Subject: Perception
From: (Shen44)
Date: 10/13/2003 10:35 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: Perception
From: "Simple Simon"


In a fog, as soon as vessels concerned come within sight of one
another the sailboat is the stand-on vessel with respect to the
motor vessel

Not necessarily ..... what if the sailboat can see the motor vessel, but the
motor vessel can't see the sail vessel? What if the motor vessel is in a TSS
or
narrow channel? What if both vessels are so close, that BOTH vessels need to
take action to avoid collision?

This means in a fog (when in sight) the pecking order applies.

Stupid statement

This loophole in the Rules is something that seems to go right
over the heads of the group's tugboat captains. They cannot
fathom the fact that 'in sight' also exists in restricted visibility
as in a fog. Since 'in sight' exists in a fog then the pecking order
exists in a fog. This is so logical that it cannot be argued.

Yet the fools continue to argue it . . .

S.Simon


Sheesh .... the above, is the rambling of some beginner, without a clue.
The term used in the rules is restricted visibility (due to whatever cause)
and
refers to situations where the vessels are NOT in sight of each other.
Come on, Neal.... you've been trying to wiggle out of this mess, to no avail,
for so long and in so many ways, you've reduced yourself to a point of
nonsensical rambling.


Shen


Didn't see Neals reply to this ...thought I'd resend

Comments interspersed:

Simple Simon wrote:
There you go again with your silly specifics to try to
disprove a rule. Because there are exceptions does
not make the rule invalid. This is just plain common sense.

The rules are about specifics and non specific situations ....your lack
of experience is screaming, once again.

The only likely situation where the sailboat would NOT be
the stand-on vessel is if it found itself behind and overtaking
the motorvessel when it got close enough to be in sight
of the motor vessel.

All the other situations are just as likely ....see you ignored the one
which would involve rule 17b ....nother one you don't understand?

What likelihood of that ever happening
is there when we all know it would be rare indeed for
a ship to be going less than five knots. Remember, we
are talking about small cruising sailboats here not some
radical racing catamaran or something that goes twenty
or thirty knots. Of course these would be required to
slow to a safe speed while my cruiser is not required to
slow to a safe speed because she is already going slow
and safe.

incorrect gibberish

But, your continued lame arguments don't cut the mustard.

none of your arguments "cut the mustard" OR make any sense.

You need to refute the facts in order to prevail. Thus far
you have been unable to do so. Here are the facts again.

Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels
are required to sound signals specific to the
vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one
signal when underway and those vessels above
them in the pecking order sound another and
different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED
pecking order.

Most motor vessels, not all Tugs engaged in towing sound the same signal
as a sailboat, even though they are just bottom of the barrel powerboats
(a fact you still fail to understand)....no pecking order, abbreviated
or otherwise, since EVERY Vessel must navigate with extreme caution (I
know....this is one of those concepts your simple brain can't grasp)

Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted
visibility get close enough to each other that
they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow
the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order
is mandated.

Oh goody, folks simple gets one right .... if they aren't so close that
both vessels must try and maneuver to avoid.


Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near
an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on
and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in
sight of one another.

Simple statement ..... Note, they are in sight so rules of restricted
visibility no longer apply .... You finally getting this part of the
concept or are you still going to try to say that since there is fog in
the area we must be working under restricted visibility rules for these
two vessels?

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.

For those vessels in sight of one another.

Chew on that for a while and let's see a rational argument to
refute it logically. It cannot be done because the logic is faultless.
You made some statement that are true (2 &3) one that was partially
true (4) (you needed to include the "in sight" proviso) and one (1) that
was right for the first half, and would have been OK, if you'd only
learn when to stop typing.

S.Simon - logic wins out every time.


"Shen44" wrote in message ...

Subject: Perception
From: "Simple Simon"

In a fog, as soon as vessels concerned come within sight of one
another the sailboat is the stand-on vessel with respect to the
motor vessel

Not necessarily ..... what if the sailboat can see the motor vessel, but the
motor vessel can't see the sail vessel? What if the motor vessel is in a TSS or
narrow channel? What if both vessels are so close, that BOTH vessels need to
take action to avoid collision?

This means in a fog (when in sight) the pecking order applies.

Stupid statement

This loophole in the Rules is something that seems to go right
over the heads of the group's tugboat captains. They cannot
fathom the fact that 'in sight' also exists in restricted visibility
as in a fog. Since 'in sight' exists in a fog then the pecking order
exists in a fog. This is so logical that it cannot be argued.

Yet the fools continue to argue it . . .

S.Simon


Sheesh .... the above, is the rambling of some beginner, without a clue.
The term used in the rules is restricted visibility (due to whatever cause) and
refers to situations where the vessels are NOT in sight of each other.
Come on, Neal.... you've been trying to wiggle out of this mess, to no avail,
for so long and in so many ways, you've reduced yourself to a point of
nonsensical rambling.


Shen




I left Shen's post, because it bears repeating

ROFLMAO Sheesh, you're "simple"

Simple Simon wrote:

Then what you're claiming is there is never an in-sight
circumstance in restricted visibility? He he, gotcha!

Nope. Are you claiming there's always an insight circumstance in
restricted visibility?

If you answer in the infirmative you are patently incorrect
as I have proven already.

If you answer in the "infirmative" you are patently incorrect as I have
proven already.

It is clear that in-sight situations occur on a regular basis
in restricted visibility. You said yourself that in-sight rules
apply when vessels are in sight. Therefore, since in-sight
rules require full adherance to the pecking order rules it
follows that oftentimes in restricted visibility there is a
pecking order. When there is a pecking order there is
a stand-on vessel and a give-way vessel.

Only when both vessels are close enough or have moved into clearer
visibility that they can see each other or so close that we're in double
"OhChit" mode, but then, we aren't talking about restricted visibility
when we get to this point for these to vessels, now are we?

You tugboat captains have insisted there is no such thing
as a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted
visibility. The above paragraph proves you all incorrect.

Negative we have insisted that there is no stand-on vessel, in or near
an area of restricted visibility, if BOTH or either vessel can not see
the other ..... a point you fail to grasp.

Accept it and live with it! I was right, I am right and I
forever shall remain right (unless and until they clarify this
discrepancy in the Rules).

Accept it and live with it! You were wrong and still are wrong and still
and always will be a danger to other boaters and yourself, until you
learn the "Rules"


otn

It doesn't. Assume that they can't until it would be obvious to even a
"Simple Simon" that they couldn't use "restricted visibility" as an
excuse for not obeying the rules.

If you can't see the bridge, the bridge cannot see you.

otn

Wally wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


If BOTH vessels are in sight of each other then visual rules apply. If
only one or neither vessel is in sight of the other, then the rules
for restricted visibility apply and BOTH vessels must navigate with
extreme caution until they are clear of each other.


How does the vessel that can see the other know that the other can see it?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
OOPS ....Forgot one:

What if the sailboat comes out of the fog (and can see the motor vessel)
and
finds itself overtaking the motor vessel, because the motor vessel has
reduced
speed to bare steerageway?

I'd be much more concerned about the risk of collision with a low flying
pig!

Regards


Donal
--

Blowing the danger signal could be illegal and of no value if the other
guy can't see you ( and could interfere with normal fog signals)
If possible, you should all ready have tried communicating by radio.
Paragraphs like this, highlight Neals amateur status.

BTW, this issue of one vessel or the other not being able to see, while
the other can, is quite often the case, especially when dealing with
larger and smaller vessels at the same time.

Simple Simon wrote:

It is the responsibility of BOTH vessels to keep a lookout
by eyes and ears at all times. If in doubt blow the danger/
doubt signal to get their attention or contact them on the VHF
and request they get their heads out of their asses. Big ships
are notorious for the helmspeople sleeping on the job or with
with their faces stuck into girlie magazines.

S.Simon


"Wally" wrote in message ...

otnmbrd wrote:


If BOTH vessels are in sight of each other then visual rules apply. If
only one or neither vessel is in sight of the other, then the rules
for restricted visibility apply and BOTH vessels must navigate with
extreme caution until they are clear of each other.

How does the vessel that can see the other know that the other can see it?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Simple Simon wrote:
And obviously YOU'RE too stupid to realize that fog,
thick or thin, is but one of the examples of restricted
visibility. Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust
and smog can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can
restrict visibility and there is restricted visibility in a maritime
environment most everywhere in the core of a hurricane.
Even smoke from forest fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario to prove your
point will continue to come up way, way short of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it.

You've proven nothing, except to yourself. All you've proved to others,
is your complete lack of experience and understanding of the rules.
STAND-ON, DOES NOT EXIST IN RESTRICTED VISIBILITY ....and you are just
plain too stupid to realize it.

Your stinking fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
wreck of a vessel does not change my argument for unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility that
generally is an exception to the rule.

WRONG for most of us. You are just plain too new to this game to have
experienced it !

The very purpose
of having vessels slow to a safe speed is so when they
come within sight of one another they will be going at
a safe speed so they can avoid a collision
PERIOD

and follow the
in-sight Rules.
BS! ...normally,k by that time, rule 17b will probably apply.

It's sort of like being a safe driver on the
road at night and not going so fast that you cannot stop
in the distance your headlights shine.

PUTZ!

S.Simon - the Master of 'em all.

I doubt you're master of your own ......

otn


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...

Obviously you've never seen fog... just a low cloud bank. In real fog you
might not see the bow of your boat. 60 foot visibility is a 'normal' fog
bank up my way.... they get way thicker than that.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
| Jeff,
|
| Back in the old days some of the schooners could indeed
| proceed at a good clip (clipper ship, get it?). I'm surprised
| you think the recent ruling that ALL vessels slowing down
| was because of anything other than a proliferation of motor
| vessels becoming such a hazard that the very safety of
| even large, fast sailing ships was in danger. The bottom
| line is only those vessels who are going fast must slow
| down. Those already going slow need not slow down
| and these include small cruising yacht restricted by
| their hull speed.
|
| The fact remains there are two different sound signals
| one for motor vessels and another for all vessels above
| them in the pecking order. These signals alone shout
| out loudly and clearly "PECKING ORDER" and
| pecking order means stand-on and give-way vessels.
|
| You always seem to fall back on your lame argument
| about a fog so thick that you can't see your own bow
| let alone another ship. Well, tough! One instance does
| not make a Rule. My instance of a normal fog in which
| ships become visible to one another and hence must
| follow the in-sight rules even though they are in or near
| an area of restricted visibility is all that's needed to prove
| there IS a pecking order and hence a give-way and
| stand-on vessel in restricted visibility.
|
| The logic here is unassailable making the statement true
| till proven false and thus far you and the other tugboat
| captain's lame (by the nature of their specificity) arguments
| have come up short.
|
| S.Simon - irrefuteable
|
|
|
| "Jeff Morris" wrote in message
. com...
| Its an interesting comment, one that we've discussed before. It may
| actually have some validity in very light fog, which might be all Neal
has
| any experiance in. However, it is the opinion of all of the
commentators,
| the IMO, and the courts, that if there is any doubt as to the
conditions,
| one must assume you are NOT in sight of one another.
|
| In thick fog (which has always been stipulated in these discussions)
there
| will not be sufficient time for a powerboat to avoid collision if a
sailboat
| assumes it is "standon"and continues at hull speed. This is why the
rules
| stipulate that ALL VESSELS must slow when hearing a fog signal.
|
| An interesting point is that until 1972 this rule only applied to
| powerboats. Previous versions of the ColRegs (from about 1890 and 1948)
had
| similar wording but only applied it to power, not sail. Obviously, the
IMO
| decided that it was important that ALL VESSELS slow down in the fog when
| hearing a fog signal. They also eliminated the concept of "moderate
speed"
| and replaced it with "safe speed."
|
| -jeff
|
|
|
| "Simple Simon" wrote in message
| ...
| In a fog, as soon as vessels concerned come within sight of one
| another the sailboat is the stand-on vessel with respect to the
| motor vessel
|
| This means in a fog (when in sight) the pecking order applies.
|
| This loophole in the Rules is something that seems to go right
| over the heads of the group's tugboat captains. They cannot
| fathom the fact that 'in sight' also exists in restricted visibility
| as in a fog. Since 'in sight' exists in a fog then the pecking order
| exists in a fog. This is so logical that it cannot be argued.
|
| Yet the fools continue to argue it . . .
|
| S.Simon
|
|
| "The_navigator©" wrote in message
| ...
| Who is the stand on vessel in fog?
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Simple Simon wrote:
| Joe,
|
| I'm surprised at you making an ignorant statement like you could
| care less about the COLREGS. Everybody who cares about safe
| and sane operation of boats of all kinds would do well to learn
the
| COLREGS. Even if you aren't concerned about safety you should
| be concerned about liability. Knowing and following the COLREGS
| will eventually save you far more trouble than the little time
spent
| avoiding acquiring this valuable knowledge.
|
| I recommend you visit my website and read the Novice Lessons
| where I give a very good and thorough explaination in layman's
| terms of the COLREGS.
|
| http://www.homestead.com/captneal/lesson.html
|
|
| S.Simon - knows the COLREGS better than any other individual
| here and better than all the tugboat captains
combined
| which includes Rick, Otnmbrd, Morris, and Shen44.
|
|
| "Joe" wrote in message
| om...
|
| "katysails" wrote in message
| ...
|
| So the gamers should respect the people and the vessel with a
goal
| and
| or a purpose.
|
| Racers are entoute and do have a goal and purpose. It is just
not
| YOUR
| goal or purpose. They do have to follow COLREGS, though, in the
| process
| even though some forget that.
|
| Katy,
|
| If a man is mowing a lawn, would you expect him to stop so you can
| play baseball? He's trying to feed his kids. Yet you are just
playing
| a game.
|
| If a man is sweeping a sidewalk, would you have him stop so you
can
| Scotty can play jacks?
|
| You may have the right to demand him to stop, But the whole
| neighborhood will suffer a dirty sidewalk because you are selfish.
|
| I could care less about the COLREGS.
|
| It's not about the law, it's about the respect.
|
| Joe
| MSV RedCloud
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

That's why you are and probably always will be, an amateur, Donal.
Anyone with any experience and common sense would have learned to expect
the unexpected and always keep the possibilities in mind, no matter how
slight the chances.

otn

Donal wrote:

"Shen44" wrote in message
...

OOPS ....Forgot one:

What if the sailboat comes out of the fog (and can see the motor vessel)

and

finds itself overtaking the motor vessel, because the motor vessel has

reduced

speed to bare steerageway?


I'd be much more concerned about the risk of collision with a low flying
pig!

Regards


Donal
--

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
. net...
That's why you are and probably always will be, an amateur, Donal.
Anyone with any experience and common sense would have learned to expect
the unexpected and always keep the possibilities in mind, no matter how
slight the chances.


It is very refreshing to see that you acknowledge that a motor vessel
reducing it's speed to bare steerageway would be "unexpected".



Regards


Donal
--





otn

Donal wrote:

"Shen44" wrote in message
...

OOPS ....Forgot one:

What if the sailboat comes out of the fog (and can see the motor vessel)

and

finds itself overtaking the motor vessel, because the motor vessel has

reduced

speed to bare steerageway?


I'd be much more concerned about the risk of collision with a low flying
pig!

Regards


Donal
--

Hey stupid. The 'bridge' does not exist in the Rules with
respect to keeping a lookout at all times. Lamers using
dangerous excuses and practices like maintaining that
you can't see a vessel if the vessel can't see the bridge
shows you are unqualified to be a captain.

Read the Rules pertaining to keeping a lookout.
It says nothing about keeping a lookout on the
bridge only. You are required to be aware of
other vessels around you even if it requires posting
a man or men at the bow, at the stern and any place
else not visible from the bridge.

You really embarrassed yourself this time. What an
ignoramous!

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message t...
It doesn't. Assume that they can't until it would be obvious to even a
"Simple Simon" that they couldn't use "restricted visibility" as an
excuse for not obeying the rules.

If you can't see the bridge, the bridge cannot see you.

otn

Wally wrote:

otnmbrd wrote:


If BOTH vessels are in sight of each other then visual rules apply. If
only one or neither vessel is in sight of the other, then the rules
for restricted visibility apply and BOTH vessels must navigate with
extreme caution until they are clear of each other.


How does the vessel that can see the other know that the other can see it?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.