Subject: night sailing - too close for comfort.
From: "Jonathan Ganz"
Date: 08/15/2004 22:21 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I agree, but I don't think I'd want to try and argue if the CG determines
it was on. How do I prove it wasn't being used to propel the boat?


G Let's carry this a step further. You have a sailboat with an engine fitted,
that is not running, and you have a collision.
How do you prove that it was not running and being used for propulsion?
I think (and here we'd need a Maritime Lawyer's input) it would be on the
shoulders of the CG (or whomever) to prove you were using the engine to propel
the boat.

Shen

ubject: night sailing - too close for comfort.
From: "katysails"
Date: 08/16/2004 03:33 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Now, having said that, have a collision ..... was your engine running? Was
it
immediately available for use? Could it's use have changed the outcome?
Should
you have made use of it?....

I would imagine the same rule should apply as the reefing rule....if you
think maybe, then do it or it will be too late....
--
katysails

Good advice. The way I put it ... "If you start wondering if you should
possibly be doing something, you probably should have all ready done it."

Shen

Subject: Katysails/Dogs was night sailing - too close for comfort.
From: "gonefishiing"
Date: 08/15/2004 22:04 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

i'll rephrase it
she would like a dog
no disaster
basically need to come to terms with caring for it when she is not here.
i'll make that decision first
space is not a problem
in the meantime considering what breeds to think about.

protective
not small, not too big
good temperment around kids / visitors
lab
retriever
sheperd
akita
wolve
?

You definetly wouldn't want one of mine (English Mastiff) Don't be afraid to
look at a "Mutt"

G I wouldn't have to because I wouldn't get in a collision to
begin with because I'd hail them and find out their intentions.
Then, of course, just before the collision if you insist that there
must be one, I would run below, disconnect the fuel line, and
claim that I tried to start the engine but it wouldn't happen,
so I tried everything in my power to avoid. The best defense
is a good offense.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: night sailing - too close for comfort.
From: "Jonathan Ganz"
Date: 08/15/2004 22:21 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I agree, but I don't think I'd want to try and argue if the CG determines
it was on. How do I prove it wasn't being used to propel the boat?


G Let's carry this a step further. You have a sailboat with an engine
fitted,
that is not running, and you have a collision.
How do you prove that it was not running and being used for propulsion?
I think (and here we'd need a Maritime Lawyer's input) it would be on the
shoulders of the CG (or whomever) to prove you were using the engine to
propel
the boat.

Shen

I think you would get a lot of argument from a coastie on this. It would
be interesting to hear what they say about it. If I have time, I'll give
them a call... no promises, I'm kinda busy these days and it's a long
distance call.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
The rules don't talk about "engines," they talk about "propelling
machinery."
My engine is always "used" because if I didn't have it, there would be a
big
hole in my boat. That doesn't mean its propelling. I can also use it as
a hot
water heater - that doesn't mean its propelling.




"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Not according to the rules as I read them. If it's being used,
then the steaming light needs to be on. How does anyone
else on the water know you're just charging your bats?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
the engine was idle and not in gear.
no steaming light required.
gf.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Hey, umm... if the engine was started then you're a motorboat.
You have no status at that point, certainly not above a tug/tow.
I hope you were running your steaming light. Otherwise, you
could be cited.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
agreed: for the sake of safety, i always stay away from bigger
vessels
and
did so on this sail as well, until the tug/barge (TUB) changed
course
for
the
final time. i was certain i was ok with both vessels until the
barge
circled
around and was pointing at me again leaving me no evasive action
to
take.

neither vessel produced any indication of warning that i was in
the
way
(lights / horn)

agreed again: i realize i should have hailed them on the radio and
asked
for
they're intentions long before events became close.
definitely mistake no.1.
Sometimes i do this, sometimes i don't. it has always been a
simple
assesment of whether i believe i will be out of the way. and i did
believe
this.
monitoring channel 13 for security calls is also something that i
usually
do
at night.
this night i did not.

the engine was started and idling by in case i needed it.
in regards to avoiding a collision, given the speed differentials
of
the
vessels, i don't believe the engine would have made any difference
in
this
situation.
in regards to the regs: it would have converted me to a vessel
under
power
and i think (?) changed my status to some extent in relation to
the 2
other
vessels. not that my decision was based on that or that it really
does
not
matter once fiberglass contacts steel.
the point being i was making good speed in good wind.

given that the tug/barge changed course twice: was he obligated to
give
way?
or is this a "fluid" problem that needs to be constantly
reassessed?--which
means always stay out of his way no matter what courses he
chooses?
felt like a cat and mouse sort of thing.

as a technical point: their seems to be a difference between an
inablitiy
to
maneuver because of draft, in a particular direction--versus the
general
maneuverablity of a vessel because of length/speed/wieght.
i am not sure these 2 issues are connected by the regs.
as i understand it, constrained by draft is designed to prevent a
vessel
from running aground.
in this regard there was no danger to the freighter who had plenty
of
room
to the south, which was his general route.
the tub could not turn towards the north to cross in front of me
because
of
draft and speed issues, and he could not turn south because of the
freighter, which left him pointed at me.

my guess is not i or the freighter anticipated a circling tub.





"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Not knowing the area, I have a couple of comments.

I'm not sure you were stand on, given that if there is
any doubt about draft constraint. Also, a tug and
a barge have status in most cases, but again, I don't
know the area.

Also, why not hail them and ask their intentions?

Finally, while sailing does give you stand on status
in many circumstances, it also limits your ability to
take evasive action. Perhaps it would have been
prudent to start the engine?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
out for a late night sail last week, which i do a lot of.
western edge of long island sound, ny
on a port tack heading southwest towards the throgs neck
bridge.
slack tide.
particulary dark night.
full main and jib set
15 knots wind

keeping a vigilant eye out for ships, i spot a black form
against
the
lights
of the city in front of me and realize it is a tug and barge
and i
also
realize (in the absence of visible nav lights) his small
profile
means
he
is
headed right at me and steaming.

i decide to tack the boat around 180 degrees and give him some
room........assuming (correctly) his course has 2
possiblities--he
is
going
to continue eastbound in the sound or he is going to turn
north
towards
eastchester bay to anchor his barge (partial mistake no.1?).
he
turns
northeast towards the barge anchorage, paralleling my course
and i
am
east
of him and the barge anchorage- out of his way.

towards the east i spot another ship (freighter) steaming
westbound
for
the
gate. he is north of the lane that most of the commerical
ships
take
for
the
bridge. and a quick visual calculation tells me i can cross
his
bow
without
problem and also because he needs to turn behind my stern to
set
his
course
for the bridge (and soon!) (partial mistake no.2?)

they are both aware that i am here-- million candle power
lights
illuminating sails had a way of doing that. (my light)

1: the freighter, westbound, is not turning although i have
crossed
his
bow--only slightly and he'll end up passing beyond me, far too
close
and
moving fast.
2: the tug/barge decides to steer a circle around the barge
anchorage
and
end up eastbound again --off my port beam and close enough
that i
can
see
the pilot. he has slowed down significantly at this point as i
am
now
between both vessels. (on a starboard tack)

3: they both passed "safely" at my stern, to the south of me
the
freigher
first, the tug next.

this was really too close for comfort, and i had my hands full
sailing.
not to negate my responsiblity, i think constrained by draft
here
is
a
relative term, if it even applies. they each had a mile of
room to
the
south
(behind me) to manuveur and cannot understand why they would
choose
to
approach so closely, as my actions were clear, my course was
appropriate
and
consistent and meant to give each a wide berth

and for whatever it may be worth, i think everyone took the
correct
actions
i believe i was the stand on vessel
the freighter was 2nd in pecking order
the tug/barge gave way

what would you have done differently?

gf.

Subject: night sailing - too close for comfort.
From: "Jonathan Ganz"
Date: 08/16/2004 10:31 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

G I wouldn't have to because I wouldn't get in a collision to
begin with because I'd hail them and find out their intentions.
Then, of course, just before the collision if you insist that there
must be one, I would run below, disconnect the fuel line, and
claim that I tried to start the engine but it wouldn't happen,
so I tried everything in my power to avoid. The best defense
is a good offense.


G Ahhhh, but you had the collision. Now it becomes a question of apportioning
blame, and since you had the collision, you goofed at some point in the
process.
Naturally, if you can communicate and everyone understands each others
intentions, more often than not the collision will be avoided.
It's not a "pure" process, however.

Shen

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:26:22 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:

What to do differently? Hail them on the radio - that's what its for. You
should at least have been monitoring 13 - they were probably talking about you.


I think you mean channel 16.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Horvath wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:26:22 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:


What to do differently? Hail them on the radio - that's what its for. You
should at least have been monitoring 13 - they were probably talking about you.



I think you mean channel 16.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Bet he responds in the negative

"katysails" wrote in message


None of these, if you get a puppy...labs and retrievers need two years to
wind down and if there is going to be a lack of attention 50% of the time,
then they're out...the other three are not for people with limited dog
experience...they are smart breeds and if left to their own devise, become
assertive and dominant and you'll have problems. Corgis, Shetland
sheepdog,
some of the larger terrier breeds (not a Jack Russell, too labor intense)
would be better. They incorporate protectiveness and watchfulness with
loyalty and enough smarts to get by and be good pets. BTW, Akitas are
generally one-person dogs....and are quite a handful...any type of
domesticated wolf is a major problem...

How about Clumber Spaniels or Bassett Hounds? Both are fairly sedentary
breeds, no?

Some people in our subdivision have a PBGV (Petit Bassett Griffon
Vendean--spelling may be wrong) and it has to be the calmest dog I've ever
seen. Sits, comes when called, heels beautifully, and doesn't get his
hackles up when our poodle challenges it to play. Know anything about 'em?

Max

No you idiot. He means 13.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:26:22 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote this crap:

What to do differently? Hail them on the radio - that's what its for.
You
should at least have been monitoring 13 - they were probably talking
about you.


I think you mean channel 16.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!