I maintain it is NOT scanty information. Try getting out of
the wheelhouse and opening your ears and you will discover
it's easy to tell the bearing of a vessel giving fog signals. It is
also not too difficult to tell the sound is getting louder (closer).

Look at your radar as required by the Rules and plot positions
and get bearings.

Rule 8 applies in ALL conditions of visibility and it states that
changing course early and largely is often the best way to
avoid a close quarters situation. You would have me create
a close quarters situation with your stupid insistence that
I slow down and remain on the same course. You are
Wrong Wrong Wrong!

Why give signals at all if you're just gonna ignore them
or use them to create close quarters situations?

Huh? Huh? I can't HEAR you!

S.Simon


"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Subject: COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted
visibility.
From: "Simple Simon"


It's simple. Information is not scanty when

1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and
it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder.

This is scanty information. In truth, the bearing may be opening left or right
or may be steady... by sound alone there is no way to be absolutely sure.

2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel
is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course.

In which case, follow rule 19 (e)

3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and
change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters
situation.

Based on scanty information, and not knowing whether your course change will
result in safe passing.

Shen

Simple Simon wrote:

It's simple. Information is not scanty when

1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and
it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder.

Fair enough. But first, please, show me a reliable method of taking a
bearing on a fog signal. I only seem to be able to achieve a precision
of plus or minus 180 degrees, or plus or minus 45 if lucky.

2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel
is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision
course.

Backwards logic again. Rule 7d1 says risk of collision shall be deemed
to exist if you are on collision course (i.e. if the compass bearing
does not appreciably change).

That doesn't mean that if you are apparently on a collision course
(by magically sensed compass bearing of a foghorn) that you should
assume you are on collision course, from which an arbitrary change
of course will divert you.

3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8
and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close
quarters situation.

The purpose of 8a/8b/8c is in big part to ensure the other vessel's
master is made aware in good time of your action. I'm more concerned
about the rest of rule 8 here. You can't hope to comply with 8d
(action ... to result in passing at a safe distance) if you have no
way of assessing what that distance is likely to be because you have
no precise enough idea of its relative position. And again I remind
you that even when 19e doesn't apply, 8e also tells you to slow down
if necessary to avoid collision.

What kind of course alteration are you proposing, by the way?
A U-turn? Sounds like a good legalese trick to disarm 19e,
since it would automatically change a fog signal detected
apparently forward of the beam into one abaft the beam. That
would certainly for the moment exempt you from 19e's slowing
down requirement unless it had been determined that RoC exists
or that a CQS could not be avoided. But what if you're surrounded
by fog signals? Then what?

Simple Simon wrote:

All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.

OK

The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.

OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.

Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.

OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?

Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability

It is indeed that, but not only that.

and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.

Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.

I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.

Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

It's obvious you've never sailed in fog..... your statements are akin to
Bobsprit talking about sailing. Neither has merit.

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
|
| It's simple. Information is not scanty when
|
| 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and
| it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder.
|
| 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel
| is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision
course.
|
| 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
| the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8
and
| change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters
| situation.
|
| S.Simon
|
|
|
|
| "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
| Simple Simon wrote:
|
| "Tim Roberts" wrote
|
| Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course
| regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other
vessels
| position?
|
| Yes I would. The Rules require me to.
|
| Good, that's what I like to see, Cap'n. Nice reasoned argument.
| So, pray tell, which particular rules require this?
|
| Would you care to say how, without knowing where the other vessel
| is, you can ensure your action *will* result in the vessels involved
| passing at a safe distance (rule 8d) and not result in another close
| quarters situation, in this case with the same vessel (rule 8c)?
|
| Note that rule 8e also requires you to slow down if necessary.
|
| Rule 8 is in section I, by the way, so applies whether in sight
| or not.
|
| Would you also care to explain how, by altering course to avoid
| a vessel of the position of which you are uncertain, you are not
| violating rule 7c by making assumptions on the basis of scanty
| information?
|
|
|

Simple Simon wrote:

And, superior to someone enamored with name-calling. Bwaaaaaaaaahhhahahahhhahah!

Is that all you have left?

That IS funny ... Nil, is chief among the very few in this thread to
claim superiority of one mode of propulsion. All the while stating that
the ONLY mode in which he is licensed is the one he claims is inferior.

Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just
don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the
application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But
that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand.
That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's idiocy.

Self hatred? Inferiority complex of some sort? Either way his statements
are not those which define a stable and reliable shipmate or the sort of
individual who can be entrusted with the operation of a vessel in close
quarters.

The question that should be asked here is: How well could you sleep
below knowing that Nil was at the wheel of your boat one foggy dark
night in a busy sound or bay?

Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing
brightly.

Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living
doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his
pathetic existence.

Bon Voyage, Nil. It is time you joined your mate, Jax in the MSD of
internet boating.

Rick

Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.


OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.


OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.


OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability


It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.


Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.


Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?

By how much?

Cheers MC

Simple Simon wrote:


3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps
the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and
change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters
situation.

Sailing a boat takes far more skill than driving a motor boat -IMHO

Cheers MC

Rick wrote:



Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just
don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the
application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But
that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand.
That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's
idiocy.

More name-calling! Keep it up and maybe you'll
convince yourself you're not envious.

S.Simon


"Rick" wrote in message ink.net...
Simple Simon wrote:

And, superior to someone enamored with name-calling. Bwaaaaaaaaahhhahahahhhahah!

Is that all you have left?

That IS funny ... Nil, is chief among the very few in this thread to
claim superiority of one mode of propulsion. All the while stating that
the ONLY mode in which he is licensed is the one he claims is inferior.

Only the amateurs of either mode claim superiority. The rest of us just
don't play such sophomoric games. The skills required and the
application of those skills to safe vessel operation are the same. But
that is something which a rank amateur could not possibly understand.
That lack of understanding and experience is the foundation of Nil's idiocy.

Self hatred? Inferiority complex of some sort? Either way his statements
are not those which define a stable and reliable shipmate or the sort of
individual who can be entrusted with the operation of a vessel in close
quarters.

The question that should be asked here is: How well could you sleep
below knowing that Nil was at the wheel of your boat one foggy dark
night in a busy sound or bay?

Nil, the one-tripper, an internet wannabe ... your ignorance is showing
brightly.

Sad sad little man. Hates his toy license, hates those who make a living
doing what he wants so badly to do himself, hates himself for his
pathetic existence.

Bon Voyage, Nil. It is time you joined your mate, Jax in the MSD of
internet boating.

Rick

Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is
is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under
the circumstances he finds himself in.

Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs
and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with
the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at
all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor
vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to
decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching
one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k?
Just want to be sure where we stand.

otn

Ronald Raygun wrote:

Simple Simon wrote:


All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular
vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of
the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe
speed for any particular situation or circumstance.


OK


The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and
if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other
man can dispute it.


OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as
a result of your poor judgement.


Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can
a judge determine that I was wrong.


OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that
no judge will determine that you ewere wrong?


Even then, it is
only a legal decison to determine liability


It is indeed that, but not only that.


and still
does not take away a Captain's right to determine
what is a safe speed.


Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only
of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have
your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's
right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man!
A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair
sailor. Unthinkable!

Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences.


I have to admit I might be the
give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above
me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore,
I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel
comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there
is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an
area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along.


Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order
exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only
under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that
vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV".
So what?