They do not. The rules include the possibility of slowing, stopping or
reversing.

Cheers MC

Simple Simon wrote:

"Tim Roberts" wrote in message ...


Simon, you wrote:

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


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.

S.Simon

Nope, you're wrong! Here's why:


Part B - Steering and Sailing Rules

Section I - Conduct of Vessels in any Condition of Visibility

Rule 4
Application
Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility.

Rule 8
Action to Avoid Collision
(a)Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due
regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit be large enough to be
readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar;
a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed shall be avoided.
(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation
provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness
of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to asses the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by
stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.
(f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall when
required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching
the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be
required by the rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two
vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

I guess you think the above doesn't apply in restricted visibility. Think again.
It applies in all conditions of visibility as stated in Rule 4

S.Simon


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

You are totally wrong.

If you hear a sound signal in fog but have not clearly identified the other
vessel visually, how the hell do you know where they are?

Sound in fog is like sound in water - it's very difficult to tell which
direction it's coming from. If you alter course without knowing where the
other vessel is, you could increase the risk of collision.

The ONLY sensible and safe course of action is to slow down, post as many
lookouts as you can (difficult if your single handing) and be ready to move
quickly once you get a visual. With luck, the sound signal will get quieter
as the other vessel passes away from you - but in my experience (and i've
sailed a lot in fog in the North Sea and English Channel) this is not
likely.

I hope I never have to sail anywhere with you when there is a risk of fog.
You're a downright danger to yourself and to other shipping.





-----= 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! =-----

Fog is not an animal except in the movies and awful Steven King books.

Cheers MC

Simple Simon wrote:

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! =-----

Yes they do - as an option or alternative if there is doubt.
Rule 8 specifically.

S.Simon

"The_navigator©" wrote in message ...
They do not. The rules include the possibility of slowing, stopping or
reversing.

Cheers MC

Simple Simon wrote:

"Tim Roberts" wrote in message ...


Simon, you wrote:

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


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.

S.Simon

Obviously, you've never sailed in real fog, such as what
we have out here. 35kts and a wall of impenetrable fog.

"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.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not
require boats to slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:

On the contrary.
Rule 6 requires speeds to be safe at all times, there is no explicit
mention of reducing to a safe speed. Not even in 19b. Only in 19e.


You're being pedantic - rule 6 mandates a safe speed at all times. If the visibility gets
worse, this likely means vessels should slow down. I was only pointing out what you are
also claiming, a "safe speed" is not just a requirement in restricted visibility, it
always applies.

Both 6 and 19b *imply* that a reduction might be mandated in some
circumstances, but only 19e makes *explicit* mention of reduction,
and then only in specific circumstances.

Ah, that's why I quoted 19(e) and not 19(b) ???


All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the
basics. Rule 19 says that sometimes you have to go even slower.

Even slower than safe speed? No, it only means that "safe" may at
times mean very slow.

Even more pedantic. You might just claim the 19(e) is not required at all, since its
implied by rule 6. And yes, the courts have ruled that leaving the dock was going too
fast.


The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there
is no situation where a sailboat must slow down.

In this he is of course mistaken.

I think we are in strong agreement here.


Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?

Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can
be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need
to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained,
unless (as required be the following sentence) it becomes necessary to
take all way off.

I've quoted this rule in full about 5 times in the year we've have this running debate. I
assume the everyone is familiar with the full wording, so I sometimes only quote the
"short version." Neal has claimed that it is unsafe for a sailboat to proceed at anything
less than the full speed for a given wind, and therefore claims that anything less than
hull speed may be unsafe. The rules are specific that there is no such lower limit -
minimum steerageway may be too fast. Indeed, the courts have ruled on occasion that not
dropping the anchor was too fast.

But remember that the whole of 19e only applies to
vessels which have heard another vessel's fog signal from apparently
forward, or where an unavoidable close quarters situation already exists.


Yes, again I assume everyone is familiar with the wording. But all you're saying is that
this rule only applies when there's a possibility of a collision - but that's the
interesting situation!

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.

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

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! =-----

Wow! I got about a third of the way through today's messages and decided to
bail! (Only one life to live.)

But I will remind everyone that one law-enforcement officer I know said he
virtually always lays two charges in collison situations, the stand-on
vessel's skipper getting at least "failure to maintain an adequate lookout."
Related to the so-called "General Avoidance Rule."

I'm not sure about Simple Simon (is that "Neal") thinking that 6 knots under
sail is a "safe speed." I think a read of the Regs shows that safe speed is
not ever one number, but takes myriad factors into consideration, and that
sometimes a safe speed is stopped, or reversing. ((Backwind a sail, I
guess!)

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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...

A bit of history for those new to this discussion:

I'm not sure how long ago it started, but it's months not days ago, and
friend Neal basically started off by stating that since a sailboat and a
power driven vessel made different signals in fog, there was a full
pecking order in fog and a sailboat was then considered a stand-on
vessel when it heard the fog signal of a powerdriven vessel. Also, that
it didn't need to reduce speed since it was all ready at a reduced
speed. (someone can look back to confirm this, or possibly Jeff or Shen
can confirm my memory).
Needless to say, he was shown to be wrong, and since then has been
trying to talk his way out of it ..... to no avail, as you can all see,
by trying to apply abstract conditions to the basic "in sight" and "not
in sight" conditions of the initial discussions.

Regarding rule 6 and 19 .... keep in mind, that those responsible for
the rules, seem to be aware that you cannot write a rule to cover every
situation, so "insert" rule 2.
Although the wording of rule 6 and 19 in most sections, does not
specifically state "reduce speed" the implication is there, and "rule
2", you are responsible to act upon that implication.

As I've said before, Neal is a basic "newbie" who has somehow gotten a
beginners license, which he's rarely if ever used. His knowledge of the
rules is based on his own reading and interpretation, not experience or
real knowledge of their meaning or intent.
The best reason to get into an argument/discussion on any maritime
subject, with Neal, is to learn how NOT to think or interpret the
"Rules", or any other subject, for that matter, I've seen him expound
upon, as BG I have seen him come up with some clever ways to try and
"cover his butt".

otn

ROFL

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

"Tim Roberts" wrote in message ...


Simon, you wrote:

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


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.

S.Simon