otnmbrd wrote:

No. I've read the list and seen the decending degree of difficulty
between the various "classes" of vessels, to maneuver, and I have not
limited my thinking to believe that there is no more than one thing being
said within the way this rule is written.

In other words, you've read it so many times you no longer see what it
really says and have projected your own version into it!

Again, in your imagination. There simply is not a single word to
indicate that a RAM must stay clear of a NUC. It would have been so
easy to put that in, but they didn't. In fact, I could argue that the
absence of such a statement is extremely telling.

G It doesn't have to be written....one guy can't maneuver, one guy has
restricted maneuverability. Again, I'm on a carrier, launching aircraft.
In the distance I see a vessel that is indicating NUC and we are on a
collision course. A bit of radio traffic confirms he has no
engine....what do I do?
Since it's the nature of my work that is making me RAM, I have to
think.....can I slow up/speed up and continue my work and avoid him? No
set and drift so that's out. Change course? Possibly, but not something
that may be positive enough for safe clearance. Interrupt operations?
Yup....gonna **** off a bunch of people, but.....

So what you have done is project your own experience into the rules to
create a pecking order that goes beyond what is actually written. To
the extent that it is "correct" that is fine, although it is still
outside the scope of a "Pedantic Rules Quiz."

But it can be a dangerous practice. If everyone amended the rules to
accommodate their own perceptions, there would be chaos. For example,
I've had kayakers insist to me that they have "right of way" because
they were smaller. Someone here seemed to be claiming that sport
fishermen had right of way because they were going fast. A large
Silverton claimed to me that he was entitled to do 6 knots and leave a
wake while passing a few feet from my wife and kid as they were trying
to get onboard from a kayak, because the boat is impossible to
handle otherwise. (He took great offense to my suggestion that he
find a boat that he *can* handle.)

That could be taken to mean that statistically it would fall out a
certain way, but that doesn't imply a letter of the law.

With the Rules, the intent comes first the letter comes second (Rule 2)

And only you know the intent? When the rules could have said one
thing, but they specifically say the other, then perhaps that tells us
something about what they meant.

And you keep insisting that a NUC is completely unable to maneuver,
while the rules only say "unable to maneuver as required by these
Rules." There is a difference, and this is why I claim that the two
classes can overlap, and this is why the rules left this issue open.

Certainly, your experience is meaningful in that it might take an
unusual circumstance for a RAM to be less maneuverable than a NUC, but
that doesn't mean the rules are "wrong."

Yes, you're right, I included one too many words in the comparison.
And no matter how often I looked at it, I didn't see that difference!

But the "conclusion" is identical - they are both "unable to keep out
of the way of another vessel."

Yes, but in the NUC's case it's because it's unable to.

Yes, but not totally unable, just "as required by the rules." Clearly
that implies that no vessel with ordinary maneuverability cannot
expect it to stay clear, but it does open the door for a "grey area"
and its easy to imagine a NUC having more maneuverability than a
dredge or salvage vessel.

Since you love to give examples, here's one from my experience: The
new Boston Harbor Tunnel built as part of the Big Dig was constructed
in parts (in Baltimore, no less) and floated into place and then sunk
and welded together. The local boating community was treated to the
two year spectacle of construction. During the "fitting operations"
one of ten 300 foot double tube (4 wide highway lanes) sections were
lowered down 100 feet to the harbor bottom, with accuracy of a
fraction of an inch, and a crew of divers welded it into place.
During this operation the barges were RAM's, and its hard to think of
a vessel with less maneuverability. Of course, the harbor was
effectively closed, but there were a variety of boats around, and one
might imagine a tour boat filled with dignitaries loosing control such
that it would be a NUC, but still have more options than the RAM's.
Even if all it could do is drop anchor, or run aground, this is still
a case where the NUC would have more maneuverability than the RAM, and
had to give way.

In the RAM's case
it's due to the "nature of it's WORK" (you are required to do whatever it
takes to avoid a collision).

OK, so where does "Viz Major" come in? The is the legal concept of
"unavoidable accident." Usually, this is applied in storm or other
"Act of God" situations, but it can also be applied to breakdowns.
This was a common defense in the old days, but the modern thinking is
that most breakdowns are avoidable with proper maintenance, so it is
not a good excuse. I'm guessing this only is mentioned in the
courtroom, and not on the water.

BTW, as I write, the USS Intrepid Museum is being towed from its berth
on New York's West Side, to a drydock in Bayonne for a two year refit.
I wonder if its a RAM?