|
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
I maintain it is NOT scanty information. 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). Look at your radar as required by the Rules and plot positions and get bearings. 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! 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! S.Simon "Shen44" wrote in message ... Subject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility. From: "Simple Simon" It's simple. Information is not scanty when 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder. This is scanty information. In truth, the bearing may be opening left or right or may be steady... by sound alone there is no way to be absolutely sure. 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course. In which case, follow rule 19 (e) 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters situation. Based on scanty information, and not knowing whether your course change will result in safe passing. Shen |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon wrote:
It's simple. Information is not scanty when 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder. Fair enough. But first, please, show me a reliable method of taking a bearing on a fog signal. I only seem to be able to achieve a precision of plus or minus 180 degrees, or plus or minus 45 if lucky. 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course. Backwards logic again. Rule 7d1 says risk of collision shall be deemed to exist if you are on collision course (i.e. if the compass bearing does not appreciably change). That doesn't mean that if you are apparently on a collision course (by magically sensed compass bearing of a foghorn) that you should assume you are on collision course, from which an arbitrary change of course will divert you. 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters situation. The purpose of 8a/8b/8c is in big part to ensure the other vessel's master is made aware in good time of your action. I'm more concerned about the rest of rule 8 here. You can't hope to comply with 8d (action ... to result in passing at a safe distance) if you have no way of assessing what that distance is likely to be because you have no precise enough idea of its relative position. And again I remind you that even when 19e doesn't apply, 8e also tells you to slow down if necessary to avoid collision. What kind of course alteration are you proposing, by the way? A U-turn? Sounds like a good legalese trick to disarm 19e, since it would automatically change a fog signal detected apparently forward of the beam into one abaft the beam. That would certainly for the moment exempt you from 19e's slowing down requirement unless it had been determined that RoC exists or that a CQS could not be avoided. But what if you're surrounded by fog signals? Then what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
It's obvious you've never sailed in fog..... your statements are akin to
Bobsprit talking about sailing. Neither has merit. CM "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... | | It's simple. Information is not scanty when | | 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and | it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder. | | 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel | is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course. | | 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps | the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and | change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters | situation. | | S.Simon | | | | | "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message ... | Simple Simon wrote: | | "Tim Roberts" wrote | | Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course | regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels | position? | | Yes I would. The Rules require me to. | | Good, that's what I like to see, Cap'n. Nice reasoned argument. | So, pray tell, which particular rules require this? | | Would you care to say how, without knowing where the other vessel | is, you can ensure your action *will* result in the vessels involved | passing at a safe distance (rule 8d) and not result in another close | quarters situation, in this case with the same vessel (rule 8c)? | | Note that rule 8e also requires you to slow down if necessary. | | Rule 8 is in section I, by the way, so applies whether in sight | or not. | | Would you also care to explain how, by altering course to avoid | a vessel of the position of which you are uncertain, you are not | violating rule 7c by making assumptions on the basis of scanty | information? | | | |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon wrote:
And, superior to someone enamored with name-calling. Bwaaaaaaaaahhhahahahhhahah! Is that all you have left? That IS funny ... Nil, is chief among the very few in this thread to claim superiority of one mode of propulsion. All the while stating that the ONLY mode in which he is licensed is the one he claims is inferior. Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand. That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's idiocy. Self hatred? Inferiority complex of some sort? Either way his statements are not those which define a stable and reliable shipmate or the sort of individual who can be entrusted with the operation of a vessel in close quarters. The question that should be asked here is: How well could you sleep below knowing that Nil was at the wheel of your boat one foggy dark night in a busy sound or bay? Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing brightly. Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his pathetic existence. Bon Voyage, Nil. It is time you joined your mate, Jax in the MSD of internet boating. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
By how much?
Cheers MC Simple Simon wrote: 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters situation. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO
Cheers MC Rick wrote: Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand. That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's idiocy. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
More name-calling! Keep it up and maybe you'll convince yourself you're not envious. S.Simon "Rick" wrote in message ink.net... Simple Simon wrote: And, superior to someone enamored with name-calling. Bwaaaaaaaaahhhahahahhhahah! Is that all you have left? That IS funny ... Nil, is chief among the very few in this thread to claim superiority of one mode of propulsion. All the while stating that the ONLY mode in which he is licensed is the one he claims is inferior. Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand. That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's idiocy. Self hatred? Inferiority complex of some sort? Either way his statements are not those which define a stable and reliable shipmate or the sort of individual who can be entrusted with the operation of a vessel in close quarters. The question that should be asked here is: How well could you sleep below knowing that Nil was at the wheel of your boat one foggy dark night in a busy sound or bay? Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing brightly. Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his pathetic existence. Bon Voyage, Nil. It is time you joined your mate, Jax in the MSD of internet boating. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
The_navigator© wrote:
Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO To safely operate either requires skill. There may be different skills involved at different times but neither is somehow a "superior" skill. Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. You will not find professional mariners of either mode making the type of ignorant statements regularly espoused by Nil. Nil's comments prove my point very clearly. He is merely a pedantic dilettante who lacks both skill and experience. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living
doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his pathetic existence. Whats'a matter, Nil, reduced to projecting your own failures and ineptitude? Are you so jealous of those of us who do for a living what you struggle to do for pleasure that you can now only attack us for what you are incapable of attaining? It seems you have been so thoroughly thrashed over your incompetence in the COLREGS and vessel operations that you can now only spin around and lash out in some blind rage accusing others of your own deficiencies. Poor sad little wannabe ... save up and buy a boom. Get some sailing time and maybe you can get a sail endorsement on your little MOTOR boat ticket. Don't forget to flush after each post, Nil. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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 "Rick" wrote in message ink.net... The_navigator© wrote: Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO To safely operate either requires skill. There may be different skills involved at different times but neither is somehow a "superior" skill. Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. You will not find professional mariners of either mode making the type of ignorant statements regularly espoused by Nil. Nil's comments prove my point very clearly. He is merely a pedantic dilettante who lacks both skill and experience. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Rick" wrote in message ink.net... Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his pathetic existence. Name-calling! Whats'a matter, Nil, reduced to projecting your own failures and ineptitude? Are you so jealous of those of us who do for a living what you struggle to do for pleasure that you can now only attack us for what you are incapable of attaining? More name-calling! It seems you have been so thoroughly thrashed over your incompetence in the COLREGS and vessel operations that you can now only spin around and lash out in some blind rage accusing others of your own deficiencies. Still more name-calling! Poor sad little wannabe ... save up and buy a boom. Get some sailing time and maybe you can get a sail endorsement on your little MOTOR boat ticket. Even more name-calling still! And, you call ME sad? Bwaaahahahhahahahahhahhahah! S.Simon |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Simple Simon wrote:
I'm beginning to think Rick is becoming a newsgroup stalker. Just slapping down an idiot wherever it raises its head. You alone brought my name into this thread and by doing that you made yourself fair game for my evaluation of your qualifications or lack thereof. You seem to want it both ways, Nil. You want to trash your betters but when you are exposed for the fraud you are you can only whine and claim that you are being stalked or attacked. Poor pathetic internet wannabe. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
Exactly right. It's very difficult to tell without a reference.
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... 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.
No this isn't true. For example, a near collision would not
be considered safe. "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.
Bozo?
"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.
Wally wrote:
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? Not really. Manoeuvrability alone is not good enough, he needs to budget for reaction time. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
I've called him a bozo, but then again I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
"Rick" wrote in message ink.net... 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.
This is correct.... I know since I have fished commercially and sailed
around the Maritimes for many years. You can NOT tell where the sound is coming from in thick fog... at least not in a precise direction. Port or Starboard... maybe yes.... bow or stern maybe yes.... distance bearing no way! Cappy you're a tropical sailor with limited experience in my sea realm. I've sailed often in your waters.... you've never sailed in mine. You are in no position to speak with any authority on fog.... you are merely quoting and misconstruing second hand information. That's why you can't defend yourself adequately in this situation. CM "Tim Roberts" wrote in message | It is NOT easy to tell the bearing of a vessel by just hearing a sound | signal in fog. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
No Jeff... it would be completely impossible.
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... | 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.
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com