"Jeff" wrote
| NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
| RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
| FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way
|
| totally wrong. It quite possible that a fishing boat is unable to
| keep out of the way.

How can you say totally wrong. It comes straight from the rules. I quoted the Rules word for word.
Up there I just summarized them That's what they say. Duh! If the fishing boat was unable to keep out
of the way it would be RAM. Try reading the three rules again. The rules define the classification.
The activity of the boat does not. You seem to have it backwards.

| Your analysis is faulty. The definitions of NUC and RAM do not imply
| that they are incapable of of avoiding collisions with *all* vessels,
| only that they *may* be incapable of avoiding collisions with *some*
| vessels. On the other hand, a fishing boat may be totally incapable
| of getting out of the way of another boat, even a NUC or RAM.

Stop ignoring what the rules say. The rules classify the vessel. The vessel doesn't make the rule. Now I
think I understand why your so confused all the time. You and otn. BBG

| Your observation is sort of valid, but you're putting too much stock
| in the definitions and projecting what you think the rules should be
| from them. The definitions are not really the rules. Why don't you
| read the pecking order rule and see what it says about this?

*Sort of valid* Is that like being a little pregnant? Either it's valid or it's not.

Here is Rule 18 all of it or the International part at least....

-INTERNATIONAL-
Steering and Sailing Rules
RULE 18 Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise requi ( I'm putting this in/9narrow channel, 10traffic separation, 13overtaking)
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.
(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
(d)
(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall,
if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft,
exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.
(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In
circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.
(f)
(i) A WIG craft shall, when taking off, landing and in flight near the surface, keep well clear of all other vessels and
avoid impeding their navigation;
(ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel.

Could you be trying to say lumping them all in one list isn't the right thing to do. That making it simple with one
list makes it more confusing? Are you saying the pecking order should be like this.

(a) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL
POWER

(b) NUC
RAM
FISH
SAIL

(c)NUC
RAM
FISH

(d) NUC
RAM
CBD


(e) NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE

(f) NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE
WIG


Now I think I see whay your getting at. Is it that one list leaves out CBD till half way through the rule and one list doesn't?
So one big list doesn't accurately describe what the rule really says? And none of the lists, big or small cares about the actual
order of things above the bottom vessel. I think it's starting to get past the blonde roots. :-)

| I'm looking for two differences between the pecking order as normally
| presented, the pecking order as stated in the rules.

Maybe I got closer this time?

| I've given plenty, but here's one more thing: Neal's explanation
| specifically contradicted to the rules on both of these points.

That I find hard to believe. He's a self-proclaimed expert.

Cheers,
Ellen