"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.

I thought that I was doing the same with otn.

To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.

I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.

Forget your post with Jeff and Joe .... there are many conditions we all
deal
with that don't work all the time, work sometimes, and are greatly
influenced
by our individual experience for a particular area of operation.
Never forget Rule 2 .... apply it to your area and conditions, and always
know,
that what you may know or have used as normal conditions, may not apply to
a
particular area or condition that you now find yourself, in.
Many modern vessels rely on radar, as their main source of information for
the
routes they travel. Conditions may say that this is sufficient, or not,
and in
the case of a collision, it will easily be proved .... not.
The point of this whole discussion, is the reality of what one can expect
.....
the reality of what one must deal with .... the reality of .... Oh
Chit...I
didn't think of that and should have.
No system is perfect, will guarantee safety, can be relied on solely .....
Rule
2.....You are responsible for what you do, don't do, what you should do,
what
you shouldn't do.......etc.

Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?


I understand why Joe is upset with me. I *really* don't understand why
Jeff decided that I was wrong. otn seems to be conducting a rational
discussion, and I hope that I am responding in kind. Our differences are
are remarkably small. We seem to be discussing slightly different
interpretations of the CollRegs. There won't be a "winner" or a "loser".
There might even be two winners.


There's nothing wrong with these "confrontational" discussions. They are
educational.



Regards


Donal
--

Just as an interesting addendum:
Do a historical search of past rules ....you'll find that a number of US
Inland Rules, have found their way into the modern International Rules
to varying degrees/forms.

Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.

I thought that I was doing the same with otn.

Which actually surprises me on both your parts.

To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.

I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.

No major disagreements, but you are still losing the "points" race, not that
that's all that important .....like otn, I have a feeling you are reaching (we
talk) for points beyond the basic issues.

Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?

LOL If you and otn agreed, this discussion would have been over long ago!
Actually, this is one of the more informative ones, as it tends to involve
perceptions of different groups of mariners from different areas, and I've
found it interesting as to how the groups/areas can vary as to perceptions.

Shen

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.

I thought that I was doing the same with otn.

Which actually surprises me on both your parts.

To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed with
him.

I didn't think that I was having any major disagreements with him.

No major disagreements, but you are still losing the "points" race, not
that
that's all that important .....like otn, I have a feeling you are reaching
(we
talk) for points beyond the basic issues.

Have I posted anything that suggests that I don't agree with you?

LOL If you and otn agreed, this discussion would have been over long ago!
Actually, this is one of the more informative ones, as it tends to involve
perceptions of different groups of mariners from different areas, and I've
found it interesting as to how the groups/areas can vary as to
perceptions.

You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts, in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your only
hearing lookout.

I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.


Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!


Regards


Donal
--

Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"

snip

You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Which is?

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Can't agree with this, but, so what.....



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts, in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your only
hearing lookout.

You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only ..... VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations ..... not
as a hearing lookout.

I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.

Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision, when
used properly.



Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!

HUH????? How did this get into the mix? Explain what you are looking for, and I
might be able to answer ..... off the top of my head, the difference is purely
an identifier of some vessel which may not be able to act/react as a simple
powerdriven vessel can .... What are you asking?


Shen

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"

snip

You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Which is?

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots.
The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Can't agree with this, but, so what.....



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts,
in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your
only
hearing lookout.

You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the
PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only .....

AAARRRGHHHHHH!!!

Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said that
it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a
"visual" lookout.



VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
...... not
as a hearing lookout.

Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!





I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.

Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision,
when
used properly.

What makes you think such a thing?

Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs. I'm
trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply their
own interpretation to the Regs. Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.

I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the VHF.


Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?






Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the
different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!

HUH????? How did this get into the mix? Explain what you are looking for,
and I
might be able to answer ..... off the top of my head, the difference is
purely
an identifier of some vessel which may not be able to act/react as a
simple
powerdriven vessel can .... What are you asking?

I've a different sense of humour. Maybe Katy can explain????




Regards


Donal
--





Shen

Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Which is?

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots.
The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Can't agree with this, but, so what.....



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25 kts,
in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your
only
hearing lookout.

You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the
PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only .....

AAARRRGHHHHHH!!!

Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said that
it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a
"visual" lookout.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no. The only one who has come close to saying this is Joe.....
Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see"
anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored, as
wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends on
the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? EG


VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
..... not
as a hearing lookout.

Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!

And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could possibly
use it as the "sole" hearing lookout.





I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact, they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means" clause.

Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding collision,
when
used properly.

What makes you think such a thing?

The fact that you are still commenting on this thread.


Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs. I'm
trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply their
own interpretation to the Regs.

I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the
interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours.

Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.



I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the VHF.

......and if I was a lawyer, eg I could find links that would demonstrate that
the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions.
(Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......)

Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?

LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we are
employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason......

I've a different sense of humour. Maybe Katy can explain????

Thought you might be working that route......careful, I might liken it to the
"British" sense of humour.....

Shen

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: Joe, the dangerous Redneck
From: "Donal"


You've highlighted the point that I have been trying to make.

Which is?

Different types of water user interpret the rules to suit their own
purposes.

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots.
The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

Can't agree with this, but, so what.....



My initial complaint was that it was against the CollRegs to do 25
kts,
in
fog, using the Radar as your only visual lookout, and the VHF as your
only
hearing lookout.

You don't seem to be able to understand .....radar is being used as the
PRIMARY
visual lookout, not the only .....

AAARRRGHHHHHH!!!

Where did I criticise the use of Radar as *primary* lookout? I said
that
it was against the CollRegs to use Radar as the *sole* means of keeping a
"visual" lookout.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no. The only one who has come close to saying this is
Joe.....

Huh??? Please post a link to back up this stupid assertion!


Now, considering a peasoup fog, this would be the only way you could "see"
anything .... visual would be a waste of time (but should not be ignored,
as
wonders never cease). As for doing 25K, in these conditions ...... depends
on
the conditions...... so......AAARRRGHHHHHH, what's yer problem? EG


CollRegs????????




VHF is being used as a means to transmit and
agree on passing situations as well as possibly developing situations
..... not
as a hearing lookout.

Once again, I criticised the *sole* use of VHF as a "hearing" lookout!!!

And no one with functioning ears and more than two brain cells could
possibly
use it as the "sole" hearing lookout.


Joe does.


Moreover, you seem to think that Joe's position is correct! How many
brain cells do you possess?









I've never suggested that Radar, or VHF should be ignored. In fact,
they
must be used (if available) under the "and all available means"
clause.

Yet you don't seem to understand their capabilities in avoiding
collision,
when
used properly.

What makes you think such a thing?

The fact that you are still commenting on this thread.

That is just plain silly. I haven't said that Radar isn't useful. I've
said that the CollRegs stipulate that a lookout must be maintained by
"sight".







Remember, I'm commenting on people's *interpretation* of the CollRegs.
I'm
trying to point out that different groups of water users try to apply
their
own interpretation to the Regs.

I disagree. They are applying their interpretations based on the
interpretations from sources which seem to disagree with yours.

Unfortunately, this will cause accidents.

I've read those paragraphs twice. Can somebody pass me the Babel Fish?






I've already posted a link that demonstrates the dangers of using the
VHF.

.....and if I was a lawyer, eg I could find links that would demonstrate
that
the use of radar, in fog, is dangerous and can easily lead to collisions.
(Andrea Doria, Tricolor.......)

If, like Joe, you used the Radar to travel at 25 kts in fog, then you would
be able to find links that proved that your behaviour was dangerous.



Why do you guys seem so determined to ignore the CollRegs?

LOL still stuck on that, I see. None of us is ignoring the Colregs .... we
are
employing them in ways you disagree with, for whatever reason......

Then you won't object if I ask you to justify your position.

Joe says that he does 25 kts, in fog, with *NO* lookout, other than a Radar
and VHF watch.


I say that he is breaking the rules. What do you say?



Regards


Donal
--

Gasp...

I was a power boater, and now I sail.

Only from experience.

Sailors tend to think that all power boaters are yobs. Power boaters
tend
to think that all sailors are ignorant.

Hahaha.. good one. Actually, sailors tend not to wave, since the power
boaters are rarely keeping a watch.

When a power boater waves at a sail boat, he tends to get ignored.

Hahaha... only if you include Bob and Neal.

My experience, is that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots. The
vast majority of power boaters are concientious.

"Donal" wrote in message news:c0js79$7rk$3
Anyway, you never came up with a satisfactory explanation for the different
sound signals for power and sail vessels in fog!!


Why is an explanation needed? Surely you aren't claiming that the number of
toots corresponds to a position in some "pecking order"?

The explanation that I gave several times (and I think the "pros" agreed with)
is that vessels that are "hampered" are given the special signal of
"prolonged-short-short." Although this does not give them any special
right-of-way, it is a message to other vessels that these vessels has some
limitation in maneuverability, and should be given the widest possible berth.

In the words of Farwell's, "Strictly, they must behave themselves the same as
any other vessel, but clearly the distinctive signals for them have the obvious
purposes of causing ordinary vessels to approach them with greater caution".

BTW, what sound signal should a kayak give in the fog?

-jeff