Hey John,
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Of course,
one "tries" to miss the errant PWC too. G

Capt. Frank

John Cairns wrote:

"Everett" wrote in message
...

"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not

knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from

the

Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

snip

"Simple Simon"

snip

I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.


Lsnip

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.


snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett


And the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a
collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and
yell "STAND ASIDE"

John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:51:21 GMT, something compelled "Capt.
Frank Hopkins" , to say:

Hey John,
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid.

Standing orders on USS Prairie, AD 15 read in part:*

Aircraft carriers are unpredictable and change course at will,
with little to no regard to the rest of the fleet. Whenever
steaming with an aircraft carrier, a vigilant watch will be kept
upon it, and the ship will be maneuvered out of the way as
prudent.





*As much as I remember.

"Everett" wrote in message
from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett


What does it say? Do you have a point?

Everett wrote:

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all.

To say what, exactly?

The pecking order (rule 18), stand-on (rule 17), and give-way (rule
16) stuff is not in section I of part B, to which rule 4 refers, but
in section II of part B, which is introduced by rule 11:

"Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another."

So the pecking order *only* applies when in sight.

Section III which is rule 19 applies only to vessels not in
sight of one another, when in restricted visibility. This means
that, even where visibility is restricted (for any reason), as
soon as ships come close enough to see each other, section III
goes out the window and section II kicks in, restoring pecking
order *which does not exist in section III*. But this revived
pecking order may be academic if by then vessels are already
in a close quarters situation.

How absolutely, positively correct you are, sir!

S.Simon


"Everett" wrote in message ...
"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.
snip
"Simple Simon"
snip
I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Lsnip
My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

snip

from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html

"Rule 4
Application

"Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility."

That seems to say it all. Thanks SS

Everett

You're new here aren't cha.
"Charles T. Low" wrote in message
...
SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility,
unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of
the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

Some people here who claim to be captains are so
obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
is but one example of restricted visibility that they
have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
visibility.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.

The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

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.

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.

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.

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


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.

If you want to see some of the earlier threads, search on "fog" in this group.


"Charles T. Low" wrote in message
...
SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? I'm left not
knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the
Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying.

So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

Some people here who claim to be captains are so
obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin,
is but one example of restricted visibility that they
have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the
issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted
visibility.

While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give-
way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They
say there is no pecking order in or near restricted
visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted
visibility.

Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been
able to refute rationally or logically.

Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog
can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility
and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most
everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest
fires can cause restricted visibility.

You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog)
to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short
of the mark.

My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way
vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven
it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion.

Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your
vessel does not change my argument because unusually
thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is
generally an exception to the rule.

The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is
so when they eventually come within sight of one another
they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a
collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like
being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so
fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights
shine.

So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing
and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented
by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's
four facts that cannot be disputed.

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.

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.

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.

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


S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding
the COLREGS.

And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!

Comments interspersed.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
down.

As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
exists in all its glorious ramifications.



Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.


I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.

I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
keep failing to get it.

As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.

S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
liberal fashion.

Yet more comments interspersed ....


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!

Comments interspersed.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about
a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not
required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since
there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
down.

Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not require boats to
slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:

"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."

All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the basics. Rule 19 says
that sometimes you have to go even slower. Rule 19 specifically addresses restricted
visibilty, and says:

"(e) Except where it has been determined that a risk of collision does
not exist, every vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the
fog signal of another vessel, or which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation
with another vessel forward of her beam, shall reduce her
speed to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course. She
shall if necessary take all her way off and in any event navigate with
extreme caution until danger of collision is over."

The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there is no situation
where a sailboat must slow down. Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?

You've claimed that its impossible for a sailboat to slow down, but that only proves you
don't know how to sail. I suggest take a beginners sailing class if you don't understand
how to control your speed.


As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
exists in all its glorious ramifications.


I've often admitted that in light fog there can be situations where the "in sight" rules
take affect. However, in thick fog, two vessel making 7 knots each can be closing at 24
feet/second. In 50 foot visibilty, this does not leave enough time to even react. This
is why there can be no pecking order in thick fog - ALL VESSELS have an equal
responsibilty to REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM!




Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a
myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because
they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.


I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.


By claiming a vessel is "standon" you imply it must maintain course and speed. But even
so, claiming a sailboat "could" proceed a full speed in thick fog also blatantly wrong.


I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
keep failing to get it.


For many situations, you may be correct. However, in thick fog, 6 knots is too fast, even
for a small boat. The rules are quite explicit. The courts have also been very specific
on this, holding vessels at fault because they did not anchor immediately.

BTW, just a month ago you claimed your hull speed was 7 knots. Did you suddenly slow
down?

As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.


No, you've merely claimed rules that protect boats in thick fog don't make sense because
sometimes there isn't thick fog. This is nonsensical!

S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
liberal fashion.

Jeff Morris wrote:

Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not
require boats to slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:

On the contrary.

Rule 6 requires speeds to be safe at all times, there is no explicit
mention of reducing to a safe speed. Not even in 19b. Only in 19e.

Both 6 and 19b *imply* that a reduction might be mandated in some
circumstances, but only 19e makes *explicit* mention of reduction,
and then only in specific circumstances.

All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the
basics. Rule 19 says that sometimes you have to go even slower.

Even slower than safe speed? No, it only means that "safe" may at
times mean very slow.

The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there
is no situation where a sailboat must slow down.

In this he is of course mistaken.

Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?

Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can
be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need
to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained,
unless (as required be the following sentence) it becomes necessary to
take all way off. But remember that the whole of 19e only applies to
vessels which have heard another vessel's fog signal from apparently
forward, or where an unavoidable close quarters situation already exists.