MC wrote:

For the reocord, you are completely correct and colregs certainly
applies to kyaks. What is astonishing is that DSK cannot get head around
where good seamanship starts and what colregs and other 'rules of the
road' don't cover.

Thank you very much. I was beginning to think that stating the obvious
here is a futile exercise. It seems these guys just can't let go of the
idea that their version of nautical right and wrong is not supported by
maritime law and practice no matter how much they want to believe otherwise.

Rick

Rick wrote:


Here's the quote you avoided including as it just doesn't seem to fit
your agenda:

"I am not "claiming the kayak has the right to go anywhere and do
anything he pleases" I am stating that the kayaker has the right to
maneuver where and how he pleases, just as you do, within the bounds of
COLREGS and if in a VTS area, the rules applicable to that area."

Uh huh. Where's the headers? Did you post that in *this* thread? If you had said that
to start with, you'd have looked a lot smarter.... of course, how you back up from a
hissy fit is another matter. As for agenda, your continued accusations are more like
posts from JAXAshby... what's next for you, imitating Boobsprit?

I did not see this (or any of the other quoted statements) in your posts in this
thread. Perhaps you think we can read what you meant to say?

That's a long long shot away from your statements (which I have already quoted) about
how "kayakers have every right to be in a shipping lane in the fog, so get used to it."

It also is a long long shot away from a serious discussion of what conditions apply to
& what actions are suitable for a small boat in poor visibility. Maybe that sort of
discussion doesn't fit your agenda?

This is for a vessel 91 meters long, d5617 tons, carrying 900 passenges and 240
cars.

From the accident report:
"After the collision, a speed trial was performed on board the "INCAT 046" with
three engines in service, as they were the night of the collision, to determine
the crash stop distance of the vessel. This was done by taking her to a preset
speed and then setting the engine control to 100 per cent power astern. At a
speed of 10 knots the ferry was able to come to a complete stop within 111 m, in
about 30 seconds. The speed was then increased to 14 knots and the test
performed again. The ferry was able to stop within 163 m, in about 45 seconds."

From a Navy evaluation:
"In addition, it demonstrated the capability of performing a "crashback" (i.e.,
coming to a dead stop) from 46 knots in just a third of a mile. This is amazing
for a vessel of this size, especially compared to a modern aircraft carrier that
requires approximately 2 miles to stop."
http://www.tea.army.mil/pubs/nr/depl...HSSarticle.pdf

I admit this isn't pulling that many G's, but out of 900 people, many of which
could be walking around, I'm sure they would end up with more than one lawsuit.

BTW, this was originally built for the Bass Strait run.


"MC" wrote in message
...
Do you really mean 10 knots to full stop in 110 meters? If so, that's a
fairly gentle stop from a slow 'fast cat'.

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it
does
an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full
stop in
110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?

MC wrote:
For the reocord, you are completely correct and colregs certainly
applies to kyaks. What is astonishing is that DSK cannot get head around
where good seamanship starts and what colregs and other 'rules of the
road' don't cover.


Rick wrote:
Thank you very much.

You might want to check MC's history here before kissing up to him.

.... It seems these guys just can't let go of the
idea that their version of nautical right and wrong is not supported by
maritime law and practice no matter how much they want to believe otherwise.

Actually, some people here have quoted the exact ColRegs to support their
statements. You aren't one of them.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Uh huh. Where's the headers? Did you post that in *this* thread? If you had said that
to start with, you'd have looked a lot smarter.... of course, how you back up from a
hissy fit is another matter. As for agenda, your continued accusations are more like
posts from JAXAshby... what's next for you, imitating Boobsprit?

You are truly dumber than a stump, thicker than 2 sort
planks. Your statement shows you to be a total fool,
illiterate, and a complete ass.

Read the damn thread fool, read my posts, moron.

What a f-in idiot, you make Nil look good.

Rick

DSK wrote:

MC wrote:


Doug will not admit he's wrong becuase if he did it would pop his bubble
of delusion.


You must be the deluded one, because I have admitted it when I have been
wrong. Doesn't happen very often, but it has occured a few times over the past
few years.

Now, when are you going to pay me the money you owe me?


No, you owe me! I posted the name boat that, in a comparable size range,
has a higher LPS than a Micro. Therefore you lose. It's that simple. It
is obvious you have no intention of paying up and that shows what you
are. Since you will keep acting in this childish way I will have no
further discussions with you. I view you as a complete waste of air -hot
air at that.

Cheers

Good lord. Do they really think that full astern the best way to slow a
fast vessel? Do you think they felt the extreme cavitation?

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

This is for a vessel 91 meters long, d5617 tons, carrying 900 passenges and 240
cars.

From the accident report:
"After the collision, a speed trial was performed on board the "INCAT 046" with
three engines in service, as they were the night of the collision, to determine
the crash stop distance of the vessel. This was done by taking her to a preset
speed and then setting the engine control to 100 per cent power astern. At a
speed of 10 knots the ferry was able to come to a complete stop within 111 m, in
about 30 seconds. The speed was then increased to 14 knots and the test
performed again. The ferry was able to stop within 163 m, in about 45 seconds."

From a Navy evaluation:
"In addition, it demonstrated the capability of performing a "crashback" (i.e.,
coming to a dead stop) from 46 knots in just a third of a mile. This is amazing
for a vessel of this size, especially compared to a modern aircraft carrier that
requires approximately 2 miles to stop."
http://www.tea.army.mil/pubs/nr/depl...HSSarticle.pdf

I admit this isn't pulling that many G's, but out of 900 people, many of which
could be walking around, I'm sure they would end up with more than one lawsuit.

BTW, this was originally built for the Bass Strait run.


"MC" wrote in message
...

Do you really mean 10 knots to full stop in 110 meters? If so, that's a
fairly gentle stop from a slow 'fast cat'.

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:


"robert childers" wrote in message
...
IMHO a kayak would not be an impediment to a large vessel in any of
the cases you are citing. They'd scarcely know there were bits of
fiberglass in their wake.

You're quite correct - but what if the vessel is a high speed ferry and it

does

an emergency stop? The Bar Harbor Fast Cat can go from 10 knots to full

stop in

110 meters, but what happens to the 900 people on board?

DSK wrote:


MC wrote:

For the reocord, you are completely correct and colregs certainly
applies to kyaks. What is astonishing is that DSK cannot get head around
where good seamanship starts and what colregs and other 'rules of the
road' don't cover.


Rick wrote:
Thank you very much.


You might want to check MC's history here before kissing up to him.

As if I would emulate DSK's well known toadying!

Cheers

Rick wrote:

DSK wrote:

Uh huh. Where's the headers? Did you post that in *this* thread? If
you had said that
to start with, you'd have looked a lot smarter.... of course, how you
back up from a
hissy fit is another matter. As for agenda, your continued accusations
are more like
posts from JAXAshby... what's next for you, imitating Boobsprit?


You are truly dumber than a stump, thicker than 2 sort planks. Your
statement shows you to be a total fool, illiterate, and a complete ass.

Read the damn thread fool, read my posts, moron.

What a f-in idiot, you make Nil look good.

I suggest his behaviour stems from an inability to think. If it's not
simple (and that means no maths of course) and set out in a very very
simple way he just won't get it. That's why he becomes completely
evasive -the metabolic demand of enaging a few neurons tires him out.
Next he'll become abusive...

Cheers MC

MC wrote:

No, you owe me! I posted the name boat that, in a comparable size range,
has a higher LPS than a Micro.

1- no, you didn't
2- even if you had, I had to explain the bet five times and let a week or more go by
while you furiously searched & searched for an answer that you hoped would fool
somebody.


Therefore you lose. It's that simple.

Correct, except for one small detail.


....Since you will keep acting in this childish way I will have no
further discussions with you.

That'd be great. Send a check and quit posting to this newsgroup.

DSK