| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout.
He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa! Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or
politician Donal wrote: Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is becoming acceptable, world wide. And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Read the Inland Rules for the US (Rule 34 h ) otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Donal" wrote in message ...
Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa! Regards Donal -- Donal your name calling is quite childish. The rule states "as well as by all available means appropriate " VHF Radar ect. If you can not hear anything but your vessel then listening is not one of the available means that would be appropriate to avoid collision is it?. Joe MSV RedCloud |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Donal"
Lanod posted this fake link with no usefull info what so ever, http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 Guess they change the web-site eh Lanod? Joe |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Joe" wrote in message m... "Donal" wrote in message ... Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency obviously think that Joe represents a Clear and Imminent threat to American sailors. Perhaps Jeff, Joe, or otn, can produce a link which shows that the US Coastguard thinks that Joe's behaviour is legal??? Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa! Regards Donal -- Donal your name calling is quite childish. "...fire with fire"! I am conducting this discussion according to *your* rules. The rule states "as well as by all available means appropriate " VHF Radar ect. If you can not hear anything but your vessel then listening is not one of the available means that would be appropriate to avoid collision is it?. You are not even trying to hear anything!!! You Also omitted the first part of the rule! "***Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing*** as well as by all available means appropriate ...." Furthermore, is it impossible to hear anything because you are going at full belt? If you reduced your speed from 25 kts, to say 6 kts, would a proper lookout be able to hear other fog horns? You seem very willing to accept the bit of Rule 5 that start with "as well as....". Why don't you accept the bit that starts with "Every vessel **shall** .."? The UK's Marine & Coastguard Agency (MCA) is the official body that is responsible for maritime safety in UK waters. They have issued a bulletin that highlights the dangers of your approach to navigation. I've posted a link to the bulletin, http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 , and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. The MCA have quoted examples of unnecessary collisions that were caused by people who, like you, were so irresponsible that they used VHF as their "hearing" watch. Perhaps you didn't read the link? Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Joe" wrote in message om... "Donal" Lanod posted this fake link with no usefull info what so ever, Sorry! It was there yesterday. I checked it. Honestly. http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 Guess they change the web-site eh Lanod? 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!! Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or politician Honestly, I've only ever acted in a legal capacity for an individual named Lucifer. If I ever enter into politics, I think that I will be an anarchist ... and of course we will have to dissolve our party as soon as we found it! Donal wrote: Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion. Yes, he did! He is the sole lookout on his high-speed barge, and he sits in the wheelhouse looking at his radar, ans listening to his VHF in fog. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is becoming acceptable, world wide. Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had dissappeared. Here is another location. https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. Addressed???? Joe seems to be completely its limitations! Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or politician (repeat above) Donal wrote: Joe has told us that he uses his VHF, in fog, as his "hearing" lookout. No he didn't, and I can't conceive how you arrived at that conclusion. Yes, he did! He is the sole lookout on his high-speed barge, and he sits in the wheelhouse looking at his radar, ans listening to his VHF in fog. G No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout .... other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when available. "Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to. Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out or backed up with information from the radar, or other sources, as to it's feasibility. Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly. He is stupid enough to believe that he complies with Rule 5 of the CollRegs which state:- ===================================== "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." ===================================== What do the experts say about the use of a VHF in fog? Guess what, they say that Joe is a menace! Here's a link! http://www.seamanship.co.uk/M_Notice...ion/pdf/MGN167 "Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem." I have to believe that this statement is out of context. Voice (VHF) is an acceptable alternative to sound signals for "passing situations" in the waters that Joe is discussing. I would not be surprised that this is becoming acceptable, world wide. Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had dissappeared. Here is another location. https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the use of radar, without a proper plot .... i.e., if you don't back up the basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee. And Joe's incompetence is further demonstrated by this little snippet:- "There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous." So, Joe's use of the VHF is "dangerous"! No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. Addressed???? Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe. BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about VHF communication for "passing agreements". otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
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 |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net... I become increasingly convinced, that you are either a lawyer or politician (repeat above) I play devil's advocate, occasionally. I have learned to truly detest almost all politicians in the last couple of years. G No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout .... other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when available. I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm, or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar, and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout would be useless because his boat is too noisy. "Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to. I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you? .... more on VHF later. Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong vessel. or backed up with information from the radar, I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel. You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you are actually talking to a third vessel. or other sources, as to it's feasibility. Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly. Now you are really trying it on. Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had dissappeared. Here is another location. https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the use of radar, without a proper plot .... i.e., if you don't back up the basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee. So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):- "Marine Superintendents would be well advised to prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct their officers to comply with the Collision Regulations." That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it? (BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.) snip No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. Addressed???? Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe. I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking to the right vessel. BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about VHF communication for "passing agreements". Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international safety standards. Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal wrote: G No he didn't. First off, you assume he is the sole lookout .... other post indicate he may be, and he may also be using the crew, when available. I think that you have missed one of his posts. Perhaps Joe will confirm, or deny, that he travels in fog witout any other lookout. Joe???? I'm quite certain that he claimed to do 20kts (or 25), using *only* the radar, and VHF as a lookout. Furthermore, he has stated that a listening lookout would be useless because his boat is too noisy. I think you may have missed one of MY post. Many vessels travel without a "dedicated" visual lookout. This does not mean that they have no one watching visually ....it does mean that they have people splitting their lookout duties between visual and radar .....i.e. .... all available means. Under no circumstances, could/would I consider listening to the VHF as being part of this "lookout" condition. Using the VHF, however, to pass information as to "passing situations" WOULD be prudent use of an available tool. As to the noise associated with his boats ..... this can vary greatly, from overwhelming to, of no consequence. "Listening to his VHF in fog" .... We all listen to our VHF's (at least we should) in fog AND clear conditions. Most of us have learned to listen without appearing to do so, while concentrating on other sounds around us, which we are also listening to/for. The use of VHF to talk to and pass information about passing situations, in fog and clear weather is common practice, especially in the waters he is referring to. I consider it an obligation to maintain a listening watch on ch16. I make no criticism of Joe for listening to the VHF. My criticism is aimed at the lack of a "proper" lookout by "sight and hearing". Joe claimed that the VHF was a "hearing" watch, and that looking at the Radar was keeping a lookout "by sight". I bet that you don't agree with him, do you? Listening to VHF is PART of the "hearing" watch, and watching radar is PART of the "by sight" watch, so, in essence, as PART of the overall watch to be maintained in fog, I do agree with him....... I also/still note, that different conditions require different actions and degrees of radar/visual watch ... more on VHF later. Just like, using radar as a collision avoidance system is fraught with possible dangers of collision, when not used properly, so is the use of VHF transmissions, when the agreed upon action is not carried out I think that the danger in VHF is that you may be talking to the wrong vessel. This is what all are saying and part of what must be addressed, but is no different than improper radar plotting in the final result. One needs to use positions and other methods to confirm that the vessel you think you are talking to, is indeed the vessel you are talking to. or backed up with information from the radar, I've re-read my link, and I admit that it doesn't explicitly say what I am about to. However, I interpret the danger to be that after you make radio contact with a vessel, there is a danger that you mis-identify the vessel. You may have either seen a vessel in good visibility, or you may have spotted it on the Radar. Either way, I think that the danger is that you are actually talking to a third vessel. This danger exist, but is not a reason to not rely on VHF communication, rather a reason to confirm proper indentification and communication. or other sources, as to it's feasibility. Sorry Donal, you were reaching, and it doesn't fly. Now you are really trying it on. No. My read is that you are using information, which in part, confirms and/or bolsters your point, yet in truth when taken as a whole, generally contradicts your point. Did you read the link? Perhaps, like Joe, you found that it had dissappeared. Here is another location. https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...n03/167%20.pdf I read the link after this posting.(couldn't find it the first time) I can understand what they are saying, but, feel that the point they are making is the same point as has been made so many times regarding the use of radar, without a proper plot .... i.e., if you don't back up the basic communication with follow-up confirmation (radar - plot) then you are very apt to find yourself in a collision situation, i.e., the VHF communication is not in and of itself, a guarantee. So, what do you make of the following recommendation (quoted):- "Marine Superintendents would be well advised to prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct their officers to comply with the Collision Regulations." This, to me, is the statement of a lawyer who is not a Maritime professional and not interested in the practical application as much as the legal application. The primary issue is to follow and obey the rules as the basis for how we act. However, to not make proper use, of new technologies and to restrict their use or employment does not honor or go along with that all important rule ..... rule 2. If some "Marine Superintendent" was to try and prohibit my use of VHF for passing situations, he would be told exactly where he could stick his prohibitions and why..... course, in my case, I AM the so called Marine Superintendent eg. That goes much further than your interpretation, doesn't it? (BTW, I personally think that recommendation is a bit strong.) See above No, but like everything, it's limitations must be addressed. Addressed???? Yes, addressed. Just like there is no guarantee that because you have a boat on radar that your actions to avoid collision will be correct, at least until you make a complete plot and observe the results of your actions, there is no guarantee that a passing agreement between vessels made on VHF, will lead to a safe passing, until and unless you follow-up that agreement to be sure it is being carried out and safe. I think that they are saying that there is no way of being absolutely certain that the Radar target is really the boat that you are talking to on the VHF. eg, if the target makes one or two course changes that correlate with the VHF, you are likely to become over-confident that you are talking to the right vessel. No, incorrect. There are any number of ways to ascertain that you are talking to the right vessel. The most important being that you pass accurate position/course/speed information. Once again, just like the radar situation, you must closely monitor the situation until the danger of collision is past. BTW, I see you made no mention of the US Inland Rules which talk about VHF communication for "passing agreements". Well, I wouldn't, would I? I don't know anything about them. They sound like they are a bit dangerous, and they might fall short of international safety standards. Then you have lost this part of the argument with Joe, since the waters he was generally discussing involved US "Inland Rules" which allow passing signals to be made via VHF. I personally would not consider them to be in the least bit dangerous ( with previously mentioned proviso's) and in fact much safer when properly used, and don't think they fall short in the least bit, with international standards as you will probably find most pilots/ships use voice communication, nowadays to communicate passing information, rather than whistle signals. Again, if you are going to argue about a set of conditions (US inland rivers/shipping channels [joe]) that you may not be familiar with, you must understand that conditions/practice/rules may vary as to what you are used to. otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
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. |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
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 |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
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. |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
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 |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
In article , Jeff Morris
wrote: BTW, what sound signal should a kayak give in the fog? Wherethe****areweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...... PDW |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"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 -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "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. Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? Why do write such nonsense? Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal wrote: Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? Why do write such nonsense? Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? Regards Donal I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder. Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response. Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response. otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Donal wrote: Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? Why do write such nonsense? Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder. Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response. Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response. Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely. Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on vessel? Wouldn't that just confuse the situation? I trust that I have posed these questions in an intelligent, and non-threatening manner. Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
otnmbrd wrote in message link.net...
Donal wrote: Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? Why do write such nonsense? Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? Regards Donal I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder. Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response. Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response. Yeah, have to agree. Either he's trolling too hard or he's seriously lost the plot. Either way, why bother? I note that Donal never did address the point that his interpretation of the COLREGs would oblige all traffic to cease in heavy fog, as the vis lookout distance would be less than the turning circle/steerage way of a big ship. Funny how marine commerce doesn't stop in fog, but perhaps they all need Donal to point out how wrong they are? Ah well, time to go play on my icebreaker while she's in port. Sailing at 1700 but not, this time, with me. Maybe next cruise. PDW |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message om... otnmbrd wrote in message link.net... Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response. Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response. Yeah, have to agree. Either he's trolling too hard or he's seriously lost the plot. Either way, why bother? I note that Donal never did address the point that his interpretation of the COLREGs would oblige all traffic to cease in heavy fog, as the vis lookout distance would be less than the turning circle/steerage way of a big ship. Funny how marine commerce doesn't stop in fog, but perhaps they all need Donal to point out how wrong they are? Dear me, Peter. You really have a cheek to accuse me of trolling. I've repeatedly said that I understand that ships will do 12 kts in fog. Your post has made think that the British judicial system has been guilty of very serious miscarriges of justice. My opinion has been bolstered by other recent posts from "Down Under". You all seem to share a distinct lack of humour. Perhaps your ancestors were deported because juries were unduly influenced by their tedium??? Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Donal wrote: Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? Why do write such nonsense? Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder. Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response. Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response. Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely. Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on vessel? Wouldn't that just confuse the situation? I trust that I have posed these questions in an intelligent, and non-threatening manner. Hell, just so you know, there's nothing threatening about your manner (at least to me), but your intelligence, and more specifically, knowledge of the Rules, is now in question with these responses. I read this and the other responses, and have to assume "Troll"......i.e., no longer worth a response. otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Donal wrote: "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Hell, just so you know, there's nothing threatening about your manner (at least to me), but your intelligence, and more specifically, knowledge of the Rules, is now in question with these responses. I read this and the other responses, and have to assume "Troll"......i.e., no longer worth a response. Well, I assumed that you were taking an intelligent approach to this discussion. Obviously, I was incorrect! I say this with confidence for *one* simple reason. All along, my only assertion has been that Joe was breaking the CollRegs by doing 25 kts, in fog, using his Radar as his means of keeping a visual lookout. I have posted a link to the UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency's advice on the subject, to back up my position. You have posted no evidence whatsoever. You sounded fairly reasonable when you entered this discussion, so I made extra efforts to be polite. However, you have not offered any evidence to back up your position. I'm beginning to wonder if you are as stupid as the two "J"'s???? Regards Donal ROFL Try to keep up, Donal. My latest responses have been in regard to your statements to Jeff, regarding whistle signals, stand on status, and giving a wide berth, in fog. To be blunt, your response was stupid and showed a lack of working knowledge of the rules and general collision avoidance in fog. Nuff said! otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Hell, just so you know, there's nothing threatening about your manner (at least to me), but your intelligence, and more specifically, knowledge of the Rules, is now in question with these responses. I read this and the other responses, and have to assume "Troll"......i.e., no longer worth a response. Well, I assumed that you were taking an intelligent approach to this discussion. Obviously, I was incorrect! I say this with confidence for *one* simple reason. All along, my only assertion has been that Joe was breaking the CollRegs by doing 25 kts, in fog, using his Radar as his means of keeping a visual lookout. I have posted a link to the UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency's advice on the subject, to back up my position. You have posted no evidence whatsoever. You sounded fairly reasonable when you entered this discussion, so I made extra efforts to be polite. However, you have not offered any evidence to back up your position. I'm beginning to wonder if you are as stupid as the two "J"'s???? Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
I go away for a few days and come back to the same silliness. I've combined
Donal's two posts ... 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. Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? In the fog, its impossible to determine the nature of the boat's limitations, we only know that it is in a class of boats that includes tows, fishing boats with gear, RAMs and NUCs. It would be a good idea to give extra room to such a vessel. Why do write such nonsense? To the fool, its nonsense. To the experienced mariner, its wisdom. Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? There is no such thing as "give way" and "stand-on" status in the fog. Have you not learned anything about the rules? "Donal" wrote in message ... I read this a few times .....could not stop shaking my head in wonder. Even Neal would not write this dumb of a response. Sorry, Donal, you've crossed the line and are no longer worth a response. Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely. Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on vessel? There is a presumption when we say "in the fog" that we are talking about "restricted visibility" where vessels are "not in sight of one another." In this situation, there is no "stand-on vessel." Unless you're trying to revive the old troll where Neal claims that at the instant before collision the vessels are in sight, you're just showing your ignorance. |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... ROFL Try to keep up, Donal. My latest responses have been in regard to your statements to Jeff, regarding whistle signals, stand on status, and giving a wide berth, in fog. To be blunt, your response was stupid and showed a lack of working knowledge of the rules and general collision avoidance in fog. Nuff said! That isn't fair!! Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant* joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in. My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer that I gave Shen? Really!!!! Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Donal" wrote in message
... .... Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant* joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in. My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer that I gave Shen? Really!!!! This may be true, but that's why I was surprised by your ill-considered reply. But even going back to your claim that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots" I think you'd have a lot of trouble proving that - it certainly isn't so in the States. The fatality numbers, for instance, show "aux sail" having only about half the deaths and serious injuries, proportional to their numbers. |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... "Donal" wrote in message ... ... Look back at the post where I mentioned the sound signals. I gave a long(ish), detailed answer to Jeff, and I ended it with a *blatant* joke/dig. Jeff ignored the serious questions that I posed, and chose to jump on to the sound signals issue. You then joined in. My post was 90% serious, and 10% joke. You both ignored the serious content, and now you want to blame *me*!! Why don't you look at the answer that I gave Shen? Really!!!! This may be true, but that's why I was surprised by your ill-considered reply. Ill considered?? I thought that it was funny!! But even going back to your claim that sail boats have a higher percentage of idiots" I think you'd have a lot of trouble proving that - it certainly isn't so in the States. The fatality numbers, for instance, show "aux sail" having only about half the deaths and serious injuries, proportional to their numbers. Statistics are notoriously difficult to decipher. My comment is based on personal experience. Fatalities are more likely to result from a high speed collision, than from a "meeting" of two sailboats that are doing 5 kts. Are the statistics hiding the true facts? Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
I reread the post.....my response was fair AND warranted.
Once again .... nuff said. otn |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... I go away for a few days and come back to the same silliness. I've combined Donal's two posts ... 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. Why should they be given a wide berth, if they don't have any special right of way? In the fog, its impossible to determine the nature of the boat's limitations, we only know that it is in a class of boats that includes tows, fishing boats with gear, RAMs and NUCs. It would be a good idea to give extra room to such a vessel. Would it? Why do write such nonsense? To the fool, its nonsense. To the experienced mariner, its wisdom. Why didn't you say that you were an experienced mariner? If I'd realised that you knew much more than I did, then I would have respectfully touched my cap and backed away in embarrassement. If you don't believe that last statement, then do a Google. Look for an instance where I've openly disagreed with Ole Thom, Nav, Oz, Capt American, Mooron, Katy, Wally, Peters(various), Matt Colie, Seahag, Martin, Roy, John, or Jon! I may disagree with them on non-sailing issues, but I've never argued with any of them on sailing related issues. Don't you find that a bit strange? Why is it that, in *5* years, I've never had a serious, sailing, disagreement with anybody who knows anything about the subject? I've always backed off when confronted by someone who has more experience than me. Why is it that you think that I am Are you really asking us to believe that a boat should be given a wide berth, and at the same time, we must not give way to that boat? How do you give way to a boat, and maintain your stand-on status at the same time? There is no such thing as "give way" and "stand-on" status in the fog. Have you not learned anything about the rules? Read my statement again! I *know* that there is no such thing as a "give way" boat. Furthermore, I am 90% certain that you are aware that I know this. Do you "give way" when you encounter a "stand on vessel"? If you do, then you understand what I am saying. If you don't, then you are in breach of the CollRegs. Perhaps you could now explain why you are saying that I know nothing because I think that I must "give way"? Let me try to ask the same question a bit more politely. Why would you give another vessel a "wide berth" if you were the stand on vessel? There is a presumption when we say "in the fog" that we are talking about "restricted visibility" where vessels are "not in sight of one another." In this situation, there is no "stand-on vessel." Unless you're trying to revive the old troll where Neal claims that at the instant before collision the vessels are in sight, you're just showing your ignorance. Did Neal say that? I thought that it was *me* that made that particular point!! Regards Donal -- |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
ROFL I vote Troll ..... Donal's trying to take over from Neal.
Shen |
Joe, the dangerous Redneck
Its a pretty poor troll. I vote drunk.
"Shen44" wrote in message ... ROFL I vote Troll ..... Donal's trying to take over from Neal. Shen |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com