock". At a point they were RAM, but at a point this may have changed. Actually, in retrospect, they'd be hard pressed to ever be able to show NUC .... but someone could BG say they were anchored at some point. Main point being, that there are possibilities and as long as nothing happened, no harm no foul, but if something did, this is one that would have to settle in court. A small twin engine vessel, with limited power in one engine, might declare itself a NUC because it would have difficulty turning in one direction. In the case, the RAMs have priority over the NUC. Would disagree with this. He would be limited in speed, but not maneuverability, if he could use rudders and both engines at reduced speed or astern, and would be just a motor boat with a problem, not NUC. In either case, you still bring up an interesting point, and I don't have a solid answer, for or against. otn http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/twt-bui.htm I have been told that this issue has been formally raised a number of times and the CG and IMO have refused to clarify it any further than to say that the vessels involved will have to figure it out, the same way the two RAMs or two NUCs would have to do their best to resolve the situation. "otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... Jeff Morris wrote: BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that. I think that although you are technically correct, you will find the courts will find otherwise. A NUC is unable to maneuver, while a RAM is "only" restricted in it's ability to maneuver ....both vessels are deemed unable to "keep out of the way". Also, if you note rule 18, NUC always precedes RAM in the list which is an indication of it's status. otn |
Simon's superior understanding
Subject: Simon's superior understanding
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/05/2003 14:50 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Why is that the professional captains, the standard textbook, and the authors of the rule all agree on its meaning, and yet Neal stands alone in his opinion? Hey, Jeff, I happen to be a professional captain. And, I just happen to be a greater authority on the English language than some smuck named Farwell. Does this Farwell even have a lowly bachelor's degree? I doubt it. ROFLMAO, Thanks Neal, I needed that......professional captain..... when's the last time you work professionally, as a captain on the water? Once or twice as a paid crew doesn't make you a professional..... and lately, your spelling has been atrocious (smuck?) so I wouldn't brag too much on that so-called English degree. Shen |
Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
Subject: Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/05/2003 14:40 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: I am right and you are wrong. It will take much more than saying I am 'hilarious to prove your point. I responded by listing the Rules that back up my point. You respond with obfuscation. That makes you ineffective and laughable. ROFL you responded with the Rules which back up MY points, but attempted to use them to obfuscate, and as per usual, it didn't woik, which makes you and your argument useless and hilarious. Shen |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
Are you saying "Nope - the rules DON'T apply in waters connected with the high seas" or
"Nope - the local authorities can do whatever they damn well please" ? In my rather brief survey of several states I found that the special rules on "human powered vessels" only apply in specific inland lakes and rivers. However, there are a variety of special rules that imply a state might be able to do this. Some apply to jetskis, other apply to how close you can go to swimmers or divers. I could imagine a reg that says you can't get too close to a rowboat. A reason why I've always wondered about this is that I've done a lot of sailing, since 1957, in the Charles River Basin that is shared with a number of collegiate and public rowing clubs - Harvard, MIT, BU, Northeastern, etc. All of the sailing clubs in the basin have and still tell their members that rowboats have absolute right-of-way. While this is probably a good idea, I was surprised to find it was not actually true under the law. "Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message ... On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:19:56 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote: But these rules do not apply (as far as I know) in the waters covered by ColRegs. Nope. Rule 1(b) says: "(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of spe-cial rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules." S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:45:03 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
wrote: "Nope - the local authorities can do whatever they damn well please" ? Yes. That's what it says. For example, despite repeated claims that sailboats have the "right of way" over powerboats, if the powerboat happens to be a US Naval vessel it's a felony to pass within a certain number of yards without permission. And the Coast Guard boat out in front will remind you of that. There are also speed limits and no-wake zones, restrictions on anchoring and mooring, etc, imposed by local authorities. S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
Yes, but the rule does say the whenever possible, the local regs should be constant with
the ColRegs. Declaring security zones and managing mooring and traffic is a traditional function of local authorities, especially in harbors. Do you know any instances of adding new "right of way" rules that apply in the ocean waters of a state? Frankly, although it been claimed that ferries have privilege while on their routes, I've seen very few actual regs to that affect. I just scanned several North East Coast Pilots looking for such a thing and didn't find any. Same for "regatta privilege" - I know MD has a law, but its been claimed there is a federal law, though I've never been able to find it. "Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:45:03 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote: "Nope - the local authorities can do whatever they damn well please" ? Yes. That's what it says. For example, despite repeated claims that sailboats have the "right of way" over powerboats, if the powerboat happens to be a US Naval vessel it's a felony to pass within a certain number of yards without permission. And the Coast Guard boat out in front will remind you of that. There are also speed limits and no-wake zones, restrictions on anchoring and mooring, etc, imposed by local authorities. S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
Jeff Morris wrote: Yes, but the rule does say the whenever possible, the local regs should be constant with the ColRegs. Declaring security zones and managing mooring and traffic is a traditional function of local authorities, especially in harbors. Do you know any instances of adding new "right of way" rules that apply in the ocean waters of a state? In most cases, you will find that these rules are case specific for a particular event or highly limited local area. Since the "States" have no authority over "ocean waters" of the particular state, where Rules of the Road are concerned, you shouldn't (yet) see any bogus laws regarding rules, past "demarcation" points. Frankly, although it been claimed that ferries have privilege while on their routes, I've seen very few actual regs to that affect. I just scanned several North East Coast Pilots looking for such a thing and didn't find any. Same for "regatta privilege" - I know MD has a law, but its been claimed there is a federal law, though I've never been able to find it. There may be some local law regarding "Staten Island" ferries, but I have never heard of any other local law (that would have affected me) giving "ferries", special dispensation, regarding the rules ..... why? "Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:45:03 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote: "Nope - the local authorities can do whatever they damn well please" ? Yes. That's what it says. For example, despite repeated claims that sailboats have the "right of way" over powerboats, if the powerboat happens to be a US Naval vessel it's a felony to pass within a certain number of yards without permission. And the Coast Guard boat out in front will remind you of that. There are also speed limits and no-wake zones, restrictions on anchoring and mooring, etc, imposed by local authorities. S/V Cat's Meow http://www.catsmeow.org |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
"otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... Jeff Morris wrote: Yes, but the rule does say the whenever possible, the local regs should be constant with the ColRegs. Declaring security zones and managing mooring and traffic is a traditional function of local authorities, especially in harbors. Do you know any instances of adding new "right of way" rules that apply in the ocean waters of a state? In most cases, you will find that these rules are case specific for a particular event or highly limited local area. Since the "States" have no authority over "ocean waters" of the particular state, where Rules of the Road are concerned, you shouldn't (yet) see any bogus laws regarding rules, past "demarcation" points. Well, I didn't reall mean outside the ColRegs line - I was thinking waters inside the line, but not in busy harbors. FOr instance, The Maine Island Trail®, which goes 325 miles through coastal Maine, most of it inside the line but in salt water: http://www.mita.org/faq.html Frankly, although it been claimed that ferries have privilege while on their routes, I've seen very few actual regs to that affect. I just scanned several North East Coast Pilots looking for such a thing and didn't find any. Same for "regatta privilege" - I know MD has a law, but its been claimed there is a federal law, though I've never been able to find it. There may be some local law regarding "Staten Island" ferries, but I have never heard of any other local law (that would have affected me) giving "ferries", special dispensation, regarding the rules ..... why? see Cappy's Master's response. Have you seen regs like that in the U.S.? |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
Jeff Morris wrote: see Cappy's Master's response. Have you seen regs like that in the U.S.? None that I remember, but that does not mean they don't exist. The only way I can think of to check, easily, for most boaters, would be to look in the "Navigation Regulations" of the Coast Pilot for your area or in the general information for a particular port, where you might have "heavy" ferry traffic. It will not surprise me, in time, if we see special regulations regarding "high speed" ferries. otn |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:43:14 +1000, The Cappys Master wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 21:27:17 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote: Yes, but the rule does say the whenever possible, the local regs should be constant with the ColRegs. Declaring security zones and managing mooring and traffic is a traditional function of local authorities, especially in harbors. Do you know any instances of adding new "right of way" rules that apply in the ocean waters of a state? Frankly, although it been claimed that ferries have privilege while on their routes, I've seen very few actual regs to that affect. I just scanned several North East Coast Pilots looking for such a thing and didn't find any. Same for "regatta privilege" - I know MD has a law, but its been claimed there is a federal law, though I've never been able to find it. Syndey Harbour ferries DO have right of way over sail Go to http://www.waterways.nsw.gov.au/index.html boating safety then collision regulation links Priority Over Sail Some Commercial ferries on Sydney Harbour display an orange diamond shape which grants priority of way over sailing vessels. Do not attempt to cross the path of an approaching ferry displaying this signal. http://www.waterways.nsw.gov.au/onwater.html This was brought into effect after a friend of mine was minced in the propellors of a ferry. They were crossing its bows under sail in a Soling , collided and when the ferry skipper used reverse to stop, he was drawn into the front props, the ferries are double ended. Yeah - that's what I meant with my comment to Simon. Didn't recall the exact circumstance, but I knew Sydney ferries have ROW over sail and only an idiot argues with them. PDW |
Simon rules - Rules discussion
LOL Well, I guess THIS thread has run it's course and Neal has gone sailing
(read, sequestered himself to lick his wounds and try to come up with a lame response) EG Shen |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com