Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
small pleasure boats.....

Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
line.
Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
corrections.
Is he apt to have dayshapes or lights to indicate anything such as RAM?
Highly unlikely.
You'll be lucky if he has a portable radio, but your best bet will be, to
find out from him if he considers himself RAM, his yelling at you.
If I were to be approaching him in a sailboat, would I need to see signals
or hear from him that he was RAM? No. It is my responsibility (Rule 2) to
assess the situation and realize the possibilities and act accordingly....
In this case, treat him as RAM.
I realize this is an extreme example, but these examples can run the gamut
and in Scotty's case, there's an excellent chance that there was no RAM
condition..... each case on it's own merits (since I wasn't there, I would
have to say the possibility exist).

otn

otnmbrd wrote:
Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
small pleasure boats.....

Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
line.
Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
corrections.
Is he apt to have dayshapes or lights to indicate anything such as RAM?
Highly unlikely.
You'll be lucky if he has a portable radio, but your best bet will be, to
find out from him if he considers himself RAM, his yelling at you.
If I were to be approaching him in a sailboat, would I need to see signals
or hear from him that he was RAM? No. It is my responsibility (Rule 2) to
assess the situation and realize the possibilities and act accordingly....
In this case, treat him as RAM.
I realize this is an extreme example, but these examples can run the gamut
and in Scotty's case, there's an excellent chance that there was no RAM
condition..... each case on it's own merits (since I wasn't there, I would
have to say the possibility exist).

otn


Which just goes to show that if it looks like a duck....common sense....

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
| small pleasure boats.....
| Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
| using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
| line.
| Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
| the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
| corrections.


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

"(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and
her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

The question you should be asking isn't *would this boat be maneuverable*. It's *is this
boat severely restricted in its ability to deviate from it's course*? It's plain that it's NOT!
It's as simple as turning the tiller handle. Or throttling back. It might not turn as fast or
slow down as fast as it can by itself. But it can do both. There's nothing severe about it.
Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe, or being attached to a boat your supplying or being
attached to a wreck or having a mine ten feet away on either side of you. That's what
the examples tell you. A towboat severely restricted means the same freakin' thing. Say
it's going around the bend in a river. It can't change course or the barge will hit the
bank. It can't slow down or the barge will hit the bank. That's severe. Duh!

3(g) "from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by
these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

How can you say your example is *unable* to keep out of the way of Scotty's sailboat?
It's so simple. Turn the tiller sooner instead of later of turn off the freakin' motor and
stay out of the way of the sailboat.
It's silly to say your example is RAM. The rule just doesn't support it. Two motor boats
is all they are. One's running the other's broke down.

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote
| Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
| small pleasure boats.....
| Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
| using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
| line.
| Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
| the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
| corrections.


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

He just described a case were being underpowered and restricted in the
ability to manuver.
If he just slows the tow would run him over, turning may take a while
due to mass so the guy towing is severly resricted, but you feel free
to push the issue with the next heavy underpowered tow you see.

Joe

Cheers,
Ellen

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

"(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely
restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate
from their course."

The question you should be asking isn't *would this boat be
maneuverable*.

No, the question is *would this boat (in my example) and it's tow be
severly restricted in their ability to deviate from their course*......
answer..... quite probably under most conditions, yes.

It's *is this
boat severely restricted in its ability to deviate from it's course*?
It's plain that it's NOT! It's as simple as turning the tiller handle.

G Try turning that tiller handle with no regard to the size/weight of
your tow and see how far you get. At best you'll get nowhere, at worst
you'll get tripped and end up in the drink with the pram on top of you.


Or throttling back.

...... and start praying the tow doesn't run you over.


It might not turn as fast or slow down as fast as
it can by itself. But it can do both. There's nothing severe about it.

Depends on the circumstances.... in my example it's probably severe.


Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe

Doesn't apply to this case in questio
, or being attached to a boat
your supplying or being attached to a wreck

Doesn't apply to the case in question.

or having a mine ten feet
away on either side of you.

May or may not apply.
That's what the examples tell you.

You really do have limited experience. The examples are of types of
vessels which may be RAM..... not all are considered "towing vessels" and
in fact few are.


A
towboat severely restricted means the same freakin' thing. Say it's
going around the bend in a river. It can't change course or the barge
will hit the bank. It can't slow down or the barge will hit the bank.
That's severe. Duh!

ROFL


3(g) "from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to
maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel."

How can you say your example is *unable* to keep out of the way of
Scotty's sailboat?

Simple.....because of the size/hullshape/hp/towing arrangement of the
pram, it and it's tow are severely restricted in it's ability to deviate
from it's course.

It's so simple. Turn the tiller sooner instead of later of turn off
the freakin' motor and stay out of the way of the sailboat.

BG

It's silly to say your example is RAM. The rule just doesn't
support it. Two motor boats
is all they are. One's running the other's broke down.

G If we listen to you, then you should be highly qualified to go aboard
any towboat and do the job..... simple....turn the tiller and jocky the
throttles.......

otn

Cheers,
Ellen

Leaving the colregs entirely to on side my basic thought is that if he is
moving at least 4-5 times faster than I can he must take avoiding action
because there is nothing I can usefully do. With such a big speed difference
I am in effect 'an obstruction to sea room' so he had better avoid me...


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM
and
small pleasure boats.....

Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25'
powerboat
using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
line.
Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and
with
the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
corrections.
Is he apt to have dayshapes or lights to indicate anything such as RAM?
Highly unlikely.
You'll be lucky if he has a portable radio, but your best bet will be, to
find out from him if he considers himself RAM, his yelling at you.
If I were to be approaching him in a sailboat, would I need to see signals
or hear from him that he was RAM? No. It is my responsibility (Rule 2) to
assess the situation and realize the possibilities and act accordingly....
In this case, treat him as RAM.
I realize this is an extreme example, but these examples can run the gamut
and in Scotty's case, there's an excellent chance that there was no RAM
condition..... each case on it's own merits (since I wasn't there, I would
have to say the possibility exist).

otn

:

Leaving the colregs entirely to on side my basic thought is that if he
is moving at least 4-5 times faster than I can he must take avoiding
action because there is nothing I can usefully do. With such a big
speed difference I am in effect 'an obstruction to sea room' so he had
better avoid me...


Stop/come about.......

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

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.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

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.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

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?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

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.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

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.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?
If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.


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.

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

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.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.


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.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!


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?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.


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.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

....

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.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?

No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.

What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

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

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.

I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, I'm going to make the assmumption that you just can't be as dumb
as your response sounds. So you must want to take over RB's position
at the side of the boat throwing over that rotten chum to bait up what
you can.

Good luck on that one. I'll still go with common sense when it is
appropriate. That is what the thread was about.

Frank



Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

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.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.


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.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!


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?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.


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.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

...

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.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?

No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.

What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

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

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.

I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?