|
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding the COLREGS. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Dear Group, I find banana porridge helps greatly |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
At the risk of being a pedant, the COLREGS themselves state the following;
Rule 3 General Definitions (l) The term "restricted visibility" means any conditions in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes. That aside, from my own experience at sea I'd have to agree with the point Simon is trying to make. -----= 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.
But it doesn't include myopic Coronado owners...
Cheers MC Tim Roberts wrote: At the risk of being a pedant, the COLREGS themselves state the following; Rule 3 General Definitions (l) The term "restricted visibility" means any conditions in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes. That aside, from my own experience at sea I'd have to agree with the point Simon is trying to make. -----= 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.
SS,
Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately. So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? 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. Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the starting point. Charles ==== Charles T. Low - remove "UN" www.boatdocking.com www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat ==== "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding the COLREGS. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"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 the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and yell "STAND ASIDE" John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
You're new here aren't cha.
"Charles T. Low" wrote in message ... SS, Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately. So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? 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. Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the starting point. Charles ==== Charles T. Low - remove "UN" www.boatdocking.com www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat ==== "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding the COLREGS. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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) |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. 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. If you want to see some of the earlier threads, search on "fog" in this group. "Charles T. Low" wrote in message ... SS, Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately. So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? 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. Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the starting point. Charles ==== Charles T. Low - remove "UN" www.boatdocking.com www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat ==== "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding the COLREGS. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Everett" wrote in message
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 What does it say? Do you have a point? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. Is this point of Simon's that you're agreeing with? "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... At the risk of being a pedant, the COLREGS themselves state the following; Rule 3 General Definitions (l) The term "restricted visibility" means any conditions in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes. That aside, from my own experience at sea I'd have to agree with the point Simon is trying to make. -----= 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:
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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
Hey John,
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Of course, one "tries" to miss the errant PWC too. G Capt. Frank John Cairns wrote: "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 the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and yell "STAND ASIDE" John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:51:21 GMT, something compelled "Capt.
Frank Hopkins" , to say: Hey John, Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Standing orders on USS Prairie, AD 15 read in part:* Aircraft carriers are unpredictable and change course at will, with little to no regard to the rest of the fleet. Whenever steaming with an aircraft carrier, a vigilant watch will be kept upon it, and the ship will be maneuvered out of the way as prudent. *As much as I remember. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"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! =----- 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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
It was a great day on the bay!
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... 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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Everett wrote:
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. To say what, exactly? The pecking order (rule 18), stand-on (rule 17), and give-way (rule 16) stuff is not in section I of part B, to which rule 4 refers, but in section II of part B, which is introduced by rule 11: "Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another." So the pecking order *only* applies when in sight. Section III which is rule 19 applies only to vessels not in sight of one another, when in restricted visibility. This means that, even where visibility is restricted (for any reason), as soon as ships come close enough to see each other, section III goes out the window and section II kicks in, restoring pecking order *which does not exist in section III*. But this revived pecking order may be academic if by then vessels are already in a close quarters situation. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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) |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... It was a great day on the bay! "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... 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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
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? -----= 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 more comments interspersed ....
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... 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. 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: "Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions." 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. Rule 19 specifically addresses restricted visibilty, and says: "(e) Except where it has been determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the fog signal of another vessel, or which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation with another vessel forward of her beam, shall reduce her speed to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course. She shall if necessary take all her way off and in any event navigate with extreme caution until danger of collision is over." The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there is no situation where a sailboat must slow down. Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ... SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that? You've claimed that its impossible for a sailboat to slow down, but that only proves you don't know how to sail. I suggest take a beginners sailing class if you don't understand how to control your speed. 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. I've often admitted that in light fog there can be situations where the "in sight" rules take affect. However, in thick fog, two vessel making 7 knots each can be closing at 24 feet/second. In 50 foot visibilty, this does not leave enough time to even react. This is why there can be no pecking order in thick fog - ALL VESSELS have an equal responsibilty to REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM! 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. By claiming a vessel is "standon" you imply it must maintain course and speed. But even so, claiming a sailboat "could" proceed a full speed in thick fog also blatantly wrong. 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. For many situations, you may be correct. However, in thick fog, 6 knots is too fast, even for a small boat. The rules are quite explicit. The courts have also been very specific on this, holding vessels at fault because they did not anchor immediately. BTW, just a month ago you claimed your hull speed was 7 knots. Did you suddenly slow down? 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. No, you've merely claimed rules that protect boats in thick fog don't make sense because sometimes there isn't thick fog. This is nonsensical! S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical liberal fashion. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Comments interspersed:
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. Wrong and immaterial to the discussion. The discussion is how vessels react and there responsibility when they can see each other, and when they can not see each other. 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. Absolutely wrong. What you seem unable to comprehend is that when vessels can not see each other due to some form of restricted visibility, that there is no stand-on/priveleged status ..... both vessels must navigate with extreme caution. IF .... while in fog or some other form of restricted visibility, the two vessels should come in sight of each other (yes, they may well still be in restricted visibility) then, and only then, do give-way, stand-on conditions apply, unless, of course, they are so close, that BOTH vessels must maneuver to avoid collision. The very simple governing phrases you seem unable to comprehend and apply to the terms "fog" and "restricted visibility", are "in sight of" and "not in sight of". I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. nope 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. Wrong again. Safe speed must be adapted to the prevailing circumstances. If you are doing seven knots and can barely see your bow or just beyond, you will never maneuver in time if something should appear. Sorry, rules for speed apply to sail also. 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 or we are so close that both vessel's must maneuver to avoid collision. (I'll ignore TSS or narrow channels) What do you do if you are hearing the fog signal of what turns out to be a 6000 hp Z-drive tug pushing a 150' deck barge (i.e. a vessel blowing the same signal you are) 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. immaterial 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 - Potentially unsafe practices (Notice, it's perfectly OK for Neal to keep sailing at 5-6 k, but not a motor vessel) 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. Garbage and shows limited sailing skills.. Rules tell you to take all way off if necessary. 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. More garbage. There is no pecking order of any kind, in fog, when two vessels cannot see each other, no matter what the different signals may be. There is, also, no way for a motor vessel to tell if it is dealing with a sailboat, by whistle signals alone. Here again we can see Neals problem grasping the terms "in sight" and "not in sight" and relating (or separating them, if you will) with the terms "fog" and/or "restricted visibility". 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. Again, the problem relating to terminology .... and ....no pecking order.... and again you've proved nothing. 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. .........ONLY if the vessels can see each other (you're still ignoring rule 17(b) and how it would affect stand-on status). So, how's the license renewal coming, Neal? Sure hope they don't make you take a "Rules" test (open book or otherwise)BG otn |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon wrote:
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. Correct, if you replace IS with CAN BE. The in sight rules don't just suddenly become invalid just because visibility becomes restricted. The definitions are clear: "in sight" and "restricted visibility" are not 100% mutually exclusive. That's why the "in sight" rules apply not when visibility is not restricted, but when one vessel can be observed visually from the other. 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. That's crap. There is no way you can seriously claim that 7 knots is a safe speed in thick fog. You should surrender your master's licence immediately and take up golf. 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. Wrong. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. Even wronger. In thick fog you would not be under in-sight rules and so could not possibly be legally standing-on. 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. Nice try, and I admit there is some logic in this approach, but it is nevertheless a flagrant violation of 19b, 19c, and 19e, the point being that sound signals do not allow either you or the motor boat to determine what your likely relative positions are going to be once your range closes sufficiently for you to be able to see each other. The whole point of 19 is that it recognises that there might not be enough time for whichever vessel would become the give-way vessel, once the in-sight rules kick in, to take effective action to avoid collision. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"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 |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
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.
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! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Yes they are both different, but they are equally hazardous to shipping and
should be treated accordingly. I suppose you are implying that there is no wind when you are dealing with land fog? What do you think causes the land fog to move out to sea? The Wind. Drainage winds and katabatic winds can both move off land out to sea and carry fog with them. -----= 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! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com