Comments interspersed:

Simple Simon wrote:
There you go again with your silly specifics to try to
disprove a rule. Because there are exceptions does
not make the rule invalid. This is just plain common sense.

The rules are about specifics and non specific situations ....your lack
of experience is screaming, once again.

The only likely situation where the sailboat would NOT be
the stand-on vessel is if it found itself behind and overtaking
the motorvessel when it got close enough to be in sight
of the motor vessel.

All the other situations are just as likely ....see you ignored the one
which would involve rule 17b ....nother one you don't understand?

What likelihood of that ever happening
is there when we all know it would be rare indeed for
a ship to be going less than five knots. Remember, we
are talking about small cruising sailboats here not some
radical racing catamaran or something that goes twenty
or thirty knots. Of course these would be required to
slow to a safe speed while my cruiser is not required to
slow to a safe speed because she is already going slow
and safe.

incorrect gibberish

But, your continued lame arguments don't cut the mustard.

none of your arguments "cut the mustard" OR make any sense.

You need to refute the facts in order to prevail. Thus far
you have been unable to do so. Here are the facts again.

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.

Most motor vessels, not all Tugs engaged in towing sound the same signal
as a sailboat, even though they are just bottom of the barrel powerboats
(a fact you still fail to understand)....no pecking order, abbreviated
or otherwise, since EVERY Vessel must navigate with extreme caution (I
know....this is one of those concepts your simple brain can't grasp)

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.

Oh goody, folks simple gets one right .... if they aren't so close that
both vessels must try and maneuver to avoid.


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.

Simple statement ..... Note, they are in sight so rules of restricted
visibility no longer apply .... You finally getting this part of the
concept or are you still going to try to say that since there is fog in
the area we must be working under restricted visibility rules for these
two vessels?

Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel
in or near an area of restricted visibility.

For those vessels in sight of one another.

Chew on that for a while and let's see a rational argument to
refute it logically. It cannot be done because the logic is faultless.
You made some statement that are true (2 &3) one that was partially
true (4) (you needed to include the "in sight" proviso) and one (1) that
was right for the first half, and would have been OK, if you'd only
learn when to stop typing.

S.Simon - logic wins out every time.


"Shen44" wrote in message ...

Subject: Perception
From: "Simple Simon"

In a fog, as soon as vessels concerned come within sight of one
another the sailboat is the stand-on vessel with respect to the
motor vessel

Not necessarily ..... what if the sailboat can see the motor vessel, but the
motor vessel can't see the sail vessel? What if the motor vessel is in a TSS or
narrow channel? What if both vessels are so close, that BOTH vessels need to
take action to avoid collision?

This means in a fog (when in sight) the pecking order applies.

Stupid statement

This loophole in the Rules is something that seems to go right
over the heads of the group's tugboat captains. They cannot
fathom the fact that 'in sight' also exists in restricted visibility
as in a fog. Since 'in sight' exists in a fog then the pecking order
exists in a fog. This is so logical that it cannot be argued.

Yet the fools continue to argue it . . .

S.Simon


Sheesh .... the above, is the rambling of some beginner, without a clue.
The term used in the rules is restricted visibility (due to whatever cause) and
refers to situations where the vessels are NOT in sight of each other.
Come on, Neal.... you've been trying to wiggle out of this mess, to no avail,
for so long and in so many ways, you've reduced yourself to a point of
nonsensical rambling.


Shen




I left Shen's post, because it bears repeating