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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

"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?

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.

"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!

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