Shen44 wrote:

Subject: Rules of the Road Question #6
From: Nav
Date: 12/8/2004 5:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

No, fishing is a class of vessel unto itself, it is not RAM


Not totally correct. (read rule 3 d.)
A fishing vessel (or to be totally correct a vessel engaged in fishing with
nets, lines, or trawls which RESTRICT maneuverability) is like a minesweeper.
It does not show the normal lights for a vessel restricted in it's ability to
maneuver, but instead, it's own special lights which not only tell you of it's
status as restricted in it's ability to maneuver, but also, for what specific
reason it is restricted.
A "fishing vessel" is in the RAM group, but lit differently.


It does not carry the day shapes nor lights of a RAM. Therefore it is
not a RAM. It is a special class that is specifically dealt with by it's
own rules -it is a vessel fishing and that is all. That is why it is
mentioned thus:

"(c)A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible,
keep out of the way of:

*

(i)a vessel not under command;
*

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver. "


Cheers

Subject: Rules of the Road Question #6
From: Nav
Date: 12/8/2004 5:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Shen44 wrote:

Subject: Rules of the Road Question #6
From: Nav
Date: 12/8/2004 5:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

No, fishing is a class of vessel unto itself, it is not RAM


Not totally correct. (read rule 3 d.)
A fishing vessel (or to be totally correct a vessel engaged in fishing with
nets, lines, or trawls which RESTRICT maneuverability) is like a
minesweeper.
It does not show the normal lights for a vessel restricted in it's ability
to
maneuver, but instead, it's own special lights which not only tell you of
it's
status as restricted in it's ability to maneuver, but also, for what
specific
reason it is restricted.
A "fishing vessel" is in the RAM group, but lit differently.


It does not carry the day shapes nor lights of a RAM. Therefore it is
not a RAM. It is a special class that is specifically dealt with by it's
own rules -it is a vessel fishing and that is all. That is why it is
mentioned thus:

"(c)A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible,
keep out of the way of:

*

(i)a vessel not under command;
*

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver. "


Cheers


Gonna handle two for one here.
You're worrying too much about the wording and not the meaning.
The fact that the rules do not include "fishing" in the RAM, does not mean they
are not RAM and in fact they state they are. What the rules do is to make
specific groups of vessels that are restricted in their abilities and seperate
them out by their lights and or dayshapes and degree of RAM ... ie. NUC, RAM,
Fishing.
In reality, they all have a problem which must be dealt with and recognised by
the basic powerboater, sailboat, etc. down the line.
The basic attempt is to give degrees of importance to their RAM and note that
some which may be considered RAM by a powerboater, may not be as RAM as a, say,
vessel engaged in underwater operations versus a fishing vessel.
This does not change the fact that they are RAM, it just alters the "pecking"
order of who does what, when, and in the case of the minesweeper and fishing
vessel, they change the lights.

As for the diamond shape on the tow. The question was asking for the shape on a
semi submerged TOW. See rule 24g.

Shen

Shen44 wrote:

Subject: Rules of the Road Question #6
From: Nav
Date: 12/8/2004 5:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Shen44 wrote:


Subject: Rules of the Road Question #6
From: Nav
Date: 12/8/2004 5:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

No, fishing is a class of vessel unto itself, it is not RAM


Not totally correct. (read rule 3 d.)
A fishing vessel (or to be totally correct a vessel engaged in fishing with
nets, lines, or trawls which RESTRICT maneuverability) is like a

minesweeper.

It does not show the normal lights for a vessel restricted in it's ability

to

maneuver, but instead, it's own special lights which not only tell you of

it's

status as restricted in it's ability to maneuver, but also, for what

specific

reason it is restricted.
A "fishing vessel" is in the RAM group, but lit differently.


It does not carry the day shapes nor lights of a RAM. Therefore it is
not a RAM. It is a special class that is specifically dealt with by it's
own rules -it is a vessel fishing and that is all. That is why it is
mentioned thus:

"(c)A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible,
keep out of the way of:

*

(i)a vessel not under command;
*

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver. "


Cheers



Gonna handle two for one here.
You're worrying too much about the wording and not the meaning.
The fact that the rules do not include "fishing" in the RAM, does not mean they
are not RAM and in fact they state they are. What the rules do is to make
specific groups of vessels that are restricted in their abilities and seperate
them out by their lights and or dayshapes and degree of RAM ... ie. NUC, RAM,
Fishing.
In reality, they all have a problem which must be dealt with and recognised by
the basic powerboater, sailboat, etc. down the line.
The basic attempt is to give degrees of importance to their RAM and note that
some which may be considered RAM by a powerboater, may not be as RAM as a, say,
vessel engaged in underwater operations versus a fishing vessel.
This does not change the fact that they are RAM, it just alters the "pecking"
order of who does what, when, and in the case of the minesweeper and fishing
vessel, they change the lights.


Squirm all you want, but a fishing vessel is NOT a RAM in the terms of
the COLREGS. If it became a RAM it would have NOT have to give way to
vessels showing RAM lights and day shapes and would change it's lights
and day shapes accordingly. I really cabn't see why you don't understand
this unless it's to avoid admitting your error...

As for the diamond shape on the tow. The question was asking for the shape on a
semi submerged TOW. See rule 24g.


Yes, I wonder if you can read? Try rereading the question and the rule
and you will see that the diamond shape is for tows over 200m where the
question asked about tows under 200m

Cheers

A is correct.

Thanks to otn for showing me Nav's response to my last.
First off, the question regarding the dayshape on a partially submerged object
less than 200m in length.
Go back and read the question, Nav, YOU are concentrating on the dayshape for a
towing vessel. The question asks about the towed vessel/object. Again, read
rule 24 (g)(iv). Answer is B.

As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.
If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).
The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a refresher
course.

Shen

PS ....and before you say it, I take a constant refresher and update course on
this subject

That's telling the worthless Rube!

Keep up the good work Captain Shen.

CN

"Shen44" wrote in message ...
Thanks to otn for showing me Nav's response to my last.
First off, the question regarding the dayshape on a partially submerged object
less than 200m in length.
Go back and read the question, Nav, YOU are concentrating on the dayshape for a
towing vessel. The question asks about the towed vessel/object. Again, read
rule 24 (g)(iv). Answer is B.

As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.
If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).
The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a refresher
course.

Shen

PS ....and before you say it, I take a constant refresher and update course on
this subject

Shen44 wrote:

Thanks to otn for showing me Nav's response to my last.
First off, the question regarding the dayshape on a partially submerged object
less than 200m in length.
Go back and read the question, Nav, YOU are concentrating on the dayshape for a
towing vessel. The question asks about the towed vessel/object. Again, read
rule 24 (g)(iv). Answer is B.


It really is a shame that you don't know the COLREGS even after I post
them. Here is the rule again:

"e) A vessel or object being towed, other than those mentioned in
paragraph (g) of this Rule, shall exhibit:

(i) sidelights;

(ii) a sternlight;

(iii) when the length of the tow exceeds 200 meters, a diamond
shape where it can best be seen."


Here, let me spell it out for you:

"Vessel BEING towed...shall exhibit... when the length of the two
EXCEEDS 200 m"

Now since the question was about a tow less than 200 m that makes your
answer wrong and me correct. OK?



As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.

Hate being wrong eh?

If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).

RAM does not stand for "restricted maneuverability". Perhaps that is the
cause of your confusion?

The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a refresher
course.


Not me, I got both right and would not ever confuse a fishing vessel
with a RAM!

Cheers

Bwhahahhaa. Backed a losing horse again!

Cheers

Capt. Neal® wrote:

That's telling the worthless Rube!

Keep up the good work Captain Shen.

CN

"Shen44" wrote in message ...

Thanks to otn for showing me Nav's response to my last.
First off, the question regarding the dayshape on a partially submerged object
less than 200m in length.
Go back and read the question, Nav, YOU are concentrating on the dayshape for a
towing vessel. The question asks about the towed vessel/object. Again, read
rule 24 (g)(iv). Answer is B.

As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.
If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).
The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a refresher
course.

Shen

PS ....and before you say it, I take a constant refresher and update course on
this subject

Go get the Rube, Capt. Shen.

Be sure to cut and paste his very own words:
"e) A vessel or object being towed,"

OBJECT, OBJECT, OBJECT.

Bwahahahhahahahhahahahahahha!

CN



"Nav" wrote in message ...


Shen44 wrote:

Thanks to otn for showing me Nav's response to my last.
First off, the question regarding the dayshape on a partially submerged object
less than 200m in length.
Go back and read the question, Nav, YOU are concentrating on the dayshape for a
towing vessel. The question asks about the towed vessel/object. Again, read
rule 24 (g)(iv). Answer is B.


It really is a shame that you don't know the COLREGS even after I post
them. Here is the rule again:

"e) A vessel or object being towed, other than those mentioned in
paragraph (g) of this Rule, shall exhibit:

(i) sidelights;

(ii) a sternlight;

(iii) when the length of the tow exceeds 200 meters, a diamond
shape where it can best be seen."


Here, let me spell it out for you:

"Vessel BEING towed...shall exhibit... when the length of the two
EXCEEDS 200 m"

Now since the question was about a tow less than 200 m that makes your
answer wrong and me correct. OK?



As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.

Hate being wrong eh?

If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).

RAM does not stand for "restricted maneuverability". Perhaps that is the
cause of your confusion?

The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a refresher
course.


Not me, I got both right and would not ever confuse a fishing vessel
with a RAM!

Cheers

Q: "Which of the dayshapes listed would you show on
the after end of an inconspicuous partially
submerged vessel or object being towed less than
200 meters in length?"


----------- OBJECT BEING TOWED ------------------


Bwahhahahahahah indeed

You been losing brain cells fantasing about LP. Buck up man.

Cheers

Capt. Neal® wrote:

Go get the Rube, Capt. Shen.

Be sure to cut and paste his very own words:
"e) A vessel or object being towed,"

OBJECT, OBJECT, OBJECT.

Bwahahahhahahahhahahahahahha!

CN



"Nav" wrote in message ...


Shen44 wrote:


Thanks to otn for showing me Nav's response to my last.
First off, the question regarding the dayshape on a partially submerged object
less than 200m in length.
Go back and read the question, Nav, YOU are concentrating on the dayshape for a
towing vessel. The question asks about the towed vessel/object. Again, read
rule 24 (g)(iv). Answer is B.


It really is a shame that you don't know the COLREGS even after I post
them. Here is the rule again:

"e) A vessel or object being towed, other than those mentioned in
paragraph (g) of this Rule, shall exhibit:

(i) sidelights;

(ii) a sternlight;

(iii) when the length of the tow exceeds 200 meters, a diamond
shape where it can best be seen."


Here, let me spell it out for you:

"Vessel BEING towed...shall exhibit... when the length of the two
EXCEEDS 200 m"

Now since the question was about a tow less than 200 m that makes your
answer wrong and me correct. OK?



As for a fishing vessel being RAM.
First off, Nav, I don't squirm, so shove your attitude up your ass.

Hate being wrong eh?


If you had read and understood my statements, you would know that I said the
fishing vessel "could" be a possibility because in truth, a fishing vessel when
engaged in fishing with nets, trawls IS considered to be a vessel with
"restricted maneuverability" Rule 3 (d).

RAM does not stand for "restricted maneuverability". Perhaps that is the
cause of your confusion?


The fact that this does not fall into your ordered understanding of the words
contained in the rules for RAM vessels, does not change this fact.
If you go back to my answer, you will note that for the question, I stated
"minesweeper" as the correct answer with the "could" additive. This is not an
error on my part, but instead, a further note as to the real world
possibilities.
My appologies, if you are incapable of understanding this.
G BTW Considering some of your responses, I'd say you need a refresher
course.


Not me, I got both right and would not ever confuse a fishing vessel
with a RAM!

Cheers