And ???????
 

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

And ???????
 

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?

And ???????
 

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?

And ???????
 

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

And ???????
 

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

And ???????
 

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

And ???????
 

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?

And ???????
 

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

And ???????
 

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

navvie's bad debt
 

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

navvie's bad debt
 

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

And ???????
 

MC wrote:

...
Next he'll become abusive...

Meaning Rick? You two make quite a handsome couple.

DSK

And ???????
 

MC wrote:

...
Next he'll become abusive...

Meaning Rick? You two make quite a handsome couple.

DSK

And ???????
 

MC wrote:

...
Next he'll become abusive...

Meaning Rick? You two make quite a handsome couple.

DSK

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you
know
you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in
the
fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.


So tell us. What do you think the ColRegs say? Especially regarding
kayaks in
a VTS. You keep saying that I should read the book, but its looking like
you
never have.

Jeff, Instead of posing "loaded" questions, why don't you post some facts?

You've asked about the CollRegs position on kayaks. Why don't you post the
relevant rule? The answer is simple. There isn't a rule that forbids the
passage of kayaks through a TSS in fog.


If you disagree with me, then post the rule.

You cannot .... because it doesn't exist.

Get real, Jeff!




Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to
follow
the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can
assume
that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules.

You stated very little "plainly." But you started by saying they have the
same
rights as everyone; I claim they have different obligations.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? The CollRegs apply equally to all
vessels at sea.





If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

No. You started this by claiming the kayak has the right to cross
shipping
lanes in fog. Since the ColRegs specifically say they can't impede a
power-driven vessel in the VTS, they would be violating the rules just the
same
as the vessel that behaves erratically.

No, Jeff. They wouldn't..... not unless they actually *impeded* a genuine
TSS user.

There is no guarantee that a kayak would actually impede a TSS user,
therefore your arguement is totally invalid.

Furthermore, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the rules, then the
commercial ships would have to stop, wouldn't they? We all know that this
is not what happens in reality.








you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak
is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to
impede the
tanker.

I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS.


Bull****. You're saying he has the right to do it unless he doesn't. The
ColRegs say he doesn't have the right to impede. Without radar, in the
fog the
kayak can't tell if he might be impeding. Therefore, he shouldn't be
there.
Its really very simple. You're just so wound up pontificating that you
can't
see this.

The CollRegs also state that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed. Using
your (twisted) logic, all commercial vessels should come to a complete halt
in thick fog.




I am not going to waste a bunch of time on this with you, if you can't
comprehend the fact that there is no compilation of precise rules to
cover each and every possible combination of weather, visibility,
traffic, vessel type, and operator mindset then you should stay home or
at least stay away from other boats in all conditions.

I think this should apply to you.

You don't appear to "think" at all.




What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.


You haven't given any answers. You've only claimed you know everthing
and your
not sharing.

Sorry, Jeff. You are the person who appears inconsistent.

You are claiming that a kayaker must keep out of fog because he *might*
breach a CollReg. At the same time you suggest that commercial vessels may
definitely breach a CollReg, or two(safe speed & lookout).

You are obviously nuts!




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

So you're saying that the kayak has the right to be there even if the
law
says
he shouldn't.

There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.



Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.


They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.

You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.




So even if the kayak is breaking the rule by impeding my progress, I
don't
have
the right to kill him. Is that you whole point? Interesting.

Until or unless the kayaker impedes the tanker no rules are broken.

So the kayak has the right to be there if it can gaurantee no other
vessels will
be there? I suppose I might agree, but it seems rather pointless. But
this
logic would also say 100 knots is legal in a harbor if you don't hit
anyone.
(OK, I've heard it said, by a CG officer, that hitting someone is proof
that
you're in violation, but I think you are in violation if you "increase the
risk"
of a collision.)

Twit!




You never have a "right" to kill someone on another vessel. Sorry if
that upsets you.


No - that was a parody of your sentiments. You seem to have made the leap
that
because I think the kayak has no business being in a TSS in the fog, I
would
ignore the possibility that it might be there. Just the opposite is
true -
because I know there are such fools, I am extra cautious. You seem to be
claiming the opposite: even if the kayak is there, it would comply with
the rule
and not impede. I don't see how this is possible.

However, the truth is I do not drive an oil tanker and I usually am doing
under
5 knots in the fog. And contrary to what Donal claims thick fog for me is
an
"all hands on deck" situation. Frankly, I'm more likely to be in the
kayak
(actually my rowing dinghy) terrified that some powerboater will ignore
the
possibility that I'm rowing in the anchorage.

I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.







But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed
with
claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply
it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?

You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.







And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.








Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?


Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

The rules apply to everybody.

Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article .net,
Rick wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:

You keep claiming to have some secret knowledge about how the world
works.
Why
don't you just share it?

I have not nor do I now claim any secret knowledge of any sort. The
point I am struggling to make is that a kayaker has every right to be
there. I never said it is immune to any law or regulation. That is how
the world works, get used to it.

So, what you're saying is that a kayak has the *right* to be in a
designated shipping channel, in fog?


Why not?


Do we not have free access to the sea?

Does somebody own the sea?




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"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.
=================

Absolutely correct!




Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:

..... My point is that if you *insist* that ships must travel
sufficiently slowly to have the ability to take evasive action/stop on
a visual sighting, you are in effect stating that commercial traffic
must cease whenever visibility is so poor as to be less than the
distance needed to stop/manoeuvre.

Which is going to happen more often than you think. For example, night
time... or
taking a big tow of barges around a bend in the ICW or the
Mississippi...

Furthermore, this has been going on for a *very* long time, probably all
the
way
back to Hanseatic cogs....

Yeah but technology has moved on since those days.

The guy in the kayak cannot expect ships to slow beyond the point
where
they
lose the ability to steer. I guess that for most big ships that
this is
about 4-5 kts????

Even at 4-5 knots if you're in fog with 50m visibility there's no hope
of manoeuvering fast enough to miss an idiot in a kayak. 50m is half
of
a ship length for my icebreaker.

And attempting to maneuver might suck the idiot into the prop, too. Best
chance
would probably be to ring up 'All Stop' and coast over him, with luck he
could
surf clear on the bow wave....

Wouldn't work with my ship. CP prop, you'd need to declutch fast and
the engines/gearboxes don't like that.....

The kayak is taking a chance when he crosses the TSS. However, that
does
not mean that the ships in the TSS should carry on as if there was
no
risk.

They don't. They monitor their radars and radios. It's small vessels
with no radio, no radar and poor/no reflectivity that are at risk -
AND
THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCIAL VESSEL. In my
opinion the commercial vessel should keep a lookout as required and
proceed as if other vessels were also obeying the Colregs.

Right. And this is the point that Rick seems to be overlooking. The
kayaker is
bound to 1- not impede commercial traffic and 2- not create a hazardous
condition
and by playing around in shipping lanes in fog, he is doing both. Too
bad he
can't
get run over twice!

Either Donal & Rick are genuinely incapable of understanding that
rights are balanced by responsibilities,

All rights are balanced by responsibilities.


Have you forgotton where I came in on this?

25 kts in thick fog, in a busy waterway, with no lookout other than
radar???????


Please, Peter, try to be sensible!


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

I don't know ... do water jet propulsors cavitate in full reverse?

Or is it possible that this system adjusts the throttle automatically for
maximum thrust?


"MC" wrote in message
...
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?

navvie's bad debt
 

DSK wrote:

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.


Even if I had??? Explain the bet??? Fool somebody?? I was trying to get
you to agree to terms for wager settlement before I revealed my data and
design -and that is a matter of public record!

Let me suggest you look up and try to understand the words 'comparable'
and 'anything' in a dictionary before you mince such words with others
in the future. Also, don't threaten people because one day you may find
they will decide to give you a painful lesson and that day may come when
you least expect it.

I was disappointed in you in so far as I would have expected you to
admit that the Bolger Micro is not the best choice of small boat in
general. Instead now you just shout 'I won' like a child all the time
when your silly claim was exposed. Did you really think that Bolger and
friends would support your idea of a 180 degree LPS for a micro? If so
you must be one of the most foolish people I've ever encountered. It's
really a pity that I wasted my time trying to explain to you the basis
of the stability screening equation or why some people think a fuller
head to a main can be a good idea and other ideas. I'll not waste my
time trying to get ideas over to you because you are the biggest
arsehole I've met in a long time. When you post more of your usual
misleading nonsense I'll point it out -if I see it -but I'll not discuss
anything with you.

As I said at the start of this issue: A Bolger Micro is not a seaworthy
vessel. In fact, I'd rate it as a plaything for sheltered waters. It's a
pity you have no idea what 'seaworthy' means. Perhaps you had better
look that up in a dictionary too, or better yet, go get a real education
boy.

Don't bother to reply, I'm not interested in more of your bluster.

Cheers

And ???????
 

A water jet vessel is not put in astern by running the engine astern.

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

I don't know ... do water jet propulsors cavitate in full reverse?

Or is it possible that this system adjusts the throttle automatically for
maximum thrust?


"MC" wrote in message
...

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
om...
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?

And ???????
 

I've not seen a system that adjusts for full thrust in reverse or ahead.
But, the 10s crash stop is hardly impressive. Imagine taking 10s to slow
from a gentle run to a stop! Then again, the big water jet cats I've
ridden on here seem to have little power astern. I've also noted that
they power up ahead quite gently and if the throttle is opened
agressively the pump seems to make caviation type noises. It might be
that the water jet intake is optimised for power ahead?

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

I don't know ... do water jet propulsors cavitate in full reverse?

Or is it possible that this system adjusts the throttle automatically for
maximum thrust?


"MC" wrote in message
...

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
om...
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?

And ???????
 

Frankly, don't know - this is way outside my experience. However, I'm a bit
impressed that a large ship can stop from 10 knots in little over a boat length.
Is this typical for traditional displacement ferries?


"MC" wrote in message
...
I've not seen a system that adjusts for full thrust in reverse or ahead.
But, the 10s crash stop is hardly impressive. Imagine taking 10s to slow
from a gentle run to a stop! Then again, the big water jet cats I've
ridden on here seem to have little power astern. I've also noted that
they power up ahead quite gently and if the throttle is opened
agressively the pump seems to make caviation type noises. It might be
that the water jet intake is optimised for power ahead?

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

I don't know ... do water jet propulsors cavitate in full reverse?

Or is it possible that this system adjusts the throttle automatically for
maximum thrust?


"MC" wrote in message
...

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
om...
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?

And ???????
 

I've been on a Fast Cat (@35k) during a crash stop, as a demonstration.
Stopping distance was within a boat length (this was one of the larger
cats) The maneuver doesn't involve changing engine speeds, just the
direction of the waterjet thrust, and was well within the bounds of most
people to easily stay upright (G though grabbing something was a good
idea).
I've also done this maneuver on Z-drive tugs .... same results ....
fact, we sometimes use this maneuver for pilot boarding. .... come down
the side of ship on opposite heading at about 5-6 k, crash stop and go
astern,in the opposite direction at 6-8k while coming alongside (ship
maintains 7-8 k).... (eg scares the bejeebers out of the first time
onlookers).

otn

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.

And ???????
 

Donal wrote:
lotsa snippin


Jeff, Instead of posing "loaded" questions, why don't you post some facts?

You've asked about the CollRegs position on kayaks. Why don't you post the
relevant rule? The answer is simple. There isn't a rule that forbids the
passage of kayaks through a TSS in fog.


If you disagree with me, then post the rule.

You cannot .... because it doesn't exist.




Sorry, Jeff. You are the person who appears inconsistent.

You are claiming that a kayaker must keep out of fog because he *might*
breach a CollReg. At the same time you suggest that commercial vessels may
definitely breach a CollReg, or two(safe speed & lookout).

You are obviously nuts!




Regards


Donal

Food for thought:

Let's take a busy, heavily traveled TSS, anywhere in the world on a
foggy day ....peasoup, cain't see nuffin.
Now lets bring in a kayaker who wants to go across .....

Read Rule 2

Now .... does this sound like it's a good idea? Fall into the "ordinary
practice of seamen" category? Shows due regard for the dangers of
navigation and collision, etc.?

Can it be said that there IS a rule which tells the kayaker to stay
clear of a TSS in fog?

Just thought I'd ask.....

otn

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.

Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without interpretation.

They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy. They
don't. Honestly. Look again.


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog (with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong? Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.


I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak has no
business out there.

So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be there.

But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed
with
claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly imply
it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with hundreds
of thousands of passages. They have the equipment and training to keep them out
of trouble, as long as they use them properly. Most screwups are blatant
blunders, not just running a bit too fast. Knowing that perhaps they are going
a bit too fast, I'm extra cautious when around them. As I'm sure you are.

The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or get
out of the way. Though they would likely become chum in a collision, its
possible someone could be injured trying to avoid them. In a similar case in
the Chesapeake a few years ago, a freighter ran aground avoiding a sail boat the
was drifting in the channel. Rather than starting their engine when it was
clear they were drifting into the channel, they waited until a ship was close,
and then couldn't get the engine started in time. Most people thought "they had
no business being there." The hypothetical kayak situation is far worse - they
can't claim mechanical failure, or that the wind dying.

Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee," its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to avoid
impeding.

And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look stupid.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have someone
think its OK to be out there.


Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the CollRegs
is wrong?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25 knots?




Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules, then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS, only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?

And ???????
 

So when you say "well within the bounds of most people to easily stay upright"
does that mean that out of 900 tourists given no warning, a number would land on
their butt?

How quickly does the thrust get reversed? 35 knots is 60 feet/second - if it
takes several seconds to do the reverse, that leaves well under a boatlength for
the serious deceleration.

This reminds me of another question I've had for a "pro." How quickly do you
figure a helmsman would react to a hazard in the water, especially given no
warning. For combat situations, I've heard it varies between a second or two
for the pro, to about 6 seconds for the civilian. From my own experience, I
feel like I respond pretty quickly if an event is something that I'm
anticipating, but the last I had a "close encounter" in the I was disappointed
that I felt like 2 or 3 seconds passed before I reacted. However, I was able
to do a crash stop before things got hairy, the T-boat that would have hit me
never flinched.

-jeff


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
...
I've been on a Fast Cat (@35k) during a crash stop, as a demonstration.
Stopping distance was within a boat length (this was one of the larger
cats) The maneuver doesn't involve changing engine speeds, just the
direction of the waterjet thrust, and was well within the bounds of most
people to easily stay upright (G though grabbing something was a good
idea).
I've also done this maneuver on Z-drive tugs .... same results ....
fact, we sometimes use this maneuver for pilot boarding. .... come down
the side of ship on opposite heading at about 5-6 k, crash stop and go
astern,in the opposite direction at 6-8k while coming alongside (ship
maintains 7-8 k).... (eg scares the bejeebers out of the first time
onlookers).

otn

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.

And ???????
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Bull**** Rick. You're just pontificating to hide that fact that you
know
you're
wrong. I made a comment that kayaks should avoid shipping channels in
the
fog,
and you saw this as an opportunity to play second rate pedagogue.

What kayaks should do in the fog is spelled out in the COLREGS. What you
think they should or should not do is irrelevant.


So tell us. What do you think the ColRegs say? Especially regarding
kayaks in
a VTS. You keep saying that I should read the book, but its looking like
you
never have.

Jeff, Instead of posing "loaded" questions, why don't you post some facts?

You've asked about the CollRegs position on kayaks. Why don't you post the
relevant rule? The answer is simple. There isn't a rule that forbids the
passage of kayaks through a TSS in fog.


If you disagree with me, then post the rule.

You cannot .... because it doesn't exist.

Get real, Jeff!

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Rule 2(a) for instance, isn't technically broken until there is a "consequence."
Rules 9 and 10 aren't broken (in the case we're discussing), until a vessel is
impeded.

However, in the case of a kayak in thick fog, it has no ability to see the
traffic. We've stipulated that it is a poor reflector so it won't be seen until
the last second, and we've agreed that sound signals are unreliable. Thus, if
there is a meeting, there is virtually no way to the kayak to avoid impeding the
other vessel. If this happens, it will certainly be in violation of rule 9 or
10, probably 2(a), and possible a few others.

Frankly, I think mostly people would agree to this so far. So all that remains
is the final step: I claim that deliberatly putting oneself into a situation
where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in itself, frowned on by the
rule. As I've said, until an event actually occurs, the rule may not be broken,
but I think its close enough that its not unreasonable to say "he shouldn't be
there."

BTW, I think its possible to make a case the rule 2(b) actually does imply
putting oneself into the situation is a violation.


Further, you seem to be claiming that the kayak has no obligation to
follow
the
rules. The only way that any speed is a "safe speed" is if you can
assume
that
all parties will behave in a reasonable manor.

You are ranting now. Please quote exactly where and when I said the
kayaker has no obligation to follow the rules. I stated very plainly
that both vessels are compelled to follow the rules.

You stated very little "plainly." But you started by saying they have the
same
rights as everyone; I claim they have different obligations.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? The CollRegs apply equally to all
vessels at sea.

Nonsense. Much of the rules are about differentiating the various types of
vessels and situations and giving them different obligations. Yes, as a whole
they apply equally, but that's a meaningless statement when looking at actual
situations.


If you are going to start playing games and making up crap to suit your
position, or lack of one then go play by yourself. I won't waste time
with a belligerent amateur. You are beginning to sound like Nil.

What speed is safe if a vessel
suddenly alters course and crosses in your path?

Those are separate circumstances. You are playing games.

No. You started this by claiming the kayak has the right to cross
shipping
lanes in fog. Since the ColRegs specifically say they can't impede a
power-driven vessel in the VTS, they would be violating the rules just the
same
as the vessel that behaves erratically.

No, Jeff. They wouldn't..... not unless they actually *impeded* a genuine
TSS user.

The problem is the high likelyhood of impeding. And the fact that there is
nothing the kayak can do if it relealizes it is about to impede.


There is no guarantee that a kayak would actually impede a TSS user,
therefore your arguement is totally invalid.

That's a Neal argument: "if one kayak gets through unscathed, then the rules
clearly can't be applying to this situation."

In a crowded TSS, what are the odds that a kayak would couse a collision? 20%?
50%?


Furthermore, if you apply the same logic to the rest of the rules, then the
commercial ships would have to stop, wouldn't they? We all know that this
is not what happens in reality.


Commercial ship all have radar (large ones have at least 2) plus crews trained
on them. It does make a difference.

you don't mean the kayak has the same rights, you mean that the kayak
is
obligated to follow the rules of the VTS, which require it not to
impede the
tanker.

I mean the kayaker has every right to operate in or across the lanes
subject to the VTS operating limitations and procedures and COLREGS.


Bull****. You're saying he has the right to do it unless he doesn't. The
ColRegs say he doesn't have the right to impede. Without radar, in the
fog the
kayak can't tell if he might be impeding. Therefore, he shouldn't be
there.
Its really very simple. You're just so wound up pontificating that you
can't
see this.

The CollRegs also state that a vessel must proceed at a safe speed. Using
your (twisted) logic, all commercial vessels should come to a complete halt
in thick fog.


Before radar, much traffic did stop. And there were a lot of accidents. Modern
procedures and equipment allow for safe operations in the fog.



What you think of my answers is no more valid than what you "think" a
kayak paddler is allowed to do.


You haven't given any answers. You've only claimed you know everthing
and your
not sharing.

Sorry, Jeff. You are the person who appears inconsistent.

You are claiming that a kayaker must keep out of fog because he *might*
breach a CollReg.

Not because he "might" breach the ColReg. The uncertainty is that he "might"
have an encounter where he is obligated to take an action. At that point, he is
unable to act. Its the fact the he is deliberating putting himself into a
situation where he cannot fulfill his obligation that make this different.
That, plus the high likelyhood of it coming to pass.

At the same time you suggest that commercial vessels may
definitely breach a CollReg, or two(safe speed & lookout).

Where have I ever said its OK to not have a lookout, or procede at an unsafe
speed. Once again, you're resorting to blatant lies. A clear sign you know
you've lost this.



I are obviously nuts!

Donal

I couldn't have said it better!

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Good, leave it at that and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your inability to accept the vagaries of the COLREGS is
getting really boring.

Rick

And ???????
 

Rick wrote:

.... and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

The only one whining (or hurling feeble insults) is you.

DSK

And ???????
 

"Rick" wrote in message
link.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

As I've said no rule explicity forbids it. There are a number of where its
hard, or imposible to say the rule is broken until an actual event occurs.

Good, leave it at that and stop whining because the system
doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Your inability to accept the vagaries of the COLREGS is
getting really boring.

So where does it say in the rules I'm not allowed to bore you?

I stopped replying to you because it was clear you had no interest in the aspect
of this I found most interesting, but since you insist:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.
Frankly, I wasn't thinking in terms of ColRegs, other than perhaps Rule 2(a).
"Having business" or even "having the right" are not terms from the ColRegs,
they are judgment calls on my part about the propriety of the actions. I didn't
even mention the ColRegs until you insisted that was the issue.

I didn't contest your claim that until the kayak actually impedes a vessel its
not in violation of Rule 10. My point has been that starting out on a venture
will likely result in a situation where the kayak is unable to fulfill its
obligations is wrong. You've agreed it may be foolish and foolhardy. You
agreed that the kayak would likely be held liable (though the large ship may
also have some liability). The real issue for you seems to be whether its
appropriate for us to judge an action before the law has been broken.

My feeling is that if someone says "There's a fair chance I will be in
violation, and I have no intention or ability to prevent this from happening,"
then I can say he has no business doing it. Whether he has the "right" to do it
depends on how you define "right." It doesn't necessarily stem from legalities
of the ColRegs.

As for the ColRegs, they are designed to prevent collisions, or perhaps its
better to say "reduce the risk of collision" when vessels are in proximity.
Basing your whole argument on what the rules say when the kayak is not in
proximity to other vessels is not very interesting. However, when the kayak is
in proximity to other vessels in a shipping lane, it has neither the ability to
see or be seen, and likely has no means of taking effective action to make the
situation better. This, I think you might agree to. At this point the kayak
is leaving to blind chance whether it impedes, causes a collision, or otherwise
violates the rules.

My claim is that while up until the moment this happens the kayak may not be in
violation of the letter of the law, deliberately putting oneself in this
situation violates the spirit of the law. I claim this is wrong, and I claim
the ColRegs imply it is wrong.

I'll toss one more thing out for consideration:
Rule 5 (Lookout) says that a lookout must be maintained "at all times." There
is no qualification that allows you to say that the rule isn't broken until
there's an incident. Its very simply, a vessel without a proper lookout is in
violation. The courts have held that this is especially true in the fog, and
that the lookout must have no other duty assigned, other than to be a lookout.
Again, in the fog the "dedicated" lookout is considered essential and mandatory.
Its always been standard procedure on my boats, and others I've been on, that
thick fog is an "all hands on deck" situation; and I've usually told someone
explicitly that they are the dedicated lookout. Since this is effectively
impossible for the kayak to fulfill this obligation, he is in violation. Any
special consideration we might give to a single-hander of a larger boat in good
weather, is forfeited by the kayaker. Proceeding promptly across a channel
requires significant effort, maintaining a true course requires focus on the
compass, simply maintaining stability in the ocean requires focus on the water
ahead. There is no stretch of the imagination that allows you to say that the
kayak is fulfilling its obligation to maintain a lookout; it is in violation
regardless of whether other vessels are impeded.

Sorry if this bores you Rick.

Cheers,
Jeff

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in the fog.

And you are wrong in your belief that the kayak "has no
business" being in shipping lanes in the fog. It has as much
"business" there as any other vessel.

There is no law against it. Your choice to make no reference
to or claim about the COLREGS only shows that you chose to
avoid reference to the only law that governs such activities
and which very clearly contradicts your "belief."

Whether it is wise, an example of good judgment, or sane to
do so is not part of the law. The fact is the kayak has as
much "business" there as an aircraft carrier, a tanker, a
Bayliner, or a daysailer. The COLREGS do not give
"commercial vessels" any particular rights.

You can dig as deep as you like, interpret COLREGS any way
you like but the fact remains that the kayak has every right
to be there. When you are asked to sit on a CG accident
investigation board you may inject your beliefs. Until then
your beliefs have absolutely no impact on the facts of what
any other boater is permitted to do.

Rick

And ???????
 

I've watched this argument go from somewhat logical to somewhat
absurd. At first, I think you all had valid points, however, you guys
seem to have brought this disagreement down to the lowest common
denominator... bickering.

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

It may not be technically illegal, but I'm willing to be that if the CG
spotted a kayaker in the middle of the bay in heavy fog and bad
conditions, they would pluck him out immediately. They would not
wait for it to become dangerous or for him to impede traffic, because
it would already be dangerous.

The kayaker, with some exceptions probably, has no business in
these conditions whether or not he causes a problem with a tanker.

I don't know about "wise," but having good judgement is exactly what
the CG would be looking at as they retrieved someone. For example,
if there was a kayaker out there in bad conditions, but he had with him
a chase boat, then the CG would probably not do anything. If though,
the person was out there by himself, I'm convinced they would come up
close, assess the situation carefully, and probably pull him.

Now if you guys are going to continue to bicker, you might want to just
get a room somewhere. You're starting to sound like you're married...
to each other!

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
Jeff Morris wrote:

You must remember that I did not start this with any claim about the
ColRegs, I
merely said that the kayak "has no business" being in shipping lanes in
the fog.

And you are wrong in your belief that the kayak "has no
business" being in shipping lanes in the fog. It has as much
"business" there as any other vessel.

There is no law against it. Your choice to make no reference
to or claim about the COLREGS only shows that you chose to
avoid reference to the only law that governs such activities
and which very clearly contradicts your "belief."

Whether it is wise, an example of good judgment, or sane to
do so is not part of the law. The fact is the kayak has as
much "business" there as an aircraft carrier, a tanker, a
Bayliner, or a daysailer. The COLREGS do not give
"commercial vessels" any particular rights.

You can dig as deep as you like, interpret COLREGS any way
you like but the fact remains that the kayak has every right
to be there. When you are asked to sit on a CG accident
investigation board you may inject your beliefs. Until then
your beliefs have absolutely no impact on the facts of what
any other boater is permitted to do.

Rick

And ???????
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
So when you say "well within the bounds of most people to easily stay upright"
does that mean that out of 900 tourists given no warning, a number would land on
their butt?

Possibly, but I didn't consider the sensation to be all that greater
than correcting for normal seaway motion when moving .... just longer in
duration.

How quickly does the thrust get reversed? 35 knots is 60 feet/second - if it
takes several seconds to do the reverse, that leaves well under a boatlength for
the serious deceleration.

I couldn't give you numbers, but the maneuver consist of moving a "pot"
over the "jet" thrust to redirect flow and I'd put it in the 2-3 second
category.

This reminds me of another question I've had for a "pro." How quickly do you
figure a helmsman would react to a hazard in the water, especially given no
warning. For combat situations, I've heard it varies between a second or two
for the pro, to about 6 seconds for the civilian. From my own experience, I
feel like I respond pretty quickly if an event is something that I'm
anticipating, but the last I had a "close encounter" in the I was disappointed
that I felt like 2 or 3 seconds passed before I reacted. However, I was able
to do a crash stop before things got hairy, the T-boat that would have hit me
never flinched.

-jeff

Tough to say and would depend on many factors, not the least of which is
the particular helmsman (pro or civilian). One big factor will be
experience level .... to see, assess, understand, and react, based on
past experience with similar situations. The attention level of the
particular helmsman (either pro or civilian) at the right moment will be
another factor.

otn

And ???????
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

And ???????
 

You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.

"Rick" wrote in message
.net...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Here's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Have to leave it.

As someone who sails in SF bay, an area known for high winds, fog,
major currents, and all kinds of traffic, kayaks included, I think it
would be stupid, bordering on congenitally stupid for a kayaker to
sail in the conditions that you all describe.

The conditions described were fog. Heavy fog perhaps, but
just fog.

You can toss in all the other misery you want and base your
conclusions and what you think the CG might do in those
conditions but that is your scenario, not the one under
discussion.

And need I remind you, stupid is not illegal, it is not
referenced in the COLREGS. Operation of a vessel in
restricted visibility is.

If you think that stating the laws that allow you to play in
the Bay are bickering then support the next politician who
wants to ban pleasure boating, maybe he thinks it is
congenitally stupid to go out on a windy day.



Rick

And ???????
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're talking apples and oranges.

Give up, Ganz, we were talking apples and you tossed in a
bunch of oranges.

Here's the test:

Is it legal for a kayak to use the navigable waters in
accordance with COLREGS and/or VTS?

All it takes is a simple one word answer that will
immediately be seen as correct or abysmally wrong. Anything
else attached or amended is opinion, blustering, and
righteous indignation.

And in your case, bickering.

Rick

And ???????
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You're talking apples and oranges.

The fact is that the CG can and does remove boats from the
bay when they determine that the person is acting foolishly
and thus have the potential of putting others in danger.

Are you suggesting that the kayaker would be putting others in danger?


Do you think that a commercial vessel travelling at 25 kts, without a
lookout- in fog - would pose a smaller threat to the general public than a
kayak?


Regards


Donal
--

And ???????
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...
There is no law saying it doesn't. Why are you having so much
trouble
with that?

Because the law says the kayak "shall not impede." I fail to see how
the
kayak
complies with this in the fog. I would also claim its in violation of
rule 2,
but I admit thats a bit subtle.

Jeff, you really should try reading the CollRegs without placing your
personal interpretation on them.

Why? There are many situations that aren't covered explicitly in the
ColRegs.
Rule 2 is one of the most important, yet its meaningless without
interpretation.

They do *NOT* say that a kayak should not cross a TSS. Realy.
They
don't. Honestly. Look again.


Yes, they do not say it explicitly. Where do the say 25 knots in the fog
(with
a lookout, of course) is too fast?


You may feel that you are an expert on the CollRegs. You are not.

Compared to you, its pretty easy.

Actually, I've only asserted that the kayak should not be out there
because it
cannot comply with the rules. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. However, you are ignoring the fact that the
commercial vessel will also be unable to comply with the CollRegs, unless it
comes to a complete stop. Why are you so willing to overlook the
obligations of the commercial vessel?


The ship has an obligation to maintain a lookout by "sight and hearing" and
to proceed at a safe speed, for the condotions. The kayak has an obligation
to avoid impeding the ship.


Just as the ship can expect that kayaks will observe the rules. ---- so the
kayak can expect the ship to be travelling slowly (and sounding its fog
horn).

In these circumstances, the kayak can expect to traverse the TSS safely.



Can the kayak comply, or will it
survive merely by blind luck? I don't think I claimed its against the
law, only
that the rule implies he shouldn't do it.

Can the ship comply with the rules about keeping a safe speed?






I don't understand what possesses people to think a tiny boat is safe
in
the fog
in a shipping lane; isn't this a perfect example of what Rule 2 is
talking
about?

Nobody said that a tiny boat would be safe in the fog in a shipping
lane.


So even though you agree its "unsafe," I'm not allowed to say the kayak
has no
business out there.

The ship has no business out there if it knows that it cannot comply with
the Regs.

The reality is that the ships cannot stop because fog has suddenly
descended. The same also applies to kayaks.




So your position is that unsafe acts are OK as long as there are no
ramifications. And that no one has the right to say they shouldn't be
there.

Do you really think that it is safe for a ship to do 18 kts in fog, without
a lookout?




But I'm really confused about two points: Why are you so obsessed
with
claiming
the kayak has a "right to be there" when the ColRegs so clearly
imply
it
doesn't?

Where do the COLREGS "imply" the kayak has no right to use the
waterway?


They can use them when they can fulfill the obligations of the
ColRegs.
Since
its obvious that the kayak cannot fulfill its obligations, it
shouldn't be
there. Of course, it has the "right to use the waterway" as long it
complies
with the regulations. But does it still have that right if its
obvious it
can't
or won't comply with the regulations? For all of your theoretical
talk,
you've
ignored the essential practical issue: Do you really think a kayak can
fulfill
its obligation not to impede in thick fog?


Let me turn the question around. Will the big ships be proceeding at a
safe speed, in fog?


I'll concede that in practice they "push the envelope."


You seem to be ignoring the realities of life. The big ships will be
going
too fast, and they may not be sounding their fog horns, and the little
boats
may not be able to give an absolute guarantee that they will not impede
a
big ship.


No, there's a difference. The big ships have a rather good record with
hundreds
of thousands of passages.
snip
The kayak, on the other hand has no means to see the traffic, be seen, or
get
out of the way.

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a kayak?

How many people have been killed as a result of being struck by a ship?




Its not that the small boat is not able to "give an absolute guarantee,"
its
that the small boat is effectively asserting it will make no effort to
avoid
impeding.





And why does it bother you so much that I would point out this
issue?

It bothers me that people like you are spouting off on a sailing
newsgroup that certain types of boats have no legal right to use the
navigable waters of the US.

It bothers me that people like you pontificate based on meaningless
issues
like
"the kayak isn't breaking the law until it actually impedes the
tanker."
That
may be linguistically true, but in practice its bull****, and you know
it!

Consider: if some naive reader interprets your claim as free license
to
frolic
in shipping lanes in the fog, are you a murderer? I can sleep knowing
that
perhaps I've encouraged some kayaker to reconsider; could you live
with
yourself
if someone died based on your advice?

Don't try to play the "politically correct" card! It makes you look
stupid.


No, its the appropriate response to Rick's claim that it bothers him that
I'm
"spouting off." What if someone claimed that the kayak had right-of-way
and
that the large ships would clearly stop? Then would it be OK? I stand by
my
claim that the kayak has no business out there, and you've even agreed
that its
dangerous and stupid. I'd rather be slightly wrong in the law than have
someone
think its OK to be out there.


Isn't it reasonable to advise readers that kayaks really don't
have
right-of-way
over oil tankers?

Who said they did? As much as it bothers you I have repeatedly
stated in
no uncertain terms that the kayak is permitted to use the waters in
accordance with COLREGS and the applicable VTS rules. Why is that
such a
struggle for you?

Because you're hiding behind the phrase "in accordance with the
COLREGS."

Are you now reduced to suggesting that being in accordance with the
CollRegs
is wrong?

No, but its meaningless to claim everthing is OK as long as its "in
accordance"
with the ColRegs. Its a tautology, like saying "It'll be a nice day if it
don't
rain." Rick was saying that whenever I asked how the kayak would fulfill
its
obligations.

You had a major fit when I said that as long as a lookout is maintained
its OK
to run primarily on Radar - that's strictly in accordance with the
ColRegs.

Why is my claim about the kayak any different from your claim about 25
knots?




Its
like saying "I can drink as much as I like because I don't get drunk."
If the
obvious result of your actions is that you WILL violate the rules,
then
you have
no business starting out.

Jeff, I advised you to claim that you were only trolling. You really
should have taken my advice.

I haven't been trolling. Like it or not, my interpretation of the ColRegs
is
reasonable - I've never asserted anything that isn't there, I've only
claimed
that there are implications beyond the precise words. I've outlined my
logic
so that everyone can make up their own mind. I've admitted, pretty much
from
the beginning that the kayak is not explicitly forbidden from the TSS,
only that
it shouldn't be there because it is unable to fulfill the responsibilities
implied. If I'm wrong, its only in claiming that deliberating putting
oneself
into a situation where one is unable to avoid violating the rule is in
itself
"frowned on" by the rules.

You, on the other hand, support your claim about 25 knots by repeatedly
lying
that I advocate no lookout, and making some odd claim that there are
specific
speed limits in the ColRegs. You obsessively repeated your lies, with
vague
threats. It that isn't stupid trolling, I don't know what would qualify.

The rules apply to everybody.

As long as they follow your interpretation?


It is very odd that you would write that. You have consistently relied
upon your personal *interpretation* of Rule 2. Rule 2 does NOT say that a
kayak should not venture out in fog.

I have consistently relied on the fact that a vessel must have a physical
lookout, and travel at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions.


Why do you think that some rules can be ignored, and that other rules can be
taken to suit your own personal purposes?



Regards


Donal
--