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

Wrong word, Neal ..... Disgusted, would be closer.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

I'm beginning to think Rick is becoming a newsgroup stalker.

He's so jealous of me he just can't let go of his obsession.

S.Simon

"Rick" wrote in message nk.net...

Simple Simon wrote:

How Nil "can call himself a mariner is an absurdity of a major
sort."

Let's look at what he brings to the dock:

A license good for a Whaler load of poor bemused and endangered
passengers but none of the other certifications required of legitimate
professional mariners.

A plastic trailer-sailer with a broken boom moored to an old engine
block in some Florida swamp.

A pedant's vision of the COLREGS based on sailing fantasies developed
while immersed in the fumes from his cedar bucket MSD.

H'mmm, that seems to be about all ...

He needs about a year's worth of training before he can even be a "one
tripper." I don't believe he can successfully complete it even if he
could afford it.

Poor pathetic internet wannabe.

Rick

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

Excellent point, but beyond Neal's basic comprehension abilities.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:

Something else not often mentioned in these threads is that it very difficult to determine
the nature, course and speed of a boat as it first appears through the fog. Neal has
claimed that the instant he sees another vessel he can turn away. The problem is that
such an instantaneous response could be completely wrong.



"Tim Roberts" wrote in message ...

Yet again Simple Simon shows the world that he has never actually been at
sea in fog.

It is NOT easy to tell the bearing of a vessel by just hearing a sound
signal in fog.






-----= 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.
 

Buffoon?

Rick wrote:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Bozo?


No, haven't called him a bozo. That term is just a bit too warm and
fuzzy. It implies a certain charm and harmlessness that just doesn't
apply to someone as nasty and pernicious as Nil.

Nil is more like an aggressive panhandler. It probably stems from a
lifetime of underachievement and frustration. Having a broken boom on
his little plastic trailer boat probably hasn't made things any easier
for him.

Rick

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

ubject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility.
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 10/16/2003 14:26 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Wrong, The COLREGS are very specific as to what is and isn't Safe Speed.
You just don't understand what they say!

Shen

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

Subject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility.
From: "Simple Simon"


I maintain it is NOT scanty information.

I know you do, but those of us with experience in these conditions, know
better.

Try getting out of
the wheelhouse and opening your ears and you will discover
it's easy to tell the bearing of a vessel giving fog signals. It is
also not too difficult to tell the sound is getting louder (closer).

I see, so .... It couldn't possibly be that the other vessel is turning and
directing his whistle at you, rather than closing on you?

Look at your radar as required by the Rules and plot positions
and get bearings.

Now, now .... you don't have or know how to use radar, so we have always
addressed this as vessels without radar.

Rule 8 applies in ALL conditions of visibility and it states that
changing course early and largely is often the best way to
avoid a close quarters situation. You would have me create
a close quarters situation with your stupid insistence that
I slow down and remain on the same course. You are
Wrong Wrong Wrong!

Not knowing what the other vessel is doing, how do you know you would be
creating a close quarters situation by slowing down? How do you know you
wouldn't be creating a close quarters situation by changing course?
Stupid, stupid,stupid


Why give signals at all if you're just gonna ignore them
or use them to create close quarters situations?

Huh? Huh? I can't HEAR you!

You are SUCH an ignorant, incompetent, BUFFOON !


Shen

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

ubject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility.
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?The=5Fnavigator=A9?=
Date: 10/16/2003 14:16 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO

Cheers MC

Not really, it just takes different skills.

Shen

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

ubject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility.
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 10/16/2003 14:42 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

You motorboat captains are all the same. You refuse
to believe you are nothing but glorified truck drivers.

Sailors, on the other hand, are much much more
competent mariners. There is a whole world you
are unfamiliar with because you drive boats while
sailors sail them.

How anybody who drives a boat from an enclosed
and air-conditioned wheel house where you can't
smell the air, hear the sounds outside, feel the temperature,
look at the horizon all around, see the sky, see the water,
etc. can call himself a mariner is an absurdity of a major
sort.

S.Simon

Another prime example of Neal's highly limited experience.

Shen

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

Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

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.
 

Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things
right with respect to this question of who determines
safe speed.

S.Simon


"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

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.
 

Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision?

Or are you just saying that humans have free will?

The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in
both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases
involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad.
--
-jeff

"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
.net...
Otn,

Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master
to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be"
logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say
"should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense.

Capt. Frank

otnmbrd wrote:

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?