"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

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

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

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???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

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.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You really were
trolling, weren't you?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

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

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to
assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle
that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the ship
to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably detected
by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in fog
without a lookout.

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???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing
about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that some
of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

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.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I think
that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You really
were
trolling, weren't you?

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!


Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this. You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone. I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout. If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.

You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Regards


Donal
--

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.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:23:11 -0000, "Donal"
wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote:

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

I appreciate that blame is is usually shared. But if a =
kayak
crosses an
oil
tanker, what blame do you assign to tanker?

Without being too pedantic, it is not in my job description to
assign
blame. There will be a board of Coast Guard officers to handle
that
chore. It will be a decision based on more than I know about =
the
circumstances.

In other words, you don't know.

So what is a safe speed for a tanker in a VTS in the fog? You =
keep
evading
the
question. Should all shipping shut down in the fog?

By Donal's logic, there isn't a safe speed. Given that the
time/distance taken for a tanker to stop/turn vastly exceeds the
distance a human can see in thick fog, a tanker is always at risk =
of
running over a kayaker insisting on being the stand-on vessel and
therefore cannot navigate safely.

So, yeah, Donal's basically arguing that shipping has to come to a
standstill if the lookout can't *see* further than it takes the =
ship
to
stop or change course, because a kayak couldn't be reliably =
detected
by
radar. Nice thought, pity about its practicality.

No, No, No! That in definitely *not* the impression that I =
intended to
convey.

I was simply arguing that a vessel should not travel at 25 kts in =
fog
without a lookout.

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???? In reality, I know that they will exceed this =
speed.
When I cross the TSS in fog, I expect that most ships will be doing
about 12
kts, and that some will be doing 18 kts. I also expect/know that =
some
of
them won't be sounding their fog horns.

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.

If you wish to do 25 kts through the Antartic, in fog, then I have =
no
objection. If you do the same thing in a busy waterway, then I =
think
that
you are in breach of the CollRegs.


So what did I say that was not consistent with any of this? You =
really
were
trolling, weren't you?

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to =
point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot =
when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a =
proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!


Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". =
However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this. You also suggested that a =
vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone. I know that you later tried to =
deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel =
in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout. If you wish to deny =
this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.

You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested =
that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if =
you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Regards


Donal

"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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

"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
--

Donal wrote,

No, Jeff.

I was having a polite discussion with Joe, in which I was trying to point
out that he was a criminally negligent, stupid, CollReg breaching idiot when
he was travelling through busy waterways at 25 kts, without keepint a proper
lookout. You decided to join in - and your initial post defended Joe's
position. DON'T disagree with this before you go back and read the
thread!!!

I never once supported Joe's position - I simply commented on a different aspect
of the situation. Are you saying that the only legal thing for me to do is
agree completely with everything you say? Are you going to report me to my ISP?




Then you tried to claim that a kayak has "no buisness in a TSS". However,
the CollRegs do not support you on this.

I still claim it does. You've never said how the kayak fulfills its
responsibility - you've only said its not our business to even ask the question.
You're very quick to claim that 25 knots is just too fast and in obvious
violation of the rules, but then you claim that its not our business to even
question how the kayak fulfills its obligation. Don't you see the contradiction
here?


You also suggested that a vessel
could proceed under radar watch alone.

You keep lying about this. I said a watch must be posted but in zero visibility
its running essentially on radar alone. Your comments are a blatant, unabashed
lie. I think I'll send a note to .

I know that you later tried to deny
this, however most of us can still see your post on this matter.

I stand by my comment - I've even reposted it. You're the one who's quoted it
out of context. And frankly, several people have supported my point, and no one
has come to your defense.


You used all sorts of twisted phrases to try to suggest that a vessel in a
TSS does not really need to keep a proper lookout.

No. I've never said that. I firmly believe in lookouts. I've only said radar
permits a faster speed than visual lookouts alone. How much faster is
debatable.

Frankly, I wasn't interested in that side of the argument; I was trying to
comment on a rather different issue, namly the propriety of small boats in
shipping lanes in the fog. You just assumed that because I didn't condemn Joe I
was in full support of everything you imagined he said.


If you wish to deny this
particular accusation, then please feel free. Be warned, I will have a
field day at your expense if you decide on this particular course.


At my expense? Now I have to pay your ISP bill?


You also suggested that my arguments were childish .... you suggested that I
didn't know much about the CollRegs ... and you generally behaved as if you
were more authoritive on marine matters.


Well, you're the one that thinks Neal is the final authority.

I did look back at the record - I started questioning your knowlege of the
ColRegs when you started suggesting that there are specific speed limits in
them.

And frankly, repeating the same rule over and over does not demonstrate that you
understand it, not does it show much maturity. You've never actually refuted
any of my comments, or even tried to consider my point of view - you've just
taken isolated a phrase out of contest and asserted that I'm claiming that the
ColRegs don't apply.



You assumed that my modesty equated to ignorance. Assumptions are
dangerous.


Now I'm in danger? Get a grip, Donal!

Cheers,

Jeff