Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

No, usually the professionals and those of us who have actually
studied the rules are in agreement.

It's the people who haven't read the rules or haven't learned what
they really mean that create the disagreements. Like Ellen claiming
she doesn't have to honor a RAM signal from a small vessel that she
doesn't think deserves it. Or Neal claiming no one can make him slow
down in the fog. And then there's always the kayakers who insist the
smaller boat always has ROW, or the "common sense" sailors that insist
that the boat that "needs" it more must have ROW.


Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

Isn't Otn a harbor pilot?

They more I understand the rules, the more appreciation I have for the
masters of large ships and commercial ferries. They show an
impressive ability for anticipating how situations will evolve.

And I've learned that the helmsman of the sport fisherman headed at me
at 35 knots is probably digging a beer out of the fridge.


I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year before they located
the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red paint streaks were all over
the boat. The investigation was relatively easy, and the red barge that ran
the tug down was located in Chicago, sporting damage to the bow and
underbelly. Charges were filed and the "captain" who skippered the tug
pushing the barge either faces trial for, or has been convicted of,
negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

There was a similar case here in 2001, the Russian tanker Virgo sunk
the Gloucester fishing vessel Starbound and continued on to
Newfoundland. It turned into a legal quagmire, and the Russian
crewmen who were on watch eventually returned to Russia. US courts
wanted to prosecute for involuntary manslaughter and negligence, but
its not clear they had standing.


Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.


I'm not sure what it shows at all. Are you claiming that tug masters
shouldn't learn the rules because then they would keep a better
lookout? Yeh, that makes sense.

"Jeff" wrote
| Like Ellen claiming
| she doesn't have to honor a RAM signal from a small vessel that she
| doesn't think deserves it.

Show me where I said that in those words and I'll give you oral sex! I think I
see your problem. You can't read too well. You jump to false conclusions.

| Or Neal claiming no one can make him slow
| down in the fog.

*Neal* do you mean Captain Neal? He should know. He's wrote lessons... I wish
he'd come back here. He'd set y'all straight. He's got a Master's license. I can't
even pass the test yet for a six-pak. (But I keep studying :-))

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Like Ellen claiming
| she doesn't have to honor a RAM signal from a small vessel that she
| doesn't think deserves it.

Show me where I said that in those words and I'll give you oral sex! I think I
see your problem. You can't read too well. You jump to false conclusions.


So it must have been some other Ellen who said:
"No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring"
they are RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says
they're RAM."

"Jeff" wrote
| So it must have been some other Ellen who said:
| "No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring"
| they are RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says
| they're RAM."


Uh, Jeff, do you really think honor and respect have the same meaning?
"Do you, Jeff, promise to love, honor and respect.....till death do you part?"
If the words mean the same thing why use them both? Duh! (little blonde head
bouncing from side to side off shoulder ruffles....shoulder pads are out!)
No Bill Jefferson for you, I'm afraid.

Cheers,
Ellen

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.


Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.


I'm not sure what it shows at all. Are you claiming that tug masters
shouldn't learn the rules because then they would keep a better lookout?
Yeh, that makes sense.

I left Scotty's first paragraph (above) for you to re-read.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.


Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.

I'm not sure what it shows at all. Are you claiming that tug masters
shouldn't learn the rules because then they would keep a better lookout?
Yeh, that makes sense.

I left Scotty's first paragraph (above) for you to re-read.

I read it again and still don't see the connection. As I said, I
don't buy the basic premise that the "pro's" and the "experts"
disagree on the rules. Its the amateurs and wannabees, who make up
rules because they sound reasonable, that have the disagreements.

And the case you mentioned presumably involved total lack of lookout
by both parties, followed by leaving the scene, possibly a criminal
act. How this relates to a disagreement over the rules is beyond me.

Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

I don't have a Master's licence and never will. I have a professional
crew that takes our ship where I want it to go subject to overriding
safety factors. We also don't care overmuch about bumping into stuff,
provided it's not more than 1 couple metres thick or weighs less than
5K tonnes.

The only qualification I need for my toy sailboat is my desire to sail
it.

Otnbrd is a pro, IIRC.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

As I said to Donal years ago, the main rule to keep in mind when
dealing with commercial vessels is the rule of tonnage. As per usual,
he didn't understand it because he couldn't find it in the ColRegs.

PDW

You are right Scotty, common sense is what really matters. Steer clear of
potential trouble.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:11:56 -0400, "Scotty"
wrote:

What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty





After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.

Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said. Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in. While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel? Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.

Going back to the original question posed by Ellen: A large sport
fisherman is on a plane (I assume that means 20+ knots) headed towards
a 17 foot low speed sailboat. You claimed we can't tell what type of
situation it really was and that more information is needed saying it
'Always reverts to "least maneuverable vessel"' and further stated
that we have to know if a vessel was "channel bound." I still have
trouble with this: how do you (or really, the person on the sailboat)
even assess the maneuverability of a planing sport fisherman? I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.

If this truly was narrow channel situation, planing at 25 knots does
not seem very prudent. And even in this situation, the sailboat is
still the "stand-on" vessel, though it may be obligated "not to
impede," in other words, give the "channel bound" vessel the space to
get around. The rules provide plenty of guidance in this situation
(whatever it really was); you don't have to get into a debate over
which vessel is more maneuverable.

Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.