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