Let there be Nav. Light
 

I was working on my port light this morning, and the socket is a bit tired. One
of my buddies appeared and asked me if I wanted a masthead light set. If he's
remembering correctly, it has the tri-color, an anchor light and strobe.
I'm thinking of taking it...any problems with masthead nav lights instead of
those set in the hull?
I think I may even have the wiring already in place, but my mast is coming down
this year in any case.

RB

Let there be Nav. Light
 

The only downside is length of wire and possible bulb changes.
Also, you need to keep in mind smaller vessels. They won't
necessarily be looking up in the air in close quarters.

At least a steaming light is somewhat easier to get at.

"CANDChelp" wrote in message
...

I was working on my port light this morning, and the socket is a bit
tired. One
of my buddies appeared and asked me if I wanted a masthead light set. If
he's
remembering correctly, it has the tri-color, an anchor light and strobe.
I'm thinking of taking it...any problems with masthead nav lights instead
of
those set in the hull?
I think I may even have the wiring already in place, but my mast is coming
down
this year in any case.

RB

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not used at the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus would not be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Good job wiggling out of that faux pas, Jeff. Even your buddy
Shen44 was waiting to pounce on you. Maybe it's time you
reviewed the Rules.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not used at the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus would not be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

My wording may have been a tad vague, though I never said they could be used at the same
time. The discussion was about what lights might be installed, in particular, the
addition of the tricolor.

I confess I can't find the phrase that led me to think the sidelights can't be higher than
2.5 meters, though is quite clear they must be lower than the "masthead" light. I wonder
if the Inland version of the Annex is being superceded by the new regulations on lights.
I think the new law defers to the ABYC standard on many aspects of the running lights.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Good job wiggling out of that faux pas, Jeff. Even your buddy
Shen44 was waiting to pounce on you. Maybe it's time you
reviewed the Rules.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not used at
the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus would not
be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule
7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
Date: 07/26/2003 10:58 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

My wording may have been a tad vague, though I never said they could be used
at the same
time. The discussion was about what lights might be installed, in
particular, the
addition of the tricolor.

I confess I can't find the phrase that led me to think the sidelights can't
be higher than
2.5 meters, though is quite clear they must be lower than the "masthead"
light. I wonder
if the Inland version of the Annex is being superceded by the new regulations
on lights.
I think the new law defers to the ABYC standard on many aspects of the
running lights.


Annex I, 2., (c),(d) ?

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
My wording may have been a tad vague, though I never said they could be used at the same
time. The discussion was about what lights might be installed, in particular, the
addition of the tricolor.

I confess I can't find the phrase that led me to think the sidelights can't be higher than
2.5 meters, though is quite clear they must be lower than the "masthead" light. I wonder
if the Inland version of the Annex is being superceded by the new regulations on lights.
I think the new law defers to the ABYC standard on many aspects of the running lights.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Good job wiggling out of that faux pas, Jeff. Even your buddy
Shen44 was waiting to pounce on you. Maybe it's time you
reviewed the Rules.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not used at
the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus would not
be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule
7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Jesus Frikkin KeeRist Neal - I already said that was not my intention and perhaps the
wording was vague. But the discussion was about which lights to install, not which lights
to use. Installing both is fine, using both is not.

Talk about your "glass houses" here - You maintained for 50 posts that its perfectly
legal for a sailboat to continue at hull speed in thick fog after hearing fog signals dead
ahead! Only a total idiot could believe something as stupid as that, and since we know
you're highly intelligent you were clearly only doing it for the sport. This wouldn't be
so bad f it were an innocuous matter, but there's probably some dumb schlub out there who
now thinks that sailboats still have right of way in the fog. Shame on you, Neal!
Shame!


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
My wording may have been a tad vague, though I never said they could be used at the
same
time. The discussion was about what lights might be installed, in particular, the
addition of the tricolor.

I confess I can't find the phrase that led me to think the sidelights can't be higher
than
2.5 meters, though is quite clear they must be lower than the "masthead" light. I
wonder
if the Inland version of the Annex is being superceded by the new regulations on
lights.
I think the new law defers to the ABYC standard on many aspects of the running lights.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Good job wiggling out of that faux pas, Jeff. Even your buddy
Shen44 was waiting to pounce on you. Maybe it's time you
reviewed the Rules.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not used
at
the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus would
not
be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule
7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Now you have to resort to putting false words in my mouth.

I never said a sailboat should not slow down or even stop
if it heard fog signals dead ahead. What I said is a sailboat
does not have to slow down in a fog according to the Rules
when it does not hear a fog signal dead ahead on a collision
course. I said a sailboat is already meeting the definition of
going slow because as we all know there is rarely very much
wind in a fog and even if the sailboat, mine for example, were
going hull speed it would still meet the definition of going slow.

The only vessels that are required to slow down in a fog even
if they do not hear a fog signal on a collision course are motor
vessels sounding the signal for motor vessels. These vessels
normally travel at speeds of twenty knots or greater which
is clearly a dangerous thing to do in a fog. They are required
to slow down to a safe speed. Should they ever run into
a sailboat even if they were going two knots they would
be adjudicated to be going too fast for the conditions.

Vessels that sound other fog signals are higher up in the pecking
order so they are the stand-on vessel. The presence of fog
does not make them the give way vessel. Motor vessels
are required to stay clear the moment they hear a signal
of a vessel higher up in the pecking order. All you have to
do is ask yourself how a dredge, for example, is going to
slow down or take evasive action to see how foolish and
untenable your motorboat mentality stand is.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Jesus Frikkin KeeRist Neal - I already said that was not my intention and perhaps the
wording was vague. But the discussion was about which lights to install, not which lights
to use. Installing both is fine, using both is not.

Talk about your "glass houses" here - You maintained for 50 posts that its perfectly
legal for a sailboat to continue at hull speed in thick fog after hearing fog signals dead
ahead! Only a total idiot could believe something as stupid as that, and since we know
you're highly intelligent you were clearly only doing it for the sport. This wouldn't be
so bad f it were an innocuous matter, but there's probably some dumb schlub out there who
now thinks that sailboats still have right of way in the fog. Shame on you, Neal!
Shame!


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
My wording may have been a tad vague, though I never said they could be used at the
same
time. The discussion was about what lights might be installed, in particular, the
addition of the tricolor.

I confess I can't find the phrase that led me to think the sidelights can't be higher
than
2.5 meters, though is quite clear they must be lower than the "masthead" light. I
wonder
if the Inland version of the Annex is being superceded by the new regulations on
lights.
I think the new law defers to the ABYC standard on many aspects of the running lights.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Good job wiggling out of that faux pas, Jeff. Even your buddy
Shen44 was waiting to pounce on you. Maybe it's time you
reviewed the Rules.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not used
at
the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus would
not
be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule
7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 11:22 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!


G What he wrote could be considered "misleading" to someone such as yourself,
incapable of connecting two thoughts to create a whole.
If you'd read all of his statement (looked before you leapt) you would have
realized he was talking about powerdriven sailboats who used the tricolor light
when not powerdriven...... a sailboat which uses a tricolor light will have, in
addition, normal side lights when powerdriven and turn off the tricolor light
and employ a masthead light.

Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Tut, tut, tut! Semantics again. A sailboat is ONLY a
sailboat when machinery is NOT in use and sails
are in use. What lights could one use if the sailboat
had her sails up but there was no wind and she was
underway but not making way?

One could use EITHER the tricolor OR the normal
running lights and not both as Jeff stated (or at least
implied).

Now, what if the sailboat was using machinery? This
cannot be because a sailboat is no longer a sailboat
the moment it uses machinery even if the sails are
up and drawing. Therefore it must use motorboat
lights which are the lower running lights "in addition
to" the steaming light (sometimes called a masthead
light though it is lower down on the mast).

Now we come to the $64,000 question. What if the
sailboat was underway but not making way and had
her sails up but there was no wind? Furthermore,
she is a pure sailboat and had nomotor installed.

Would she be required to have
the lower set of running lights? No, she would not
because she could never be a motor boat. Therefore
both you and Jeff are wrong in your stupid insistence
that sailboats must have lower running lights "in addition
to" a tricolor.

Gotcha!!!!


"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 11:22 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!


G What he wrote could be considered "misleading" to someone such as yourself,
incapable of connecting two thoughts to create a whole.
If you'd read all of his statement (looked before you leapt) you would have
realized he was talking about powerdriven sailboats who used the tricolor light
when not powerdriven...... a sailboat which uses a tricolor light will have, in
addition, normal side lights when powerdriven and turn off the tricolor light
and employ a masthead light.

Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Tut, tut, tut! Semantics again. A sailboat is ONLY a
sailboat when machinery is NOT in use and sails
are in use. What lights could one use if the sailboat
had her sails up but there was no wind and she was
underway but not making way?

One could use EITHER the tricolor OR the normal
running lights and not both as Jeff stated (or at least
implied).

Now, what if the sailboat was using machinery? This
cannot be because a sailboat is no longer a sailboat
the moment it uses machinery even if the sails are
up and drawing. Therefore it must use motorboat
lights which are the lower running lights "in addition
to" the steaming light (sometimes called a masthead
light though it is lower down on the mast).

Now we come to the $64,000 question. What if the
sailboat was underway but not making way and had
her sails up but there was no wind? Furthermore,
she is a pure sailboat and had nomotor installed.

Would she be required to have
the lower set of running lights? No, she would not
because she could never be a motor boat. Therefore
both you and Jeff are wrong in your stupid insistence
that sailboats must have lower running lights "in addition
to" a tricolor.

Gotcha!!!!


"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 11:22 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!


G What he wrote could be considered "misleading" to someone such as yourself,
incapable of connecting two thoughts to create a whole.
If you'd read all of his statement (looked before you leapt) you would have
realized he was talking about powerdriven sailboats who used the tricolor light
when not powerdriven...... a sailboat which uses a tricolor light will have, in
addition, normal side lights when powerdriven and turn off the tricolor light
and employ a masthead light.

Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in
:

Tut, tut, tut! Semantics again. A sailboat is ONLY a
sailboat when machinery is NOT in use and sails
are in use. What lights could one use if the sailboat
had her sails up but there was no wind and she was
underway but not making way?

Double posting?
got a sttttutter?

Bertei

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Oz1 wrote in
:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:19:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Oz1 wrote in
m:


Bwaaaaahahahhahahahahaaaa!
Do you use a cream on that little anal itch?

You respond to creams? And here I've been applying my usual meds in
here.


Bertie

What , not the friction cure..again?

I don't make the rules, I just follow 'em.


bertie


Oz1...of the 3 twins.
I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 15:15 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: JMmdnZ4MQfMGYL-iRTvUrg@terranova.


LOL Let's see how many errors we can find!!!!

Now you have to resort to putting false words in my mouth.

I never said a sailboat should not slow down or even stop
if it heard fog signals dead ahead. What I said is a sailboat
does not have to slow down in a fog according to the Rules
when it does not hear a fog signal dead ahead on a collision
course.

"Wrong" EVERY VESSEL shall procede at a safe speed .... that means sailboats
too .... if safe speed is only 1knot then you need to slow down if you are
doing 6 knots.

I said a sailboat is already meeting the definition of
going slow because as we all know there is rarely very much
wind in a fog

Not always true, so you have to consider the "prevailing circumstances" (Been
in zero visibility with 25k winds)

and even if the sailboat, mine for example, were
going hull speed it would still meet the definition of going slow.

"Wrong" .... for obvious reasons


The only vessels that are required to slow down in a fog even
if they do not hear a fog signal on a collision course are motor
vessels sounding the signal for motor vessels.

"Wrong" .... G see above

These vessels
normally travel at speeds of twenty knots or greater which
is clearly a dangerous thing to do in a fog.

G That would be a high average....anywhere from 12k to 30k is more accurate.

They are required
to slow down to a safe speed.

"Wrong" They are required to "Proceed at a Safe Speed" (here's an area open to
debate)

Should they ever run into
a sailboat even if they were going two knots they would
be adjudicated to be going too fast for the conditions.

As would the sailboat, if it was underway, making way.


Vessels that sound other fog signals are higher up in the pecking
order so they are the stand-on vessel.

"Wrong" There is NO pecking order in fog and NO vessel is "stand-on"

The presence of fog
does not make them the give way vessel.

"Wrong" Every Vessel shall navigate with extreme caution .... that does not
mean "stand-on"

Motor vessels
are required to stay clear the moment they hear a signal
of a vessel higher up in the pecking order.

"Wrong"...." Every Vessel" shall do what is necessary to avoid every other
vessel.
A vessel engaged in towing sounds the same signal as a sailing vessel in fog (
and is not considered RAM simply because it's towing)...again no pecking order
because of sound signals.

All you have to
do is ask yourself how a dredge, for example, is going to
slow down or take evasive action to see how foolish and
untenable your motorboat mentality stand is.

"Wrong" ROFL HUH????? Dredges tend to be twin screw with all sorts of thrusters
and going at very slow speeds.... i.e. can stop and turn quickly.


Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in
:


"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 15:15 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: JMmdnZ4MQfMGYL-iRTvUrg@terranova.


LOL Let's see how many errors we can find!!!!

Now you have to resort to putting false words in my mouth.

I never said a sailboat should not slow down or even stop
if it heard fog signals dead ahead. What I said is a sailboat
does not have to slow down in a fog according to the Rules
when it does not hear a fog signal dead ahead on a collision
course.

"Wrong" EVERY VESSEL shall procede at a safe speed .... that means
sailboats too .... if safe speed is only 1knot then you need to slow
down if you are doing 6 knots.

Like I stated. Sailboats like mine already travel at a safe speed.
They cannot travel any faster than a safe speed. If they traveled
any slower they would lose maneuverability and that would
be, by definition, an unsafe speed. Safe speed cannot be
one knot because that would mean loss of maneuverability.


I said a sailboat is already meeting the definition of
going slow because as we all know there is rarely very much
wind in a fog

Not always true, so you have to consider the "prevailing
circumstances" (Been in zero visibility with 25k winds)

Even in twenty five knots of wind a sailboat like mine is still
constrained by her hull speed of around 6.7 knots and will
probably be going slower because of the necessity to reef
down sail area.

The only vessels that are required to slow down in a fog even
if they do not hear a fog signal on a collision course are motor
vessels sounding the signal for motor vessels.

"Wrong" .... G see above

Right, by definition any vessel that is already proceeding at
a safe speed is proceeding slowly enoug.

They are required
to slow down to a safe speed.

"Wrong" They are required to "Proceed at a Safe Speed" (here's an
area open to debate)

But, in order to proceed at a safe speed the must slow down, unlike
a sailboat that is already proceeding at a safe speed because it is
slow by definition.


Should they ever run into
a sailboat even if they were going two knots they would
be adjudicated to be going too fast for the conditions.

As would the sailboat, if it was underway, making way.

Not so because at some time the required lookout on the
bow of the motorvessel will have the sailboat in sight and
the minute that happens the motorboat is the give-way
vessel by definition of the in sight rules.



Vessels that sound other fog signals are higher up in the pecking
order so they are the stand-on vessel.

"Wrong" There is NO pecking order in fog and NO vessel is "stand-on"

You are wrong. The reason you are wrong is as stated immediately
above. At some time in sight rules will apply and the motor vessel
will be the give way vessel. It follows that if the motor vessel must
give way at any time then the motor vessel is the give way vessel.



Motor vessels
are required to stay clear the moment they hear a signal
of a vessel higher up in the pecking order.

"Wrong"...." Every Vessel" shall do what is necessary to avoid every
other vessel.

Wrong by virtue of the fact that some vessels cannot take such action
by definition. A NUC is a good example of this. That is the reason for
the different signal that tells the motor vessel to stay clear because
the NUC can not take action to do so herself.


You're full of ****.


Bertie

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 16:04 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Tut, tut, tut! Semantics again. A sailboat is ONLY a
sailboat when machinery is NOT in use and sails
are in use. What lights could one use if the sailboat
had her sails up but there was no wind and she was
underway but not making way?

If she was not under power, either side lights and stern light or if her size
allowed, the tricolor..... what's "not making way" got to do with it?

One could use EITHER the tricolor OR the normal
running lights and not both as Jeff stated (or at least
implied).

G Sorry if I'm butt'n in on your fun, Jeff, but you know how much I enjoy
watching Neal screw up.
I don't think he implied any such thing ... I just don't think you capable of
handling any but the most simple of subjects.

Now, what if the sailboat was using machinery? This
cannot be because a sailboat is no longer a sailboat
the moment it uses machinery even if the sails are
up and drawing. Therefore it must use motorboat
lights which are the lower running lights "in addition
to" the steaming light (sometimes called a masthead
light though it is lower down on the mast).

Not sometimes .... "normally" referred to as a "Masthead" light, mainly to
differentiate it from the "range" light on larger vessels ..... but that's
beyond your experience or knowledge.

Now we come to the $64,000 question. What if the
sailboat was underway but not making way and had
her sails up but there was no wind?

See above

Furthermore,
she is a pure sailboat and had nomotor installed.

Would she be required to have
the lower set of running lights? No, she would not
because she could never be a motor boat. Therefore
both you and Jeff are wrong in your stupid insistence
that sailboats must have lower running lights "in addition
to" a tricolor.

You need to learn to "read and comprehend". The statement regarding the other
lights has been attributed to the "powerdriven" mode by both Jeff and myself.

Gotcha!!!!

ROFLMAO.....Not hardly....Never Happen!!!!!!!

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Good god, but you top-posting ****wits sure know how to have a good
time!

Jerry


Good Gawd, but you BS posting, unrelating, immaterial ****wits sure know how to
turn a thread into mostly junk, not worth following !!!!

Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"

LOL Let's see how many errors we can find!!!!

Now you have to resort to putting false words in my mouth.

I never said a sailboat should not slow down or even stop
if it heard fog signals dead ahead. What I said is a sailboat
does not have to slow down in a fog according to the Rules
when it does not hear a fog signal dead ahead on a collision
course.

"Wrong" EVERY VESSEL shall procede at a safe speed .... that means
sailboats
too .... if safe speed is only 1knot then you need to slow down if you are
doing 6 knots.

Like I stated. Sailboats like mine already travel at a safe speed.
They cannot travel any faster than a safe speed. If they traveled
any slower they would lose maneuverability and that would
be, by definition, an unsafe speed. Safe speed cannot be
one knot because that would mean loss of maneuverability.

"Wrong" If you hit the side of a ship, traveling at "hull speed", then you were
moving too fast for the conditions.
The question of maneuverability as you state it, applies to powerdriven as well
as sail....and is a bogus argument. G most sailboats can effectively steer at
much slower speeds than can some ship.


I said a sailboat is already meeting the definition of
going slow because as we all know there is rarely very much
wind in a fog

Not always true, so you have to consider the "prevailing circumstances"
(Been
in zero visibility with 25k winds)

Even in twenty five knots of wind a sailboat like mine is still
constrained by her hull speed of around 6.7 knots and will
probably be going slower because of the necessity to reef
down sail area.

So?


The only vessels that are required to slow down in a fog even
if they do not hear a fog signal on a collision course are motor
vessels sounding the signal for motor vessels.

"Wrong" .... G see above

Right, by definition any vessel that is already proceeding at
a safe speed is proceeding slowly enoug.

Not necessarily.... but then again, you don't understand "safe speed"

They are required
to slow down to a safe speed.

"Wrong" They are required to "Proceed at a Safe Speed" (here's an area open
to
debate)

But, in order to proceed at a safe speed the must slow down, unlike
a sailboat that is already proceeding at a safe speed because it is
slow by definition.

If it runs into the side of a ship, it was not proceeding at a safe speed .....
simply being a sailboat does not make your speed "safe"!!!


Should they ever run into
a sailboat even if they were going two knots they would
be adjudicated to be going too fast for the conditions.

As would the sailboat, if it was underway, making way.

Not so because at some time the required lookout on the
bow of the motorvessel will have the sailboat in sight and
the minute that happens the motorboat is the give-way
vessel by definition of the in sight rules.

"Wrong" for many reasons. The person controlling the "bridge" must have the
vessel in sight. What makes you think the sailboat will ever be seen by the bow
watch? .... He may not come into view until a point well aft of that persons
range of visibility, yet forward of the bridges view.



Vessels that sound other fog signals are higher up in the pecking
order so they are the stand-on vessel.

"Wrong" There is NO pecking order in fog and NO vessel is "stand-on"

You are wrong.

Nope

The reason you are wrong is as stated immediately above.

Nope

At some time in sight rules will apply and the motor vessel will be the
give way vessel.

Only if the guy/girl on the bridge see's you.....you can well have been run
over before that occurs.

It follows that if the motor vessel must give way
at any time then the motor vessel is the give way vessel.

"Wrong" as per usual.....I'm on a 900' ship in 600' of visibility. You are
approaching my bow...... guess who will see who first (assuming my ship is a
"stemwinder" - house aft) .... you will, and you'd best do something to avoid.



Motor vessels
are required to stay clear the moment they hear a signal
of a vessel higher up in the pecking order.

"Wrong"...." Every Vessel" shall do what is necessary to avoid every other
vessel.

Wrong by virtue of the fact that some vessels cannot take such action
by definition. A NUC is a good example of this. That is the reason for
the different signal that tells the motor vessel to stay clear because the
NUC can not take action to do so herself.

S. Simon

How do I know it's a NUC? ..... maybe it's a sailboat.....maybe it's a tug,
pushing a barge .... all I know is that it's NOT a powerdriven vessel, going
it's merry way, and that I will need to keep that in mind as I maneuver to
avoid...... or stop......

Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

You may have inferred that I was talking about using both sets at the same time, but I
never implied it.

Your babbling doesn't make any sense - if the engine is not running and the sails are up,
it makes no difference howmuch wind there is, its a sailboat and therefore can use the
lights for sailboats. And a boat the has no engine, or never uses it, or is never
underway when lights are required, does not need sidelights under the ColRegs.

My advice was specifically to Bobsprit. Now if you're chastising me for inferring that RB
would actually use his engine when making a night entrance to his marina, that's a
different discussion.

Your trying to claim that I said something I didn't - I don't think anyone is buying it
and your opinion isn't anything I'm going to loose sleep over.


"Simple Simon"
wrote in message ...
Tut, tut, tut! Semantics again. A sailboat is ONLY a
sailboat when machinery is NOT in use and sails
are in use. What lights could one use if the sailboat
had her sails up but there was no wind and she was
underway but not making way?

One could use EITHER the tricolor OR the normal
running lights and not both as Jeff stated (or at least
implied).

Now, what if the sailboat was using machinery? This
cannot be because a sailboat is no longer a sailboat
the moment it uses machinery even if the sails are
up and drawing. Therefore it must use motorboat
lights which are the lower running lights "in addition
to" the steaming light (sometimes called a masthead
light though it is lower down on the mast).

Now we come to the $64,000 question. What if the
sailboat was underway but not making way and had
her sails up but there was no wind? Furthermore,
she is a pure sailboat and had nomotor installed.

Would she be required to have
the lower set of running lights? No, she would not
because she could never be a motor boat. Therefore
both you and Jeff are wrong in your stupid insistence
that sailboats must have lower running lights "in addition
to" a tricolor.

Gotcha!!!!


"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 11:22 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!


G What he wrote could be considered "misleading" to someone such as yourself,
incapable of connecting two thoughts to create a whole.
If you'd read all of his statement (looked before you leapt) you would have
realized he was talking about powerdriven sailboats who used the tricolor light
when not powerdriven...... a sailboat which uses a tricolor light will have, in
addition, normal side lights when powerdriven and turn off the tricolor light
and employ a masthead light.

Shen

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Simple Simon wrote:


Even in twenty five knots of wind a sailboat like mine is still
constrained by her hull speed of around 6.7 knots and will
probably be going slower because of the necessity to reef
down sail area.

At the risk of out-of-context: Lady Kate is also constrained by
her hull speed, yet part of the purpose of reefing on her is to
maintain maximum speed as well as reduce excessive heel, leeway
etc. She is faster when reefed appropriately for conditions than
when carrying more sail than she should for the same conditions.
I am surprised that your fine vessel would be going slower when
reefed in a fresh breeze.

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Even in twenty five knots of wind a sailboat like mine is still
constrained by her hull speed of around 6.7 knots and will
probably be going slower because of the necessity to reef
down sail area.


Too bad you don't have a sailboat like mine that gets up and boogies past hull speed and can plane....nyah nyah...

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Maybe not, but at least it has something to do with the subject of the
NG, unlike MOST of the OT BS posted here.

otn

Snott wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 00:45:46 GMT, (Shen44) wrote in
alt.sailing.asa:


Good god, but you top-posting ****wits sure know how to have a good
time!

Jerry


Good Gawd, but you BS posting, unrelating, immaterial ****wits sure know how to
turn a thread into mostly junk, not worth following !!!!


Honestly, this thread wasn't that good in it's infancy.


Jerry

Let there be Nav. Light
 

I see that while I was composing this, and putting my kid to bed, Shen responded to most
of these issues, but for the record ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Now you have to resort to putting false words in my mouth.

I think if we go over the history we can find you agreeing to this extreme position - but
we'll let this ride for the moment ...


I never said a sailboat should not slow down or even stop
if it heard fog signals dead ahead. What I said is a sailboat
does not have to slow down in a fog according to the Rules
when it does not hear a fog signal dead ahead on a collision
course. I said a sailboat is already meeting the definition of
going slow because as we all know there is rarely very much
wind in a fog

Perhaps in your very limited experiance. Here in the NorthEast its very common to have a
moderate breeze with a fog - sometimes even a strong breeze. I have sailed in 15-20 knots
of wind with visibility between 100 and 300 feet a number of times.

and even if the sailboat, mine for example, were
going hull speed it would still meet the definition of going slow.


No one would debate that - I think we'll have to save it for later use. However, most
cruising boats are quite capable of 8 knots, which is 13.5 feet per second.


The only vessels that are required to slow down in a fog even
if they do not hear a fog signal on a collision course are motor
vessels sounding the signal for motor vessels.

"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions."

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that sailboats are exempt from this
basic rule. This position is completely untenable.

These vessels
normally travel at speeds of twenty knots or greater which
is clearly a dangerous thing to do in a fog. They are required
to slow down to a safe speed.

I've never said that powerboats were not more likely to be a fault.

Should they ever run into
a sailboat even if they were going two knots they would
be adjudicated to be going too fast for the conditions.

If a powerboat were doing 2 knots and a sailboat doing 8 ran into them, the sailboat would
likely receive most, if not all the blame. In fact, this example is at the heart of our
difference.



Vessels that sound other fog signals are higher up in the pecking
order so they are the stand-on vessel.

There is no "pecking order." It is true that vessels sounding the "other" signal
(prolonged,short,short) can be considered "burdened" and that extra caution is indicated.
Upon hearing the "other" signal one must consider the possibility that the vessel could be
burdened in a variety of ways: it could be towing, fishing, a RAM or NUC, as well as a
sailboat. (Hopefully not all at the same time!) It would be wise to give such a vessel a
wide berth.

However, there is absolutely nothing in the rules that gives "burdened" vessels stand-on
status or right-of-way. If the vessels were in sight of one another, the "pecking" would
be in force and the burdened vessel would likely be the stand-on vessel, required to hold
speed and course. Since they are not in sight, it becomes the responsibility of both
vessels to avoid the risk of collision.

There is no qualification in 19e: When you hear a fog signal ahead and can't determine
there's no risk of collisions, "Every vessel ... shall reduce her speed to the minimum at
which she can be kept on course." That means ALL vessels must reduce speed to MINIMUM
steerageway. There is no qualification for sailboats; there's nothing that says you're
free to determine what a safe speed is. The words are very clear: "Every vessel ...
shall reduce her speed to the minimum." Perhaps I should repeat this again: "Every vessel
.... shall reduce her speed to the minimum." What part of this is unclear, Neal?


The presence of fog
does not make them the give way vessel.

The presence of fog means that neither vessel is "standon" or "giveway." These terms are
only used in the section "Conduct of vessels in sight of one another"

Motor vessels
are required to stay clear the moment they hear a signal
of a vessel higher up in the pecking order.

No, all vessels are required to stay clear of all others. There is no pecking order.

All you have to
do is ask yourself how a dredge, for example, is going to
slow down or take evasive action to see how foolish and
untenable your motorboat mentality stand is.


A meaningless example. If a dredge is stationary, then it is already complying with 19e.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Jesus Frikkin KeeRist Neal - I already said that was not my intention and perhaps the
wording was vague. But the discussion was about which lights to install, not which
lights
to use. Installing both is fine, using both is not.

Talk about your "glass houses" here - You maintained for 50 posts that its perfectly
legal for a sailboat to continue at hull speed in thick fog after hearing fog signals
dead
ahead! Only a total idiot could believe something as stupid as that, and since we
know
you're highly intelligent you were clearly only doing it for the sport. This wouldn't
be
so bad f it were an innocuous matter, but there's probably some dumb schlub out there
who
now thinks that sailboats still have right of way in the fog. Shame on you, Neal!
Shame!


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Your wording was more than a "tad vague", it was clearly wrong.

See my reply to your good buddy Shenn44 and then be man
enough to admit that what you wrote is very misleading and clearly
incorrect. I got you this time. I know you are loathe to admit
it but I got you this time. He he!

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
My wording may have been a tad vague, though I never said they could be used at
the
same
time. The discussion was about what lights might be installed, in particular, the
addition of the tricolor.

I confess I can't find the phrase that led me to think the sidelights can't be
higher
than
2.5 meters, though is quite clear they must be lower than the "masthead" light. I
wonder
if the Inland version of the Annex is being superceded by the new regulations on
lights.
I think the new law defers to the ABYC standard on many aspects of the running
lights.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Good job wiggling out of that faux pas, Jeff. Even your buddy
Shen44 was waiting to pounce on you. Maybe it's time you
reviewed the Rules.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Your absolutely correct - its illegal to have lights on that could be
confusing.

However, installing the extra lights if perfectly OK, as long as they're not
used
at
the
same time - that is what I meant.

When RB ran done his list of lights, he didn't mention sidelights and thus
would
not
be
legal for powering at night.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs,
Rule
7(c)


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Let me amplify that the masthead "tricolor" should only be in addition to
the
sidelights.
While the tricolor is legal for a sailboat, it is NOT for a powerboat.

Wrong! You blew it, Jeff.

Tricolor and lower running lights are NOT to be used at the same time.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

katysails wrote:

Even in twenty five knots of wind a sailboat like mine is still
constrained by her hull speed of around 6.7 knots and will
probably be going slower because of the necessity to reef
down sail area.

Too bad you don't have a sailboat like mine that gets up and boogies past hull speed and can plane....nyah nyah...

I do. She's called Flying Tadpole II. Please refer to this
website for information: http://www.ace.net.au/schooner

bllllllllrrrrrrrrtt...


--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

I do. She's called Flying Tadpole II

We know. We know. But she looks weird. As we were rowing back in from the mooring this afternoon, I looked back at
Chanteuse...she is such a pretty, pretty boat. And she sits there so well (there are some boats out there that are DEFINITELY
of the hulky type persuaion). I lashed down the main sail cover and put on a second safety tie on the furler for the storms
tonight. They're predicting some really heavy winds...it was gusting 25 when we left...
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...

Is "chunder" like where you make a complete ass of yourself on usenet?

You are the authority on this kind of stuff, what do you say?

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:16:13 GMT, "Madam Vinyl"
wrote in alt.sailing.asa:


"JL Grasso" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:39:04 GMT, "Madam Vinyl"
wrote in alt.sailing.asa:


"JL Grasso" wrote in message
.. .

Is "chunder" like where you make a complete ass of yourself on
usenet?

You are the authority on this kind of stuff, what do you say?

Yes, I've seen you chundering along for a few years now!


Jerry

Say goodnight, Jerry....

Go **** yourself, stupid ****.


Heheee. I wouldn't have expected any less from you, Jerry.

Let there be Nav. Light
 

katysails wrote:

I do. She's called Flying Tadpole II

We know. We know. But she looks weird. As we were rowing back in from the mooring this afternoon, I looked back at
Chanteuse...she is such a pretty, pretty boat. And she sits there so well (there are some boats out there that are DEFINITELY
of the hulky type persuaion). I lashed down the main sail cover and put on a second safety tie on the furler for the storms
tonight. They're predicting some really heavy winds...it was gusting 25 when we left...
--

The onset of alt.alien.vampires and Madam Vinyl has confused
you. Flying Tadpole II is a true gem, whether under sail or not,
a masterpiece of the designer's art, and a credit to her
builder. Far form looking weird, she lifts the romance in
evrybody's heart, and tugs the heartstrings of all seekers after
true beauty. Why, in her campaigning days, was she the most
photographed boat in those huge fleets? Cameras were just
automatically drawn to her style, her simplicity and her speed.

Lady Kate, however, can only offer a certain pugnacious charm in
her looks. Her multitude of virtues lie elsewhere. Don't confuse
the two.
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Madam Vinyl wrote:

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:16:13 GMT, "Madam Vinyl"
wrote in alt.sailing.asa:


"JL Grasso" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:39:04 GMT, "Madam Vinyl"
wrote in alt.sailing.asa:


"JL Grasso" wrote in message
.. .

Is "chunder" like where you make a complete ass of yourself on
usenet?

You are the authority on this kind of stuff, what do you say?

Yes, I've seen you chundering along for a few years now!


Jerry

Say goodnight, Jerry....

Go **** yourself, stupid ****.

Heheee. I wouldn't have expected any less from you, Jerry.

Why do you continue to torment your opponent when he's clearly
dead?
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


Madam Vinyl wrote:

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...

Is "chunder" like where you make a complete ass of yourself on usenet?

You are the authority on this kind of stuff, what do you say?

Ahhh Madam Vinyl! Killing with the point is _so_ much more
elegant than slashing with the blade.

Excuse me! Let me tell you, Jerry's not a stranger....we go back almost 5
years. My shoes are available for walking in...

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Madam Vinyl wrote:

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


Madam Vinyl wrote:

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...

Is "chunder" like where you make a complete ass of yourself on usenet?

You are the authority on this kind of stuff, what do you say?

Ahhh Madam Vinyl! Killing with the point is _so_ much more
elegant than slashing with the blade.

Excuse me! Let me tell you, Jerry's not a stranger....we go back almost 5
years. My shoes are available for walking in...

Perfunctory apologies for my fox paws. May I try again?
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Madam Vinyl wrote:

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


Madam Vinyl wrote:

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


Madam Vinyl wrote:

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...

Is "chunder" like where you make a complete ass of yourself on
usenet?

You are the authority on this kind of stuff, what do you say?

Ahhh Madam Vinyl! Killing with the point is _so_ much more
elegant than slashing with the blade.

Excuse me! Let me tell you, Jerry's not a stranger....we go back almost
5
years. My shoes are available for walking in...

Perfunctory apologies for my fox paws. May I try again?

Oh please! I was about to turn in for the night! :)

LP (snuggling up ready to be read my bedtime story)

As you've clearly keep the corpse animated for so long, I presume
that your use of the point rather than the blade is necessity,
not just choice. Did you use funerary jars?
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Flying Tadpole" wrote:

As you've clearly keep the corpse animated for so long, I presume
that your use of the point rather than the blade is necessity,
not just choice. Did you use funerary jars?

Well, I drank all of my beer waiting for Mooron, can't think of a worse faux
pas than that...

Now I will go invent myself into something no one knows......magic!

poof!

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"shen 44" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Simple Simon" wrote in
:


"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Let there be Nav. Light
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 07/26/2003 15:15 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: JMmdnZ4MQfMGYL-iRTvUrg@terranova.


LOL Let's see how many errors we can find!!!!

Now you have to resort to putting false words in my mouth.

I never said a sailboat should not slow down or even stop
if it heard fog signals dead ahead. What I said is a sailboat
does not have to slow down in a fog according to the Rules
when it does not hear a fog signal dead ahead on a collision
course.

"Wrong" EVERY VESSEL shall procede at a safe speed .... that means
sailboats too .... if safe speed is only 1knot then you need to slow
down if you are doing 6 knots.

Like I stated. Sailboats like mine already travel at a safe speed.
They cannot travel any faster than a safe speed. If they traveled
any slower they would lose maneuverability and that would
be, by definition, an unsafe speed. Safe speed cannot be
one knot because that would mean loss of maneuverability.


I said a sailboat is already meeting the definition of
going slow because as we all know there is rarely very much
wind in a fog

Not always true, so you have to consider the "prevailing
circumstances" (Been in zero visibility with 25k winds)

Even in twenty five knots of wind a sailboat like mine is still
constrained by her hull speed of around 6.7 knots and will
probably be going slower because of the necessity to reef
down sail area.

The only vessels that are required to slow down in a fog even
if they do not hear a fog signal on a collision course are motor
vessels sounding the signal for motor vessels.

"Wrong" .... G see above

Right, by definition any vessel that is already proceeding at
a safe speed is proceeding slowly enoug.

They are required
to slow down to a safe speed.

"Wrong" They are required to "Proceed at a Safe Speed" (here's an
area open to debate)

But, in order to proceed at a safe speed the must slow down, unlike
a sailboat that is already proceeding at a safe speed because it is
slow by definition.


Should they ever run into
a sailboat even if they were going two knots they would
be adjudicated to be going too fast for the conditions.

As would the sailboat, if it was underway, making way.

Not so because at some time the required lookout on the
bow of the motorvessel will have the sailboat in sight and
the minute that happens the motorboat is the give-way
vessel by definition of the in sight rules.



Vessels that sound other fog signals are higher up in the pecking
order so they are the stand-on vessel.

"Wrong" There is NO pecking order in fog and NO vessel is "stand-on"

You are wrong. The reason you are wrong is as stated immediately
above. At some time in sight rules will apply and the motor vessel
will be the give way vessel. It follows that if the motor vessel must
give way at any time then the motor vessel is the give way vessel.



Motor vessels
are required to stay clear the moment they hear a signal
of a vessel higher up in the pecking order.

"Wrong"...." Every Vessel" shall do what is necessary to avoid every
other vessel.

Wrong by virtue of the fact that some vessels cannot take such action
by definition. A NUC is a good example of this. That is the reason for
the different signal that tells the motor vessel to stay clear because
the NUC can not take action to do so herself.


You're full of ****.

Bertie
The written rules are 1 thing, everyday practice is another. It is obvious
this discussion does not take into account, A/C Carriers, Super Tankers, &
Over Size Container Ships.
I can just imagine the result of a "sloop" demanding "Right of Way" ,on the
open sea, from 1 of the class of vessels mentioned above when visibility is
1 mile or less.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Shen44" wrote

"Wrong" for many reasons. The person controlling the "bridge"
(assuming there is actualy someone on the bridge)
must have the vessel in sight.



as per usual.....I'm on a 900' ship in 600' of visibility.
The entire crew is down below playing cards and drinking rum.
You are approaching my bow...... guess who will see who first (assuming my
ship is a
"stemwinder" - house aft) .... you will, and you'd best do something to
avoid.


Why 'stemwinder'?

Let there be Nav. Light
 

they took a lot of pics of that floating cuban truck, also.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


katysails wrote:

I do. She's called Flying Tadpole II

We know. We know. But she looks weird. As we were rowing back in from
the mooring this afternoon, I looked back at
Chanteuse...she is such a pretty, pretty boat. And she sits there so
well (there are some boats out there that are DEFINITELY
of the hulky type persuaion). I lashed down the main sail cover and put
on a second safety tie on the furler for the storms
tonight. They're predicting some really heavy winds...it was gusting 25
when we left...
--

The onset of alt.alien.vampires and Madam Vinyl has confused
you. Flying Tadpole II is a true gem, whether under sail or not,
a masterpiece of the designer's art, and a credit to her
builder. Far form looking weird, she lifts the romance in
evrybody's heart, and tugs the heartstrings of all seekers after
true beauty. Why, in her campaigning days, was she the most
photographed boat in those huge fleets? Cameras were just
automatically drawn to her style, her simplicity and her speed.

Lady Kate, however, can only offer a certain pugnacious charm in
her looks. Her multitude of virtues lie elsewhere. Don't confuse
the two.
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

Geez, SnotVermin, do I gotta spell it out for you?

http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/mg1996.jpg

and Flying Tadpole's best sister, on which Mooron intends to ship

http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/haul3.jpg



Scott Vernon wrote:

they took a lot of pics of that floating cuban truck, also.

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...


katysails wrote:

I do. She's called Flying Tadpole II

We know. We know. But she looks weird. As we were rowing back in from
the mooring this afternoon, I looked back at
Chanteuse...she is such a pretty, pretty boat. And she sits there so
well (there are some boats out there that are DEFINITELY
of the hulky type persuaion). I lashed down the main sail cover and put
on a second safety tie on the furler for the storms
tonight. They're predicting some really heavy winds...it was gusting 25
when we left...
--

The onset of alt.alien.vampires and Madam Vinyl has confused
you. Flying Tadpole II is a true gem, whether under sail or not,
a masterpiece of the designer's art, and a credit to her
builder. Far form looking weird, she lifts the romance in
evrybody's heart, and tugs the heartstrings of all seekers after
true beauty. Why, in her campaigning days, was she the most
photographed boat in those huge fleets? Cameras were just
automatically drawn to her style, her simplicity and her speed.

Lady Kate, however, can only offer a certain pugnacious charm in
her looks. Her multitude of virtues lie elsewhere. Don't confuse
the two.
--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

Let there be Nav. Light
 

"Flying Tadpole" wrote in message
...
Geez, Scott Vernon, do I gotta spell it out for you?

Yes, it usualy helps.



http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/mg1996.jpg


I've said before it's a cool looking boat.


and Flying Tadpole's best sister, on which Mooron intends to ship

mooron...ship...????? Spell out please.



Scott Vernon wrote:

they took a lot of pics of that floating cuban truck, also.

only stating facts.