Ferry Speeds
 

Subject: Ferry Speeds
From: "Jonathan Ganz"
Date: 11/20/2003 23:38 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?


First off ..... what Jeff says.....I think the most important factor to keep in
mind, is that the stand on/ giveway condition doesn't change (legal point)
(sailboat meeting a ship, other than overtaking), however, due to the condition
(narrow channel) the sailboat is admonished to keep the condition in mind and
not push the issue and allow the ship "searoom" to maneuver, which in this case
would be to continue within the bounds of the channel.

Shen

This does not answer your question, but there are a number of issues involved.
The Rules, rarely give anyone "carte blanche" to stand on.

Ferry Speeds
 

Jeff,

Great explanation. I'm going to use it if you don't mind.

Jonathan

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Well, (almost) no status is absolute because in (almost) any real life
situation there are
complexities not explicitly mentioned in the rules. For example, there is
no explicit
mention of three vessel situations in the rules.

However, the phrase "shall not impede" is a bit more vague than most of
the ColRegs. Most
casual commentators, writing simplified rules for novices, will say that
"shall not
impede" means the same as "keep out of the way off" that implies give-way
status.
However, this is not the intent of the wording. "Shall not impede the
safe passage" means
that a vessel which might ordinarily have stand-on status, must leave the
other vessel a
reasonable amount of room to pass. The stand-on/give-way relationship
still holds, but
now the stand-on vessel may be required to alter course to accommodate the
other vessel.

The meaning of this, in practice, depends a lot on the actual situation.
For instance,
Rule 9(b) says that a vessel under 20 meters or a sailboat shall not
impede a vessel that
can only navigate within a channel - but it doesn't say anything about
this vessel - it
may be smaller and less restricted than the sailboat. If the vessel is
actually more
maneuverable than the sailboat, it does not need a "protection" from 9(b).
However, if
the give-way vessel is an oil tanker, it may be on the only reasonable
course, and any
alteration would be impeding its safe passage. Thus, the master of the
sailboat has to
appreciate the handling characteristics of the other vessel.

Since its rather unlikely that the novice small boat operator will
understand the needs of
the large ship, for these boats, interpreting "shall not impede" as
meaning "give-way" is
appropriate. However, it doesn't mean that a smaller power vessel becomes
stand-on WRT a
sailboat because its in a fairway. Thus, the status of vessels implied by
the various
terms of Rules 9 and 10 are not as absolute as the "stand-on/give-way"
status of Rule 18.

There has been much confusion over the use of "impede;" the IMO tried to
clarify this in
Rule 8 with some added clauses - their comments on this make it clear that
"shall not
impede" is not as binding as "shall stay out of the way of," but the words
of Rule 8 often
sound like gibberish. Fortunately, professional mariners seems to
understand it.






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
You tweaked a memory. In SF Bay, there's at least one area which is an
RNA
and
small boats aren't allowed (around Pinole Shoal) and there may be
others,
but
generally, I believe you'll find that everyone's working under the
"shall
not
impede" rule. (I'd love to see some case history on this).
We are talking a legal point here that has room for confusion
regarding
"stand
on" status ..... it's a part of the "Shall Not Impede" rule that many
have
never liked.
I would like to say, you're correct, because the ship shall not be
impeded, he
has stand on status, but G that status is not absolute.

Shen

Ferry Speeds
 

Use at your own risk! If you really want to get to the bottom of these issues, read
Farwell's. However, they deal almost entirely with large vessel interactions so you have
to use your judgment on how court rulings would apply to small boats.

One thing about SF Bay - the TSS zones that are outside are continued in as Restricted
Zones. Your local Coast Pilot has descriptions of the various TSS and restricted zones.
In addition, the port captain has rather broad authority to add addition safety zones as
needed.

http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/nsd/c...ed-v1-Ch02.pdf



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Jeff,

Great explanation. I'm going to use it if you don't mind.

Jonathan

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Well, (almost) no status is absolute because in (almost) any real life
situation there are
complexities not explicitly mentioned in the rules. For example, there is
no explicit
mention of three vessel situations in the rules.

However, the phrase "shall not impede" is a bit more vague than most of
the ColRegs. Most
casual commentators, writing simplified rules for novices, will say that
"shall not
impede" means the same as "keep out of the way off" that implies give-way
status.
However, this is not the intent of the wording. "Shall not impede the
safe passage" means
that a vessel which might ordinarily have stand-on status, must leave the
other vessel a
reasonable amount of room to pass. The stand-on/give-way relationship
still holds, but
now the stand-on vessel may be required to alter course to accommodate the
other vessel.

The meaning of this, in practice, depends a lot on the actual situation.
For instance,
Rule 9(b) says that a vessel under 20 meters or a sailboat shall not
impede a vessel that
can only navigate within a channel - but it doesn't say anything about
this vessel - it
may be smaller and less restricted than the sailboat. If the vessel is
actually more
maneuverable than the sailboat, it does not need a "protection" from 9(b).
However, if
the give-way vessel is an oil tanker, it may be on the only reasonable
course, and any
alteration would be impeding its safe passage. Thus, the master of the
sailboat has to
appreciate the handling characteristics of the other vessel.

Since its rather unlikely that the novice small boat operator will
understand the needs of
the large ship, for these boats, interpreting "shall not impede" as
meaning "give-way" is
appropriate. However, it doesn't mean that a smaller power vessel becomes
stand-on WRT a
sailboat because its in a fairway. Thus, the status of vessels implied by
the various
terms of Rules 9 and 10 are not as absolute as the "stand-on/give-way"
status of Rule 18.

There has been much confusion over the use of "impede;" the IMO tried to
clarify this in
Rule 8 with some added clauses - their comments on this make it clear that
"shall not
impede" is not as binding as "shall stay out of the way of," but the words
of Rule 8 often
sound like gibberish. Fortunately, professional mariners seems to
understand it.






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
You tweaked a memory. In SF Bay, there's at least one area which is an
RNA
and
small boats aren't allowed (around Pinole Shoal) and there may be
others,
but
generally, I believe you'll find that everyone's working under the
"shall
not
impede" rule. (I'd love to see some case history on this).
We are talking a legal point here that has room for confusion
regarding
"stand
on" status ..... it's a part of the "Shall Not Impede" rule that many
have
never liked.
I would like to say, you're correct, because the ship shall not be
impeded, he
has stand on status, but G that status is not absolute.

Shen

Ferry Speeds
 

One other thing to consider here, is that there are two situations you
are discussing which involve "shall not impede" ... a narrow channel and
a TSS.
There can be differences to both. In the case of the narrow channel,
there's a good chance that the ship is limited to to the confines of the
channel, for whatever maneuvers it can or may attempt.
However, this does not always apply to TSS's. In a TSS, there's a good
chance that the ship can maneuver fairly freely to avoid (which may and
can take them outside the TSS), so that if push comes to shove, they can
maneuver as in Rule 8 (which is why the writers of the rules have not
made the "stand on " condition, absolute, as Shen has stated).
If you take SF Bay, there are a number of TSS areas where some ships
could physically go outside the "channel" ..... I would not expect them
to and don't doubt that unless an emergency they won't, as VTS will have
a fit, but again the legal aspects would take over in case of collision.
I fully agree this is an area that is confusing. My opinion FWIW,
consider yourself (the small boater) as the one required to give way,
and ignore the possible legal stand on ramifications which would come up
in court.
The most important issue, is to avoid the collision.

otn

ps At one time when TSS areas where coming into being, this was a USCG
"gotcha" question. "You are in a TSS and see a small power driven vessel
crossing your bow from stbd to port on a collision course. Which vessel
is stand on and which must give way?"
The answers were set up so that it was obvious that even though the
small boat was not to impede your passage, you were still obligated to
maneuver, since you were the giveway vessel in a crossing situation.

Ferry Speeds
 

I think it is very clear to everone who reads this thread
how confusing things become when exceptions to Rules
that favor motorboats over those higher in the pecking
order are included in the Rules. It becomes even worse
when the courts replete with totally ignorant judges
become involved. The COLREGS are like the Constitution.

They are what they are and should not be *******ized
in the courts any more than the U.S. Constitution.

The shall not impede rule is easy to understand on its
own merits. One need not have a judge or lawyer
explaing what the word 'impede' means. All that
is needed is a dictionary. If a vessel can be impeded
in a narrow channel it can also be impeded on the
high seas. Even an idiot can grasp this basic concept.

Shall not impede as set forth in Rule 8 is clear and
consise and clearly covers situations not in narrow
channels.

8 (f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of another
vessel shall when required by the circumstances of
the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of
this obligation if approaching the other vessel so
as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking
action, have full regard to the action which may be
required by the rules of this part.

(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be
impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the
rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching
one another so as to involve risk of collision.

The language of this Rule makes it abundantly clear
that it is addressing broader situations than the
narrow channels specific rule.

S.Simon













"otnmbrd" wrote in message link.net...
One other thing to consider here, is that there are two situations you
are discussing which involve "shall not impede" ... a narrow channel and
a TSS.
There can be differences to both. In the case of the narrow channel,
there's a good chance that the ship is limited to to the confines of the
channel, for whatever maneuvers it can or may attempt.
However, this does not always apply to TSS's. In a TSS, there's a good
chance that the ship can maneuver fairly freely to avoid (which may and
can take them outside the TSS), so that if push comes to shove, they can
maneuver as in Rule 8 (which is why the writers of the rules have not
made the "stand on " condition, absolute, as Shen has stated).
If you take SF Bay, there are a number of TSS areas where some ships
could physically go outside the "channel" ..... I would not expect them
to and don't doubt that unless an emergency they won't, as VTS will have
a fit, but again the legal aspects would take over in case of collision.
I fully agree this is an area that is confusing. My opinion FWIW,
consider yourself (the small boater) as the one required to give way,
and ignore the possible legal stand on ramifications which would come up
in court.
The most important issue, is to avoid the collision.

otn

ps At one time when TSS areas where coming into being, this was a USCG
"gotcha" question. "You are in a TSS and see a small power driven vessel
crossing your bow from stbd to port on a collision course. Which vessel
is stand on and which must give way?"
The answers were set up so that it was obvious that even though the
small boat was not to impede your passage, you were still obligated to
maneuver, since you were the giveway vessel in a crossing situation.

Ferry Speeds
 

Total nonsense, as per usual. There is no evidence that the courts have done anything
less than an admirable job in interpreting the rules. Neal is just ranting, even though
no one has ever presented a suspcious court ruling here.

As for Neal's fantasy about applying "shall not impede" to situations beyond the scope of
rules 9 and 10, the IMO makes it fairly clear that that was not there intent. Their
comment on Rule 9:

"The Rule also forbids ships to cross a narrow channel or fairway "if such crossing
impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or
fairway." The meaning "not to impede" was classified by an amendment to Rule 8 in 1987. A
new paragraph (f) was added, stressing that a vessel which was required not to impede the
passage of another vessel should take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the
safe passage of the other vessel. Such vessel was obliged to fulfil this obligation also
when taking avoiding action in accordance with the steering and sailing rules when risk of
collision exists."







"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I think it is very clear to everone who reads this thread
how confusing things become when exceptions to Rules
that favor motorboats over those higher in the pecking
order are included in the Rules. It becomes even worse
when the courts replete with totally ignorant judges
become involved. The COLREGS are like the Constitution.

They are what they are and should not be *******ized
in the courts any more than the U.S. Constitution.

The shall not impede rule is easy to understand on its
own merits. One need not have a judge or lawyer
explaing what the word 'impede' means. All that
is needed is a dictionary. If a vessel can be impeded
in a narrow channel it can also be impeded on the
high seas. Even an idiot can grasp this basic concept.

Shall not impede as set forth in Rule 8 is clear and
consise and clearly covers situations not in narrow
channels.

8 (f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of another
vessel shall when required by the circumstances of
the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of
this obligation if approaching the other vessel so
as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking
action, have full regard to the action which may be
required by the rules of this part.

(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be
impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the
rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching
one another so as to involve risk of collision.

The language of this Rule makes it abundantly clear
that it is addressing broader situations than the
narrow channels specific rule.

S.Simon













"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...
One other thing to consider here, is that there are two situations you
are discussing which involve "shall not impede" ... a narrow channel and
a TSS.
There can be differences to both. In the case of the narrow channel,
there's a good chance that the ship is limited to to the confines of the
channel, for whatever maneuvers it can or may attempt.
However, this does not always apply to TSS's. In a TSS, there's a good
chance that the ship can maneuver fairly freely to avoid (which may and
can take them outside the TSS), so that if push comes to shove, they can
maneuver as in Rule 8 (which is why the writers of the rules have not
made the "stand on " condition, absolute, as Shen has stated).
If you take SF Bay, there are a number of TSS areas where some ships
could physically go outside the "channel" ..... I would not expect them
to and don't doubt that unless an emergency they won't, as VTS will have
a fit, but again the legal aspects would take over in case of collision.
I fully agree this is an area that is confusing. My opinion FWIW,
consider yourself (the small boater) as the one required to give way,
and ignore the possible legal stand on ramifications which would come up
in court.
The most important issue, is to avoid the collision.

otn

ps At one time when TSS areas where coming into being, this was a USCG
"gotcha" question. "You are in a TSS and see a small power driven vessel
crossing your bow from stbd to port on a collision course. Which vessel
is stand on and which must give way?"
The answers were set up so that it was obvious that even though the
small boat was not to impede your passage, you were still obligated to
maneuver, since you were the giveway vessel in a crossing situation.

Ferry Speeds
 

Neal, have you ever been right about ANYTHING???

Bwahahaahahaha!

RB

Ferry Speeds
 

Neal,
I think you are missing the point that the others are discussing.
It doesn't matter if the "ship" is in a narrow channel or a TSS, the
Rules are still holding them to the stand on/give way status under the
Steering and Sailing Rules.
However, because the vessel which must stay in the narrow channel or
TSS, is working under conditions which potentially limit it's ability to
comply with those rules, they have stated that the vessel which is not
restricted to those confines, shall not impede, even though it may be
the stand on vessel.
They have not relieved the ship of it's obligations, they have just put
the greater obligation onto the smaller vessel to understand those
conditions and give way, no matter what (stand on or give way).

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

Wrong. Read Rule 8 again and again and again.

(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

Did you read the above? How come it says 'by any of these rule'
instead of 'by Rule 9'? If it only applied to Rule 9 it would
have mentioned only Rule 9 but instead it says by any of
these Rules and 'any of these Rules' means any of these
rules.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

S.Simon




"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Total nonsense, as per usual. There is no evidence that the courts have done anything
less than an admirable job in interpreting the rules. Neal is just ranting, even though
no one has ever presented a suspcious court ruling here.

As for Neal's fantasy about applying "shall not impede" to situations beyond the scope of
rules 9 and 10, the IMO makes it fairly clear that that was not there intent. Their
comment on Rule 9:

"The Rule also forbids ships to cross a narrow channel or fairway "if such crossing
impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or
fairway." The meaning "not to impede" was classified by an amendment to Rule 8 in 1987. A
new paragraph (f) was added, stressing that a vessel which was required not to impede the
passage of another vessel should take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the
safe passage of the other vessel. Such vessel was obliged to fulfil this obligation also
when taking avoiding action in accordance with the steering and sailing rules when risk of
collision exists."







"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I think it is very clear to everone who reads this thread
how confusing things become when exceptions to Rules
that favor motorboats over those higher in the pecking
order are included in the Rules. It becomes even worse
when the courts replete with totally ignorant judges
become involved. The COLREGS are like the Constitution.

They are what they are and should not be *******ized
in the courts any more than the U.S. Constitution.

The shall not impede rule is easy to understand on its
own merits. One need not have a judge or lawyer
explaing what the word 'impede' means. All that
is needed is a dictionary. If a vessel can be impeded
in a narrow channel it can also be impeded on the
high seas. Even an idiot can grasp this basic concept.

Shall not impede as set forth in Rule 8 is clear and
consise and clearly covers situations not in narrow
channels.

8 (f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of another
vessel shall when required by the circumstances of
the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or
safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of
this obligation if approaching the other vessel so
as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking
action, have full regard to the action which may be
required by the rules of this part.

(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be
impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the
rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching
one another so as to involve risk of collision.

The language of this Rule makes it abundantly clear
that it is addressing broader situations than the
narrow channels specific rule.

S.Simon













"otnmbrd" wrote in message
link.net...
One other thing to consider here, is that there are two situations you
are discussing which involve "shall not impede" ... a narrow channel and
a TSS.
There can be differences to both. In the case of the narrow channel,
there's a good chance that the ship is limited to to the confines of the
channel, for whatever maneuvers it can or may attempt.
However, this does not always apply to TSS's. In a TSS, there's a good
chance that the ship can maneuver fairly freely to avoid (which may and
can take them outside the TSS), so that if push comes to shove, they can
maneuver as in Rule 8 (which is why the writers of the rules have not
made the "stand on " condition, absolute, as Shen has stated).
If you take SF Bay, there are a number of TSS areas where some ships
could physically go outside the "channel" ..... I would not expect them
to and don't doubt that unless an emergency they won't, as VTS will have
a fit, but again the legal aspects would take over in case of collision.
I fully agree this is an area that is confusing. My opinion FWIW,
consider yourself (the small boater) as the one required to give way,
and ignore the possible legal stand on ramifications which would come up
in court.
The most important issue, is to avoid the collision.

otn

ps At one time when TSS areas where coming into being, this was a USCG
"gotcha" question. "You are in a TSS and see a small power driven vessel
crossing your bow from stbd to port on a collision course. Which vessel
is stand on and which must give way?"
The answers were set up so that it was obvious that even though the
small boat was not to impede your passage, you were still obligated to
maneuver, since you were the giveway vessel in a crossing situation.

Ferry Speeds
 

Jonathan,
One thing Shen's memory didn't bring up, and you would need to check
Coast Pilot 7 to confirm this, is that the USCG has designated those TSS
areas in SF Bay, as narrow channels.
In essence, this restricts the ships to staying within the TSS, as well
as telling the small boater, the ship cannot maneuver outside of the TSS
and I don't doubt you can see how this can alter a vessel's actions
versus an at sea TSS.

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Wrong. Read Rule 8 again and again and again.

(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

Did you read the above? How come it says 'by any of these rule'
instead of 'by Rule 9'? If it only applied to Rule 9 it would
have mentioned only Rule 9 but instead it says by any of
these Rules and 'any of these Rules' means any of these
rules.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You're right, it doesn't get any clearer than that. "Shall not impede" is many a number
of times, but only in Rules 9 and 10. The words don't appear anywhere else in the
ColRegs. Those are the rules referred to by "any of these rules" in Rule 8(f). Its very
simple, Simon.

You're trying to claim that rule 8(f) has some application beyond clarifying the meaning
of "shall not impede" as it is used in Rules 9 and 10. It just isn't so. The rules mean
exactly what they say.


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

Ferry Speeds
 

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Neal,
I think you are missing the point that the others are discussing.
It doesn't matter if the "ship" is in a narrow channel or a TSS, the
Rules are still holding them to the stand on/give way status under the
Steering and Sailing Rules.
However, because the vessel which must stay in the narrow channel or
TSS, is working under conditions which potentially limit it's ability to
comply with those rules, they have stated that the vessel which is not
restricted to those confines, shall not impede, even though it may be
the stand on vessel.
They have not relieved the ship of it's obligations, they have just put
the greater obligation onto the smaller vessel to understand those
conditions and give way, no matter what (stand on or give way).

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

I disagree. If it only referred to two different rules
it would have listed the numbers of the rules.

Any of these rules means any of these rules and is
not limited to the two you mentioned.

Any of these rules clearly includes any of these rules
where the vessels shall not be impeded. This includes
any case where a vessel might be in a situation to
impede another. These situations arise all the time
in open water and are not restricted to narrow
channels, etc.

For example, in open water if Shen44's motor vessel
fails to give way as the rules mandate to my sailboat
and I have to slow down and stop or take evasive action
then Capt. Shenandoah has impeded my vessel. He is
violating Rule 8 (f) (i) (ii) (iii) even though we are
both operating in open waters.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Wrong. Read Rule 8 again and again and again.

(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

Did you read the above? How come it says 'by any of these rule'
instead of 'by Rule 9'? If it only applied to Rule 9 it would
have mentioned only Rule 9 but instead it says by any of
these Rules and 'any of these Rules' means any of these
rules.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You're right, it doesn't get any clearer than that. "Shall not impede" is many a number
of times, but only in Rules 9 and 10. The words don't appear anywhere else in the
ColRegs. Those are the rules referred to by "any of these rules" in Rule 8(f). Its very
simple, Simon.

You're trying to claim that rule 8(f) has some application beyond clarifying the meaning
of "shall not impede" as it is used in Rules 9 and 10. It just isn't so. The rules mean
exactly what they say.


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

Ferry Speeds
 

I don't need to check, since I know that that is the
case. They are restricted to the channels, but of
course, they couldn't really leave them even if
they wanted to.

Another interesting thing is that occasionally
the inbound lane switches to the outbound
lane. Whereas, the outbound lane, as far as
I can recall, never switches to the inbound lane.
In other words, occasionally an inbound vessel
will use the outbound lane to go down the bay,
but that never seems to happen on the way out.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jonathan,
One thing Shen's memory didn't bring up, and you would need to check
Coast Pilot 7 to confirm this, is that the USCG has designated those TSS
areas in SF Bay, as narrow channels.
In essence, this restricts the ships to staying within the TSS, as well
as telling the small boater, the ship cannot maneuver outside of the TSS
and I don't doubt you can see how this can alter a vessel's actions
versus an at sea TSS.

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

Sorry, but it's been awhile since I've transited SF Bay, so I can't
reasonably discuss the reason for the inbound/outbound cross over.
The main point, which I can see you understand, and which Shen was
poorly EG describing, is that, regarding stand on when talking large
ship small boat in narrow channels and TSS.
There are bound to be a number of fine points which may apply when
discussing this issue, regarding a specific geographical location and
"Port State" regulations,plus ships versus small boats, but if you
understand the basic application and apply it, you'll normally stay
clear of any and all problems...... i.e. when all else fails ....Rule 2

otn

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I don't need to check, since I know that that is the
case. They are restricted to the channels, but of
course, they couldn't really leave them even if
they wanted to.

Another interesting thing is that occasionally
the inbound lane switches to the outbound
lane. Whereas, the outbound lane, as far as
I can recall, never switches to the inbound lane.
In other words, occasionally an inbound vessel
will use the outbound lane to go down the bay,
but that never seems to happen on the way out.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Jonathan,
One thing Shen's memory didn't bring up, and you would need to check
Coast Pilot 7 to confirm this, is that the USCG has designated those TSS
areas in SF Bay, as narrow channels.
In essence, this restricts the ships to staying within the TSS, as well
as telling the small boater, the ship cannot maneuver outside of the TSS
and I don't doubt you can see how this can alter a vessel's actions
versus an at sea TSS.

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Neal, have you ever been right about ANYTHING???

Bwahahaahahaha!

Well done, Bob.


You've just taken part in a real sailing discussion. You didn't contribute
very much, but we wouldn't expect you to on your first attempt.


Well done!



Regards


Donal
--

Ferry Speeds
 

You've just taken part in a real sailing discussion. You didn't contribute
very much, but we wouldn't expect you to on your first attempt.

I think I deserve credit for one of the better posts in a long expired subject.
I also started a thread on "Largest open sailing boat" today. Also: Best
daysailor query and posts about night vision.
I also taught Loco and some sockpuppet all about 5.1 and 6.1 audio.

RB

Ferry Speeds
 

otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

No, its just not worth wasting much time on this one. You already lost this same argument
several times over. The rules very clearly define several types of relationships:
stand-on/give-way is one, shall not impede is another. Vessels in heavy fog are a third.
You keep trying to claim that rules specific to one situation should be applied to
another. But there is absolutely nothing in the rules to support this claim. There is
no authority or commentator that supports your point of view. You haven't a leg to stand
on; you don't even have a license anymore.

You should hope that no one in the New Orleans MSO is an ASA lurker.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

Try reading my latest stand-alone post titled:

COLREGS - Proving Pecking Order in Restricted Visibility

for all the proof you need.

And, you are wrong about my licenses. They are still current. Why not
check with your friend about it again.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
No, its just not worth wasting much time on this one. You already lost this same argument
several times over. The rules very clearly define several types of relationships:
stand-on/give-way is one, shall not impede is another. Vessels in heavy fog are a third.
You keep trying to claim that rules specific to one situation should be applied to
another. But there is absolutely nothing in the rules to support this claim. There is
no authority or commentator that supports your point of view. You haven't a leg to stand
on; you don't even have a license anymore.

You should hope that no one in the New Orleans MSO is an ASA lurker.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...


otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

ROFLMAO Not a question of defending anything. Quote away, Neal, but
until you learn what your quotes mean, they will typically have little
or no meaning.
Try to understand, Neal ....you've lost, you've never won, and you'll
never win. Why? Because you're a wannabe troll with no experience and
less basic knowledge/ability.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...


Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:


That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

So, you'd rather name-call than argue the facts.

I understand. The former gives you a better chance
to feel your oats than the latter.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...
ROFLMAO Not a question of defending anything. Quote away, Neal, but
until you learn what your quotes mean, they will typically have little
or no meaning.
Try to understand, Neal ....you've lost, you've never won, and you'll
never win. Why? Because you're a wannabe troll with no experience and
less basic knowledge/ability.

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
otn tucks tail and runs because he cannot
defend an untenable position. All it takes is
a persistence and quoting the rules to defeat
these wannabes . . . Sooner or later they come
round or run away. Either way I win.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

In other words, this is another simpleton troll, not worth responding
to, except to comment that it's a troll ... bubye simple....

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

Outside the Rules? How can that be when I am
quoting the rules and claiming they say what
they say? If you guys choose to have a narrow
interpretation, fine but that does not preclude
my maintaining they have broader implications.

I have given concrete examples and application
of the Rules to prove my point while you guys
resort to saying I'm not sticking to narrow
views. Why not argue on the merits instead
of wussing out?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...


Huh? To the best of my knowledge, other than CBD, for the purposes of
this discussion, it only applies to narrow channels, and TSS (Not Safety
fairways).
Now, are you trying one of your usual trolls, or is there something
outside of the discussion we're missing .... which relates to the
discussion? Rick? Was he ever in this discussion?

otn

Simple Simon wrote:


That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view
of when and where 'shall not impede applies. They claim it
only applies in narrow channels and fairways and traffic
separation schemes while I maintain it is a broader concept
applying as stated 'by any of these rules' ---------------

8 (f)(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required
not to impede the passage or safe passage of . . .

S.Simon

Ferry Speeds
 

Not a question of name-calling, Neal. You freely admitted to being a
"troll" in a previous post on some subject, which I believe involved the
Rules.
At any rate, even ignoring your admission, none of your purported
arguments hold any weight, worthy of reasoned discussion, since even a
novice with less experience than you, could punch holes in whatever
point you try to troll your way through.... expect nothing but comments
of disgust for your normal post, unless they hold some valid point (a
rarity).

otn

Simple Simon wrote:
So, you'd rather name-call than argue the facts.

I understand. The former gives you a better chance
to feel your oats than the latter.

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net...

ROFLMAO Not a question of defending anything. Quote away, Neal, but
until you learn what your quotes mean, they will typically have little
or no meaning.
Try to understand, Neal ....you've lost, you've never won, and you'll
never win. Why? Because you're a wannabe troll with no experience and
less basic knowledge/ability.

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:16:34 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

That's all obvious and I don't disagree. What I do disagree
with is the fact that Rick and the others have a narrow view

Don't drag my name into your nautical fantasy life.

I don't argue COLREGS with rank amateurs, Nil. You are so far out of
touch with reality it simply isn't worth the time to play silly games
with the likes of you.

If you sailed half as much as you compose absurd interpretations of
rules you don't use or understand then you wouldn't post near as much
garbage.

If you were really interested in learning about operating your broken
plastic boat safely you would listen to the likes of Shen and OTN and
try to grasp the nuances of ship operations as they apply to you.

You're a loser wannabe, Nil. You will never be a sailor or a seaman,
you just don't have the "right stuff" so to speak.

Rick

Ferry Speeds
 

I ran into this while surfing:

http://www.uscg.mil/d11/vtssf/rnasfbay.htm

The key line for recreational boaters is in the General Regs:
"(3) The master, pilot or person directing the movement of a vessel within the RNAs
defined in subparagraph (c) of this regulation shall comply with Rule 9 of the Inland
Navigation Rules (INRs) "


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Jeff,

Great explanation. I'm going to use it if you don't mind.

Jonathan

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Well, (almost) no status is absolute because in (almost) any real life
situation there are
complexities not explicitly mentioned in the rules. For example, there is
no explicit
mention of three vessel situations in the rules.

However, the phrase "shall not impede" is a bit more vague than most of
the ColRegs. Most
casual commentators, writing simplified rules for novices, will say that
"shall not
impede" means the same as "keep out of the way off" that implies give-way
status.
However, this is not the intent of the wording. "Shall not impede the
safe passage" means
that a vessel which might ordinarily have stand-on status, must leave the
other vessel a
reasonable amount of room to pass. The stand-on/give-way relationship
still holds, but
now the stand-on vessel may be required to alter course to accommodate the
other vessel.

The meaning of this, in practice, depends a lot on the actual situation.
For instance,
Rule 9(b) says that a vessel under 20 meters or a sailboat shall not
impede a vessel that
can only navigate within a channel - but it doesn't say anything about
this vessel - it
may be smaller and less restricted than the sailboat. If the vessel is
actually more
maneuverable than the sailboat, it does not need a "protection" from 9(b).
However, if
the give-way vessel is an oil tanker, it may be on the only reasonable
course, and any
alteration would be impeding its safe passage. Thus, the master of the
sailboat has to
appreciate the handling characteristics of the other vessel.

Since its rather unlikely that the novice small boat operator will
understand the needs of
the large ship, for these boats, interpreting "shall not impede" as
meaning "give-way" is
appropriate. However, it doesn't mean that a smaller power vessel becomes
stand-on WRT a
sailboat because its in a fairway. Thus, the status of vessels implied by
the various
terms of Rules 9 and 10 are not as absolute as the "stand-on/give-way"
status of Rule 18.

There has been much confusion over the use of "impede;" the IMO tried to
clarify this in
Rule 8 with some added clauses - their comments on this make it clear that
"shall not
impede" is not as binding as "shall stay out of the way of," but the words
of Rule 8 often
sound like gibberish. Fortunately, professional mariners seems to
understand it.






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
You tweaked a memory. In SF Bay, there's at least one area which is an
RNA
and
small boats aren't allowed (around Pinole Shoal) and there may be
others,
but
generally, I believe you'll find that everyone's working under the
"shall
not
impede" rule. (I'd love to see some case history on this).
We are talking a legal point here that has room for confusion
regarding
"stand
on" status ..... it's a part of the "Shall Not Impede" rule that many
have
never liked.
I would like to say, you're correct, because the ship shall not be
impeded, he
has stand on status, but G that status is not absolute.

Shen

Ferry Speeds
 

I usually take my students out to the outbound channel, which is near
where we do MOB drills. More often than not we get lucky and have
inbound and outbound traffic in the area. I usually see the ships before
they do, and then I give them the talk about how you should be looking
all around you (including aft) because you never know what might be
gaining on you. Then we get the hell out of Dodge. They're almost always
amazed by how fast the ship gets to where we were.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sorry, but it's been awhile since I've transited SF Bay, so I can't
reasonably discuss the reason for the inbound/outbound cross over.
The main point, which I can see you understand, and which Shen was
poorly EG describing, is that, regarding stand on when talking large
ship small boat in narrow channels and TSS.
There are bound to be a number of fine points which may apply when
discussing this issue, regarding a specific geographical location and
"Port State" regulations,plus ships versus small boats, but if you
understand the basic application and apply it, you'll normally stay
clear of any and all problems...... i.e. when all else fails ....Rule 2

otn

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I don't need to check, since I know that that is the
case. They are restricted to the channels, but of
course, they couldn't really leave them even if
they wanted to.

Another interesting thing is that occasionally
the inbound lane switches to the outbound
lane. Whereas, the outbound lane, as far as
I can recall, never switches to the inbound lane.
In other words, occasionally an inbound vessel
will use the outbound lane to go down the bay,
but that never seems to happen on the way out.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...

Jonathan,
One thing Shen's memory didn't bring up, and you would need to check
Coast Pilot 7 to confirm this, is that the USCG has designated those TSS
areas in SF Bay, as narrow channels.
In essence, this restricts the ships to staying within the TSS, as well
as telling the small boater, the ship cannot maneuver outside of the TSS
and I don't doubt you can see how this can alter a vessel's actions
versus an at sea TSS.

otn

Ferry Speeds
 

Thanks for the link.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I ran into this while surfing:

http://www.uscg.mil/d11/vtssf/rnasfbay.htm

The key line for recreational boaters is in the General Regs:
"(3) The master, pilot or person directing the movement of a vessel within
the RNAs
defined in subparagraph (c) of this regulation shall comply with Rule 9 of
the Inland
Navigation Rules (INRs) "


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Jeff,

Great explanation. I'm going to use it if you don't mind.

Jonathan

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Well, (almost) no status is absolute because in (almost) any real life
situation there are
complexities not explicitly mentioned in the rules. For example,
there is
no explicit
mention of three vessel situations in the rules.

However, the phrase "shall not impede" is a bit more vague than most
of
the ColRegs. Most
casual commentators, writing simplified rules for novices, will say
that
"shall not
impede" means the same as "keep out of the way off" that implies
give-way
status.
However, this is not the intent of the wording. "Shall not impede the
safe passage" means
that a vessel which might ordinarily have stand-on status, must leave
the
other vessel a
reasonable amount of room to pass. The stand-on/give-way relationship
still holds, but
now the stand-on vessel may be required to alter course to accommodate
the
other vessel.

The meaning of this, in practice, depends a lot on the actual
situation.
For instance,
Rule 9(b) says that a vessel under 20 meters or a sailboat shall not
impede a vessel that
can only navigate within a channel - but it doesn't say anything about
this vessel - it
may be smaller and less restricted than the sailboat. If the vessel
is
actually more
maneuverable than the sailboat, it does not need a "protection" from
9(b).
However, if
the give-way vessel is an oil tanker, it may be on the only reasonable
course, and any
alteration would be impeding its safe passage. Thus, the master of
the
sailboat has to
appreciate the handling characteristics of the other vessel.

Since its rather unlikely that the novice small boat operator will
understand the needs of
the large ship, for these boats, interpreting "shall not impede" as
meaning "give-way" is
appropriate. However, it doesn't mean that a smaller power vessel
becomes
stand-on WRT a
sailboat because its in a fairway. Thus, the status of vessels
implied by
the various
terms of Rules 9 and 10 are not as absolute as the "stand-on/give-way"
status of Rule 18.

There has been much confusion over the use of "impede;" the IMO tried
to
clarify this in
Rule 8 with some added clauses - their comments on this make it clear
that
"shall not
impede" is not as binding as "shall stay out of the way of," but the
words
of Rule 8 often
sound like gibberish. Fortunately, professional mariners seems to
understand it.






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... interesting point... I'm wondering when would be
a situation when that status isn't absolute... in the bay that is?

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
You tweaked a memory. In SF Bay, there's at least one area which
is an
RNA
and
small boats aren't allowed (around Pinole Shoal) and there may be
others,
but
generally, I believe you'll find that everyone's working under the
"shall
not
impede" rule. (I'd love to see some case history on this).
We are talking a legal point here that has room for confusion
regarding
"stand
on" status ..... it's a part of the "Shall Not Impede" rule that
many
have
never liked.
I would like to say, you're correct, because the ship shall not be
impeded, he
has stand on status, but G that status is not absolute.

Shen

Ferry Speeds
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
You've just taken part in a real sailing discussion. You didn't
contribute
very much, but we wouldn't expect you to on your first attempt.

I think I deserve credit for one of the better posts in a long expired
subject.
I also started a thread on "Largest open sailing boat" today. Also: Best
daysailor query and posts about night vision.
I also taught Loco and some sockpuppet all about 5.1 and 6.1 audio.

You deserve full credit for starting off some good sailing discussions. In
this respect, I take my hat off to you.

However, once the discussion moves into serions sailing talk, you are
usually conspicuous by your absence.




Regards


Donal
--

Ferry Speeds
 

However, once the discussion moves into serions sailing talk, you are
usually conspicuous by your absence.


Once I start off a topic my work is done. If it leads to serious discussion,
all the better. People like Donal, Loco and a few others will only bomb a
thread if I remain in it, regardless of content, so I leave and the thread
bears fruit.
Yet another bit of mastery that makes me Alt.Sailing.Asa Captain.

My mind easily contains the minds of most people here...and I still have room
for Star Trek trivia.

RB