Jeff Morris wrote:

Neal's point has been (though he doesn't state it explicitly in this
thread) that a
sailboat is "standon" in the thickest fog and is not required to reduce
speed. He has claimed repeatedly that rule 19 does not apply to sailboats
because they are incapable of ever traveling at an unsafe speed.

One has to remember that what is paramount to him is not whether
rule 19 applies "to sailboats" but whether it applies *to him*.

Perhaps in the limited types of situation of which he has experience,
restricted visibility is associated with less wind which will mean
that his sailing vessel is likely already to be proceeding at a safe
speed, and may even already be at the minimum speed at which she can
be kept on her course.

That's not to say that rule 19 doesn't apply to him, merely that he
is already automatically complying with it because the conditions of
19b and 19e are already met.

So, in his own little universe, he's probably right.
For the rest of us, in the real world, the story is different.

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! =-----

How absolutely, positively correct you are, sir!

S.Simon


"Everett" wrote in message ...
"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!

Comments interspersed.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
down.

As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
exists in all its glorious ramifications.



Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.


I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.

I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
keep failing to get it.

As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.

S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
liberal fashion.

If I'm backpedaling furiously then you're flogging that dead
horse frantically with whips in both hands. You continue to
argue using the discredited thick fog scenario and that simply
will not discredit my facts about restricted visibility being all
sorts of situations where in-sight circumstances eventuate
within the area of restricted visibility and in-sight Rules come
into play.

What don't you get about vessels being in sight in or near
an area of restricted visibility?

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Your backpedaling furiously here Neal. You claimed many times that the sailboat is
entitled, actually obligated, to proceed at full speed in the thickest fog. Now you're
admitting that the sailboat must slow appropriately. I sounds like you're admitting you
were wrong all along.

More comments interspersed ...


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

Some people here who claim to be captains are so
obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
is but one example of restricted visibility that they
have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
visibility.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

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.


True, but totally irrelavent. We merely claimed that fog that reduced visibilty to under
50 feet was not uncommon. Now you just admitting there are other conditions.


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


Thick fog may be "worst case" (actually I think torrential downpour can be worse) but it
is not uncommon.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

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


Absolutely not. In fact, for large vessel (which is what the rules truly address) 1/4
mile visibilty is "thick" because it may be under a boat length. The only reason why we
often talk of very thick fog is that you insist on only applying the rules to a 27 foot
sailboat that has a max speed of about 3 knots.


The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules.

Absolutely wrong. By the time vessels come in sight of one another, it may be too late to
apply the "in sight rules." But even so, this is a huge backpedal for you, Neal! You're
actually claiming that all vessels must slow down? You've insisted all along the sailboat
has no such obligation!

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.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

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.


There is no "pecking" mentioned in the rules. In fact, they are quite explicit that the
obligations are the same for all vessels. The fact the some vessels have a different
signal does not make them "standon."


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.


This is a grey area that only works if all vessels believe they are "in sight" and can
clearly make out the course and speed. There may be some cases where it works - but the
courts and all commentators I've read are quite clear that the "restricted visibility"
rules are in lieu of the "in sight" rules.

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.

Again you're backpedaling here - you've maintained in the past the the standon/giveway
relationship holds even in the thickest fog. Are you admitting you were wrong?


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


So you are claiming the sailboat is required to maintain course and speed in thick fog?
What is is Neal, you seem to be reverting here. Are you claiming that because at some
point the "in sight" rules will apply that sailboats are always standon?



S.Simon - the ultimate buffoon when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.


Nice try Neal. You've pretty much admitted you were wrong all along. You're trying to
recast this as a situation were two small vessels are near an area of slightly restricted
visibility. You might even have a point for this case. However, you've claimed all along
that Rule 19 does not apply to sailboats; that they are permitted to travel at full speed
in the thickest fog, and all powerboats must get out of their way. A guess we can assume
this is as close as you'll come to admitting you were wrong all along.


--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)

Go pick your nose or something constructive like
that because it's clear you have too little knowledge
to play with us big boys!

S.Simon


"Rick" wrote in message nk.net...
Simple Simon wrote:

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

??? Why drag me into your fantasy world, Nil?

All I ever did was call you a nautical wannabe. The last thing in the
world I would ever do is argue about the COLREGS with the Cliff Claven
of a.s.a.

Shenn and Otnmbrd are unlimited masters with a career at sea actually
operating ships so I do believe they are a bit more qualified to
interpret the COLREGS than, what is it you claim to hold, a 6 pack MOTOR
ticket or something?

The only thing I can see in your post that cannot be disputed is this
determined adherence to your nautical fantasy life and your peculiar
need to shop it around so many newsgroups.

Rick

I gotta give you credit, Capt. Shen, at least you
understand the meaning of keeping a proper
lookout. It appears your compatriot otnmbrd
hasn't a clue.

Is is any wonder with the likes of otn operating
ships that there will always be plenty of collisions
that could have and should have been avoided.

S.Simon


"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Any similarity between the IMO's interpretation of the "Rules" and those of the
Simpleton Neal, are purely luck or imaginary, on Neal's part.
The only reason to read Neal's interpretations, is to learn how NOT to
interpret the rules.

Shen

Simple Simon wrote:
Go pick your nose or something constructive like
that because it's clear you have too little knowledge
to play with us big boys!

The key to documenting your time is to do it on boats you have owned
recently. Then it is on the honor system. You have to show proof that
you own the boats but they take your word for the time you have sailed
them. Hint! Hint!

I've plenty enough time in three years on one of my two boats.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

ROFLMAO Yeah, it must be the Whaler 'cause your toy license is for
MOTOR!!! You can't pass the test to get a sail endorsement and the only
motor you can operate is an outboard ...

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

S.Simon - A legitimate Master.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ... a "master" of the keyboard, an
internet wannabe, the fastest backpeddler, and the master of fraud in ASA.

This just gets better and better ... best laugh since Jax bailed out in
shame.

Rick

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
It was a great day on the bay!

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news
No wind and fog? He has never seen the fog come in the Golden Gate! Or
over the Marin Headlands. Seems as if the CG feels that the big, dang
freighter coming in the the Gate, had priority over everything but the
Blue
Angels, etc, this last Sunday. Everytime a large ship came in the gate,
the
CG informed all the boats to get out of it's way because of the Col Regs
as
it was restricted to channel. Also they informed the ship of the safety
box
on the San Franciso waterfront during the Fleet Week airshow. They just
adjusted speed, to arrive during the breaks.
Bill

Wife and I rather enjoyed the day. Anchored up by Angel Island, to avoid
the mess by Alcatraz, then went to Ayala Cove on Angel Island after the
show and got a slip and did a little hiking.
Bill

Simple Simon wrote:

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.

I'm told you are absolutely correct - that there's always a few seconds
of stark terror before actually colliding.