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?

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

"Shen44" wrote in message
...
Subject: night sailing - too close for comfort.
From: "katysails"
Date: 08/15/2004 20:39 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


(c) The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that
propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used;

Seems to me that if it was turned on, you're using it.
--

For what? To charge your batteries, pump cooling water, burn fuel, cause
pollution? Or do you mean to propel your boat?
A running engine is just that, a running engine. Until it's connected to a
"reverse gear", propellor shaft, and propellor, which it's turning, it's
nothing more than a piece of machinery.
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?..... The courts will have to decide, and since
you had
a collision and had a running engine which may or may not have been
immediately
available, figure you'll share the blame.

Shen

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

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

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