COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

I've called him a bozo, but then again I think we're all Bozos on this bus.

Yeah, I agree with that ... I often feel like a bozo for wasting time on
the cretin.

Rick

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Rick ... I've seen what passes for crew aboard a lot of ships around here.
It's amazing most of these sub human slack jawed rejects can tie their own
laces... and that includes a lot of the Captains.

Unless it's an American, Commonwealth or Japanese crew..... their only fit
for tossing overboard. Remember the Greek crew that abandoned ship to"get a
better look" leaving the passengers aboard?

CM


"Rick" wrote in message
ink.net...
| Simple Simon wrote:
|
| And, you call ME sad?
|
| Well, not just Sad:
|
| Pathetic
| Incompetent
| Jealous
| Incapable
| Inept
| Pedantic
| Dilettante
| Wannabe
| Deficient
|
| Let me know if I missed anything.
|
| And BTW, that is not "name calling" it is part of an evaluation of your
| unsuitability for shipboard employment based on your written statements.
|
| Rick
|
|

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Again you show ignorance. The courts have held that it is the responsibility of the
master not only to fully understand and abide by the rules, but also to understand and
abide by the interpretation of the courts. One area often discussed in these terms is the
meaning "safe speed." The meaning of "moderate speed" (from the old rules) and "safe
speed" has been much discussed over the years. The appropriate speed varies a lot with
the conditions, but is usually held to be somewhere between 2 knots and 6 knots for
vessels without radar.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is
is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under
the circumstances he finds himself in.

Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs
and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with
the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at
all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.


OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.


OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.


OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability


It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.


Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.


Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Capt. Mooron wrote:

Rick ... I've seen what passes for crew aboard a lot of ships around here.
It's amazing most of these sub human slack jawed rejects can tie their own
laces... and that includes a lot of the Captains.

Yeah, I know. And I factored that in when evaluating Nil's
unsuitability. As you have seen that places him in pretty low company.

Rick

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Grew up in El Cerrito and have my boat on a trailer in Pleasanton. 21'
Jetcraft Bluewater. thinking of a 26-27 Farallon Whaleback type in maybe 2
years. Tow it to San Juans and cruise for a couple of months and same to
Florida and maybe barge to St. Thomas area.
Bill

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Do you have a boat in the area? Mine's in Sausalito.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yup, they are different. Not. The causing effect may be different, but
the
fog is the same. And we get sea fog on the coast. Watched sea fog for
many
years growing up, coming both through the Golden Gate and over the Marin
Headlands and San Franciso. Knowing when I got out of school, the
frikken
fog would get us at about 3:30 pm. And could not run the convertible
top
down with the date. Grew up next to Berkeley in the hills.
Bill

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


Sea fog and land fog are two different animals.


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
I guess in pieman land you get light fog only. Here in North Calif
you
get
friggin fog so thick you can not see the front of the car from the
drivers
seat!
Bill

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on
occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick
that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another.

At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog
is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of
the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or
near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations
are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and
stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another.

Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained
there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of
restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on
and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility.

I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line.

I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at
a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less
than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so
I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk
in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed.
In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally.

If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away
if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on
vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm
overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering
they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual
20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore,
I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try
to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision.
If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course -
I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to
a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk
by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too
fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and
not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES.

Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the
Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel
hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above
it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight
of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel
in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation
in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation.

This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That
there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a
give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility.

If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come
within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows
it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation.
(we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc,
here - we're talking at sea.) This means the
give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of
restricted visibility.


S.Simon - knows the practical application
as well as the letter of the Rules.



"Tim Roberts" wrote in message
...
Sorry Jeff,

It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread.

I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only
type
of
restricted visibility.

Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread,
I
should
perhaps add a couple of points;

First Point:

Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue
of
Rule
1
(Application)

'(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas
and
in
all
waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels'


Second Point:

Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog?
He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is
formed.
It
happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is
colder
than
it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is
'normally'
with a
change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able
to
absorb
the
moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction
merely
feeds
more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction
continues
for
long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker.

I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in
thick
fog.
I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels
sound
signals much easier than with an engine on.

Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both
COLREGS
and
Meteorology amongst other things.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Haha! That's reallly funny, thinking that since you are the captain, no one
else can dispute what you think is a safe speed. Troll, at best."It's only a
legal decision...."; famous last words. What a turd.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.

The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.

Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong. Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.

If you are a sailor and if you've ever sailed a 27-foot
cruising sailboat with a fin keel and balanced spade
rudder you would know that at five or six knots one
can put the helm down rapidly so the vessel spins and
stops in less than a boat length. If I am going one or
two knots this is not the case. The boat doesn't have
enough way on to spin on her keel and stop. One
must have a certain amount of speed to have decent
maneuverability. If any judge ever attempted to say
my speed was unsafe because it was too fast at
five or six knots I could easily set up a demonstration
to prove him in error.

As for your situation with the vessel fishing when I hear
the same signal I'm giving I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.

S.Simon


"Tim Roberts" wrote in message
...
This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are
whether
Rule 19(e)
requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether
the
"prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a
standon/giveway
relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that
since there is a
grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules
might
apply, then
there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a
pecking order,
sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be
buying
it.

O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is
a
pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing
vessels
need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is
involved
in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?).

Fishing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short
Sailing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short

Many Other vessels also sound 1 Long & 2 Short

How do you know the other vessel isn't a fishing vessel

Sailing vessels must keep out of the way of fishing vessels even in
Simple
Simon's pecking order (surely! or maybe this will just add fuel to
another
pointless argument from Simon).

As you can't tell what the vessel is (because you haven't seen it) -
prudence requires you to slow down - THE RULES require you to slow
down -
just in case it IS a fishing vessel and you have to give way.

Also, I have skippered many yachts that sail (and steer) quite happily
at 2
knots, so this can't slow down (must maintain hull speed) approach is a
load
of ********. 7 knots is not a safe speed for a yacht in restricted
visibility! Would you sail into a berth at 7 knots? I don't think so.

There are no grey areas in the IRPCS. Just in the way we interpret
them.
Clearly there are some out there who are not employing common sense and
employing safe practice when they are at sea.


Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine
Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the
internet.
The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to
blame
as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for
avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Bob is king of bozos. He wins again!

"Rick" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

I've called him a bozo, but then again I think we're all Bozos on this
bus.

Yeah, I agree with that ... I often feel like a bozo for wasting time on
the cretin.

Rick

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Not really. At the slower speed he'll have more time to maneuver and may
well carry a shorter distance during the maneuver.

otn

Wally wrote:
Ronald Raygun wrote:


Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely
to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an
implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an
opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances
be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe
for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you
say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other
speed. That's fallacious.


What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher
speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher
speed? Does that wash?


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

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Bob is king of bozos. He wins again!

Of course he is. I don't think I will ever feel like THAT much of a Bozo!

Rick

COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
 

Not really true. You need to get away from this habit, that if it's not
specifically written, it's not there.

In Rule 2 one is advised that one is responsible for whatever one does
or doesn't do and they must take the necessary precautions and act in a
seaman like manner. In other words, you are to act and govern the
movement of your vessel in such a way that you avoid a collision. Every
vessel and set of circumstance vary, so there is no way one could give a
set of numbers for speeds which would cover all of those needs .... YOU,
are to determine and apply those numbers .... YOU are to know what is
safe speed for your vessel and your conditions. YOU are responsible, not
the courts (G They only decide if you were or weren't and to what degree).
Rule 6 Tells you exactly what "Safe Speed" is, it just doesn't list any
numbers, since those numbers can vary so greatly from vessel to vessel
and condition to condition.

If in doubt, stop, recite rule 2, understand it, and THEN start over.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is
is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under
the circumstances he finds himself in.

Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs
and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with
the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at
all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:


Simple Simon wrote:



All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.


OK



The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.


OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.



Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.


OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?



Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability


It is indeed that, but not only that.



and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.


Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.



I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.


Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?