http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835

--Tom.

On 2008-10-15 00:13:39 -0400, " said:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835

Unbelievable! No one was looking FORWARD? Did they think yelling
"Starboard" would mean something?


--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Or someone who take Right of Way way, way, too seriously.

I can't believe he didn't see a vessel that big and interesting. It seems
far more likely that he was trying for a close pass ahead and misjudged the
speed or a stern buzz and didn't anticipate the huge airflow disruption a
vessel of this size would create. It looks like he was trying to tack just
before contact. Looks like a hot dogging stunt gone bad.

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Or someone who take Right of Way way, way, too seriously.

I can't believe he didn't see a vessel that big and interesting. It
seems far more likely that he was trying for a close pass ahead and
misjudged the speed or a stern buzz and didn't anticipate the huge airflow
disruption a vessel of this size would create. It looks like he was
trying to tack just before contact. Looks like a hot dogging stunt gone
bad.

--
Roger Long

It appears the smaller sailboat was the 'stand on' vessel (starboard tack)
and the larger the 'give way vessel' (port tack).
It will be interesting who is found at fault here.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

It appears the smaller sailboat was the 'stand on' vessel (starboard tack)
and the larger the 'give way vessel' (port tack).
It will be interesting who is found at fault here.


The General Prudential Rule trumps, "Hey! Starboard!" The smaller boat
should have fallen off and passed behind the larger vessel.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Or someone who take Right of Way way, way, too seriously.

I can't believe he didn't see a vessel that big and interesting. It
seems far more likely that he was trying for a close pass ahead and
misjudged the speed or a stern buzz and didn't anticipate the huge
airflow disruption a vessel of this size would create. It looks like he
was trying to tack just before contact. Looks like a hot dogging stunt
gone bad.

--
Roger Long

It appears the smaller sailboat was the 'stand on' vessel (starboard tack)
and the larger the 'give way vessel' (port tack).
It will be interesting who is found at fault here.



Apparently, according to what I read, the 40' boat tacked just prior to the
collision. Therefore, the starboard rule wasn't in effect. Read the logs.

Too bad about it. Apparently, the boat was owned by Dawn Riley, but someone
borrowed the boat, and she wasn't aboard.

From the photographer:

Okay...
reviewing my own pics, the smaller vessel did not round up. They tacked. I
wasn't really paying attention to them much; l I knew they were there, they
were close but all was well, then the all of a sudden here they come. It
looked at first like they would be hit by MF, not the other way around. That
would have made their day far worse. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I
just grabbed a camera and started shooting.

The smaller boat was on a starboard tack and MF was on port at the time of
impact. I guess those dudes on the smaller boat just didn't see it. I really
have no idea how else they could have put themselves there.

The smaller boat did not put down sails after the accident, either. They
fled. First toward the Bay Bridge, then towards Richmond. It was 20 minutes
before the Falcon caught up with the other vessel. They gave five blasts.
The smaller boat held course under full sail still. That's when the CG
arrived and told the other boat to take her sails down. They took it from
there.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Oct 15, 10:02*am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
....
Apparently, according to what I read, the 40' boat tacked just prior to the
collision. Therefore, the starboard rule wasn't in effect. Read the logs.....

There is a statement here by Tom Perkins:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835
and more photos he
http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gall...86640001_ojnQx

Perkins does not claim that the "Stan By" tacked. His claim is that
MF was to weather and on port and SB was on stb and to leeward. MF
turned PORT to give more room. He then says that SB rounded up and
hit them. He says that SB's main was sheeted hard in which is
apparently not true.

For all of the pictures where SB is in frame the sails are luffing.
It is hard to tell because of the telephoto lens but if there really
was 200 plus feet between SB and MF it seems unlikely that SB with her
sails luffing could have covered that ground and hit hard enough to do
the damage we see.

It is clear that with in two minutes before the the first picture with
SB in frame MF made a major alteration to port. It is reported that
SB's crew claims that MF turned in front of them. That seems
consistent with the photographs. The wake of SB in so far as I can
tell looks straight and diminishing as the series progresses.

--Tom.

Query: if a 290' vessel is 200' to weather of another vessel and it
turns hard to port will it "close the gate" on the leeward vessel by
swinging its stern to stb?

--Tom.

Hmmm... I don't see his comments via that link.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 10:02 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
....
Apparently, according to what I read, the 40' boat tacked just prior to
the
collision. Therefore, the starboard rule wasn't in effect. Read the
logs....

There is a statement here by Tom Perkins:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835
and more photos he
http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gall...86640001_ojnQx

Perkins does not claim that the "Stan By" tacked. His claim is that
MF was to weather and on port and SB was on stb and to leeward. MF
turned PORT to give more room. He then says that SB rounded up and
hit them. He says that SB's main was sheeted hard in which is
apparently not true.

For all of the pictures where SB is in frame the sails are luffing.
It is hard to tell because of the telephoto lens but if there really
was 200 plus feet between SB and MF it seems unlikely that SB with her
sails luffing could have covered that ground and hit hard enough to do
the damage we see.

It is clear that with in two minutes before the the first picture with
SB in frame MF made a major alteration to port. It is reported that
SB's crew claims that MF turned in front of them. That seems
consistent with the photographs. The wake of SB in so far as I can
tell looks straight and diminishing as the series progresses.

--Tom.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Oct 15, 12:01*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
Hmmm... I don't see his comments via that link.

Sorry, bad cut and paste. Try:
http://yachtpals.com/maltese-falcon-...collision-3074

--Tom.