"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 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?

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.

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.

"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
--