"Donal" wrote in message news:c0bq5o$ea1$1$8302bc10@

Try this.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf

Fortunately, the MCA still have the warning on their site!!!!
They really did change the web site! it was there when I posted the link
... honestly!!



If you read it you will see that they feel talking on the VHF might
distract from what? RADAR thats what. Why do you think they want you
to focus on RADAR?

I think you might of missed the part were I said I only run hooked up
in fog were I know every inch of the water way by radar. That make it
alot easier to comfirm who you are seeing on radar and talking to via
VHF.

And the only language problems here in Texas and LA is only a problem
with Vietnam shrimpers and it's OK to run them down, infact the Texas
shrimpers encourage it and will usually give you a few pounds of
shrimp for the effort ;0).

Joe
MSV RedCloud



Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message news

Snip the foaming at the mouth and the ****** mis-information

Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US
Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal???


You already posted rule 5

Please read it again.

If you have a radio you better use it or your breaking the rules.

Your digging yourself in deeper and deeper yachtmaster wanna be.

BTW did you ever post your yachtmaster # ?



Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa!

Your fake laugh is proof you do want to be like bobspittle.


Regards


Donal
--

Donal..... In case you haven't figured it out, otn is maintaining a no
argument, no name calling discussion on this subject.
To date, you are seriously losing the major points being discussed 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.

Shen

"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

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