|
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
It is a good thing for the ferry boat operater that the
sailboater was drunk or it would have been the ferry boat operator who was at fault for hitting a sailboat. The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. I would like more information on this collision because I suspect the sailboat was motoring along on autopilot. The headline probably should have read "Motorboats collide". wrote in message ... (watch the wrap) http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/stat...nes-local-wire |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Only if it is a cable ferry. In this case this was not the
case. The ferry is nothing but a motor boat and must keep clear of a sailboat according to the COLREGS. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. Can't the Ferry "claim" limited steerage in certain cases? RB |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required
by the Rules to hold course and speed until and unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is not taking the required action and a collision will ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the collision. Then the sailboat can take such action as it deems necessary to avoid the collision. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Only if it is a cable ferry. In this case this was not the case. The ferry is nothing but a motor boat and must keep clear of a sailboat according to the COLREGS. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. Can't the Ferry "claim" limited steerage in certain cases? RB |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Typically wrong response
Simple Simon wrote: It is a good thing for the ferry boat operater that the sailboater was drunk or it would have been the ferry boat operator who was at fault for hitting a sailboat. The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. I would like more information on this collision because I suspect the sailboat was motoring along on autopilot. The headline probably should have read "Motorboats collide". wrote in message ... (watch the wrap) http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/stat...nes-local-wire |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Ain'tja forgetting somethin?
otn Simple Simon wrote: The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required by the Rules to hold course and speed until and unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is not taking the required action and a collision will ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the collision. Then the sailboat can take such action as it deems necessary to avoid the collision. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Only if it is a cable ferry. In this case this was not the case. The ferry is nothing but a motor boat and must keep clear of a sailboat according to the COLREGS. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. Can't the Ferry "claim" limited steerage in certain cases? RB |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Subject: That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/04/2003 10:49 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: It is a good thing for the ferry boat operater that the sailboater was drunk or it would have been the ferry boat operator who was at fault for hitting a sailboat. The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. I would like more information on this collision because I suspect the sailboat was motoring along on autopilot. The headline probably should have read "Motorboats collide". Basing your response based on scanty information, aren't you Neal? Were they in open waters or in a channel? Shen |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Subject: That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
From: (Bobsprit) Date: 08/04/2003 10:51 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. Can't the Ferry "claim" limited steerage in certain cases? RB Define "limited steerage" The closest thing that would apply, is if he was in a narrow channel and could expect (unless Neal was the operator) the sailboat , not to impede his passage ..... even then he's still bound by the rules. Need more info to tell how badly the sailboat messed up or if it would have been considered such if the operator was sober. Shen |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Subject: That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/04/2003 11:01 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Only if it is a cable ferry. In this case this was not the case. The ferry is nothing but a motor boat and must keep clear of a sailboat according to the COLREGS. Ole jump the gun Neal, strikes/screws up another response. |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Subject: That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/04/2003 11:03 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required by the Rules to hold course and speed until and unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is not taking the required action and a collision will ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the collision. Then the sailboat can take such action as it deems necessary to avoid the collision. trying to fill in some gaps, I see |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
To those like you who have no imagination it is
not difficult to understand why you would say something ignorant like Simon jumping the gun. In a case like this there are more known facts than you can imagine. Here are a few: 1) the newspaper got it wrong. 2) the newspaper is biased toward motor boats 3) the sailboat was probably motoring 4) the sailboat operator was probably not legally drunk. 5) the ferry was probably not operating in a narrow channel 5) the ferry was 'entering' the harbor which means it was probably out of the marked channel already. 6) the sailboat was probably sailing around in the harbor 7) the ferry was probably in violation of the Rules 8) the sailboat was probably in violation of the Rules 9) the collision could have and should have been prevented by the ferry giving way as required by the Rules. 10) I am correct more often than not. S.Simon "Shen44" wrote in message ... Subject: That was no rock that Bobadil struck! From: "Simple Simon" Date: 08/04/2003 11:01 Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Only if it is a cable ferry. In this case this was not the case. The ferry is nothing but a motor boat and must keep clear of a sailboat according to the COLREGS. Ole jump the gun Neal, strikes/screws up another response. |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
See my post elsewhere in this thread where I discussed
the facts of the case and the narrow channel scenario was mentioned once or twice. Note also the time stamp that proves I mentioned it before you posted the nonsense below. You must enjoy taking a beating . . . "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Ahhh, then you ignored the fact that the vessels could have been in a narrow channel in which case the sailboat should not have been "impeding" the ferry .....s'ok ....we know you have limited experience on these issues |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Here we go - another in a long line of motorboat butt buddies catering to motorboat bias. You could be right about the collision occuring in a narrow channel and I have already mentioned that possibility but I also said it was not stated in the report so to assume that was the case is rather dumb. wrote in message ... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:08:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: To those like you who have no imagination it is not difficult to understand why you would say something ignorant like Simon jumping the gun. snipped BB garbage posing for rational thought |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
|
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
ROFL more Neal "cover thy butt" crap
Simple Simon wrote: Here we go - another in a long line of motorboat butt buddies catering to motorboat bias. You could be right about the collision occuring in a narrow channel and I have already mentioned that possibility but I also said it was not stated in the report so to assume that was the case is rather dumb. wrote in message ... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:08:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: To those like you who have no imagination it is not difficult to understand why you would say something ignorant like Simon jumping the gun. snipped BB garbage posing for rational thought |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few
(Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are about to have a collision . Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance of this to the story. otn The Cappys Master wrote: It appears to me that the ferry captain may be have a problem. Signalling and attempting to turn are no defence. No mention of slowing or stopping to avoid the collision! On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:49:43 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: It is a good thing for the ferry boat operater that the sailboater was drunk or it would have been the ferry boat operator who was at fault for hitting a sailboat. The ferry is required by the COLREGS to keep clear of a sailboat. I would like more information on this collision because I suspect the sailboat was motoring along on autopilot. The headline probably should have read "Motorboats collide". wrote in message ... (watch the wrap) http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/stat...nes-local-wire Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in
reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental block against it and that's a fact. "otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net... Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few (Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are about to have a collision . Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance of this to the story. otn |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a
complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental block against it and that's a fact. "otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net... Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few (Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are about to have a collision . Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance of this to the story. otn |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Had you not been in violation of the Rule that states
you must not create a close-quarters situation you would not have found it necessary to take drastic action. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh? |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
And which rule is that, Neal?
Remember, it was 150 yard visibility, the ferry was going several knots faster than I, and I was in full reverse within a few seconds after their first fog signal. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Had you not been in violation of the Rule that states you must not create a close-quarters situation you would not have found it necessary to take drastic action. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh? |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:03:33 -0400, "Simple Simon"
wrote: The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required by the Rules to hold course and speed until and unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is not taking the required action and a collision will ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the collision. Then the sailboat can take such action as it deems necessary to avoid the collision. Don't ever try sailing in Sydney Harbour and doing this to a ferry. You'll need a new boat and pay for the ferry damage. PDW |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Might does not make right!
Even the biggest motorboat in the world must give way to a sailboat according to the rules. "Peter Wiley" wrote in message ... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:03:33 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required by the Rules to hold course and speed until and unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is not taking the required action and a collision will ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the collision. Then the sailboat can take such action as it deems necessary to avoid the collision. Don't ever try sailing in Sydney Harbour and doing this to a ferry. You'll need a new boat and pay for the ferry damage. PDW |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Not in all situations and not in some places.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Might does not make right! Even the biggest motorboat in the world must give way to a sailboat according to the rules. "Peter Wiley" wrote in message ... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:03:33 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: The sailboat is the stand-on vessel and is required by the Rules to hold course and speed until and unless it becomes apparent that the motor boat is not taking the required action and a collision will ensue unless the sailboats takes action to avoid the collision. Then the sailboat can take such action as it deems necessary to avoid the collision. Don't ever try sailing in Sydney Harbour and doing this to a ferry. You'll need a new boat and pay for the ferry damage. PDW |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
I have, but they were going to hit a sea wall.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental block against it and that's a fact. "otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net... Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few (Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are about to have a collision . Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance of this to the story. otn |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
ROFL continued proof of your AMATEUR status .....even the Titanic TRIED
to throw it in reverse Simple Simon wrote: Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental block against it and that's a fact. "otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net... Then why don't you wait and see what transpired? I know of very few (Neal excluded)people who won't try and put the brakes on when the are about to have a collision . Signaling and attempting to turn are excellent defenses .... one would hope ( unless circumstances dictated otherwise) that he also included slowing, but the reporter wouldn't know and/or understand the importance of this to the story. otn |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
LOL...and, yet ANOTHER example of Neal's amateur status. You really
never have seen any fog, have you? otn Simple Simon wrote: Had you not been in violation of the Rule that states you must not create a close-quarters situation you would not have found it necessary to take drastic action. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Didn't I recently relate a situation in thick fog when I used reverse to come to a complete stop? I guess I'm not a powerboater after all, eh? |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Hey, stupid, I have NEVER seen a motorboat throw it in reverse to avoid a collision. They have some sort of mental block against it and that's a fact. Last year I saw a survey vessel go into full astern to avoid a yacht that was racing. The survey vessel had been broadcasting at least every 60 seconds that it was unable to alter course, and it was flying the correct shapes. The radio waves almost turned blue after the incident. The shapes that the survey ship was flying seemed to be the same size as the shapes that I carry aboard. They were almost impossible to see on the ship. Some sort of strobe light would be much more effective. Regards Donal -- |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
"Shen44" wrote in message ... A problem with many day shapes (besides their size) is that they are carried in areas (on mast and yardarms) where they can tend to blend in and/or be obscured by various bits of equipment. Exactly! Not sure a strobe would be of any help in daylight. Anything would help. The shapes were not immediately visible. I'm not sure that bigger shapes would fix the problem. A bright strobe light would be visible even in daylight. Perhaps I should explain a bit more. I actually saw this ship twice. I've already described the first encounter - which occurred when I was delivering my boat to Brittany for our summer cruise. Three weeks later, when we were returning to Portsmouth, I saw a ship on a collision course. I assumed that it would alter course. As we got closer, I used the binocculars to read the ship's name so that I could call her up to tell her to change course. Imagine my surprise when I read the name - "Ocean Seeker" - and I realised that it was the ship that we had heard 3 weeks earlier. I did an immediate 180. I also checked the radio, and discovered that it was on 72. Tsk, tsk! Regards Donal -- Shen |
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
Sheesh, what rotten "proof reading" for spelling, on my part, for my last post
|
That was no rock that Bobadil struck!
"Shen44" wrote in message ... One suggestion: Ships/boats, engaged in different forms of work, such as survey, fishing, offshore supply, tend to be of a type/shape and size, coupled with running at slower speeds (in some cases) when working. Here is a picture of the boat in question http://www.gardline.co.uk/seeker.html It looked like a coastal freighter from our boat. It was doing about 12-15 kts (guess). There was nothing unusual about its speed. With this in mind, don't just look for lights and shapes. Mentsally picture what you are looking at, and try to categorize, while thinking of the possible maneuvers, etc. it could be doing, if it falls into one of your categories ..... it may give you something to start working on for possble actions he will take as well as what you can do. I realize the above is kinda vague, but I always try to figure out type, size, nationality, where from and to, and what it may be doing out of the ordinary, so I can start developing plan A,B,C, ...... Likewise! Regards Donal -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com