"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:
...


Most interesting to me is this part:

"when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to
leeward;"

This says if one sailboat is overtaking another and both have the wind
on the same side, then the sailboat to weather is the give way vessel.

This tells me that the overtaking rule where the overtaken vessel is always
the stand-on vessel does not apply to sailboats.


Why didn't you continue with the beginning of Rule 13:

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B,
Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of
the way of the vessel being overtaken.

What part of "Notwithstanding anything contained" do you interpret as meaning Rule 12 takes priority over Rule 13?

How do you expect anyone to believe that you passed the Master's exam, when you seem confused by this simple point?


Good point but it is physically impossible for a sailboat to windward to
stay out of the way of another to leeward if the leeward vessel is more
weatherly.

Nonsense. He's approaching from behind. All you're saying is that if you ignore Rule 13 until its too late, then you might have
to take some extreme action. Long before the windward vessel is "trapped" he could have borne off and passed to leeward. Or he
could have tacked away.

The windward vessel cannot point higher to avoid the
leeward vessel.

Why can't he tack?

He cannot fall off without creating a close quarters
situation,

Why can't he pass to leeward?

and he cannot speed up or slow down because those things
depend on the speed of the wind.

Why can't he let go of the sheets?

These facts alone negate rule 13
which works well for motor vessels but not for sailing vessels. It is plain
to me if one follows the sailing rules then rule 13 is superfluous.

Its becoming clear you don't actually know how to sail. Is this why you didn't bother to get your sailing endorsement, even
though it only involved answering a few easy questions?


Prove me wrong. Give me one situation where the sailing rules don't
cover all eventualities even those in all overtaking situations.

This is a meaningless comment. You're only saying that an alternate version of the sailing rules could have been invented - one
that doesn't include the overtaking rule. For example, the yacht racing rules handle overtaking quite differently. However, they
are not the issue here. The Colregs are quite clear the Rule 13 takes priority, and it is the responsibility of the overtaking
vessel to avoid getting so close that it can't keep clear of the overtaken vessel.

You didn't give me a plausible scenario where if the sailing rules are
adhered to then why is Rule 13 necessary?

It is plain to me if the three simple sailing rules are followed then there
is no need for any stupid overtaking rule. The overtaking rule becomes
entirely superfluous.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over. I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation.

Ah, I see what you're saying - the leeward boat could be overtaking, at
which point he becomes the give-way, rather than the stand-on vessel. I
don't know what it says in the colregs, but the RRS has stuff about overlaps
which could be used to define precisely when the overtaking maneuvre is
happening.

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Wally" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Good point but it is physically impossible for a sailboat to windward to
stay out of the way of another to leeward if the leeward vessel is more
weatherly. The windward vessel cannot point higher to avoid the
leeward vessel. He cannot fall off without creating a close quarters
situation, and he cannot speed up or slow down because those things
depend on the speed of the wind. These facts alone negate rule 13
which works well for motor vessels but not for sailing vessels. It is

plain

to me if one follows the sailing rules then rule 13 is superfluous.


The vessel to windward is not neccessarily close-hauled, it's merely the
vessel which is upwind of the other. The reason he is the give-way
vessel is
because he has a better chance of maintaining full control because the
downwind boat may be in his wind shadow - the downwind boat may not be
able
to maneuvre out of trouble.


I disagree with you. I say the reason the windward vessel in an overtaking
situation is the give way vessel is precisely because he has more options.


Total nonsense. There are many cases where the rule are arbitrary. You
can't change them because you think they make more sense another way!


He has more options up until the time the overtaking vessel is abreast
of him,
that is. Therefore it's incumbent on the windward vessel to take action to
avoid a close quarters situation.

Once again, demonstrating why its obvious you never passed the test!


This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over.

The sailing rule doesn't take affect at all. The windward/leeward rule
doesn't apply if one of the vessels is overtaking. You might be able to
create an ambiguous condition where two vessels are converging and it
isn't clear if the windward vessel is overtaking, but Rule 13 resolves
that with:

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she if overtaking
another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation. The entire point
is rule 13 is superfluous if the sailing rules are followed.

That's why you never could have passed the test!

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
This is a meaningless comment. You're only saying that an alternate
version of the sailing rules could have been invented - one that doesn't
include the overtaking rule. For example, the yacht racing rules handle
overtaking quite differently. However, they are not the issue here.
The Colregs are quite clear the Rule 13 takes priority, and it is the
responsibility of the overtaking vessel to avoid getting so close that
it can't keep clear of the overtaken vessel.

But it's not meaningless. Take any two sailboats on any point of sail
where overtaking takes place and the situation is already covered by
one of the three sailing rules. If the sailing rules are followed, then
there is no need for Rule 13. For sailboats, Rule 13 is superfluous.
This is why Rule 13 is qualified by the notwithstanding word.

I can't say it any plainer than that. All it takes for you to disprove
what I am saying is to come up with one scenario where if two sailboats
are following the rules that an extra rule covering overtaking is needed.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:
...


Most interesting to me is this part:

"when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to
windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;"

This says if one sailboat is overtaking another and both have the wind
on the same side, then the sailboat to weather is the give way vessel.

This tells me that the overtaking rule where the overtaken vessel
is always
the stand-on vessel does not apply to sailboats.


Why didn't you continue with the beginning of Rule 13:

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B,
Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of
the way of the vessel being overtaken.

What part of "Notwithstanding anything contained" do you interpret
as meaning Rule 12 takes priority over Rule 13?

How do you expect anyone to believe that you passed the Master's
exam, when you seem confused by this simple point?



Good point but it is physically impossible for a sailboat to windward to
stay out of the way of another to leeward if the leeward vessel is more
weatherly.


Nonsense. He's approaching from behind. All you're saying is that if
you ignore Rule 13 until its too late, then you might have to take
some extreme action. Long before the windward vessel is "trapped" he
could have borne off and passed to leeward. Or he could have tacked
away.

The windward vessel cannot point higher to avoid the
leeward vessel.


Why can't he tack?

He cannot fall off without creating a close quarters
situation,


Why can't he pass to leeward?

and he cannot speed up or slow down because those things

depend on the speed of the wind.


Why can't he let go of the sheets?

These facts alone negate rule 13
which works well for motor vessels but not for sailing vessels. It is
plain
to me if one follows the sailing rules then rule 13 is superfluous.


Its becoming clear you don't actually know how to sail. Is this why
you didn't bother to get your sailing endorsement, even though it only
involved answering a few easy questions?


Prove me wrong. Give me one situation where the sailing rules don't
cover all eventualities even those in all overtaking situations.


This is a meaningless comment. You're only saying that an alternate
version of the sailing rules could have been invented - one that
doesn't include the overtaking rule. For example, the yacht racing
rules handle overtaking quite differently. However, they are not the
issue here. The Colregs are quite clear the Rule 13 takes priority,
and it is the responsibility of the overtaking vessel to avoid getting
so close that it can't keep clear of the overtaken vessel.


You didn't give me a plausible scenario where if the sailing rules are
adhered to then why is Rule 13 necessary?

I did - all you're saying is that if the rules were written differently
they would still be self-consistent. They might have said Rule 13 does
not have priority over Rule 12, but they didn't.


It is plain to me if the three simple sailing rules are followed then there
is no need for any stupid overtaking rule. The overtaking rule becomes
entirely superfluous.

Perhaps in a different world. There is no reason why the rules always
have to make sense, but they still must be followed. As I said, in
racing the rules are different, but still self-consistent.

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.

Since you have not and cannot, I stick by my statement that
given the three sailing rules and given they are being followed,
Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Wally" wrote in message ...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Good point but it is physically impossible for a sailboat to windward to
stay out of the way of another to leeward if the leeward vessel is more
weatherly. The windward vessel cannot point higher to avoid the
leeward vessel. He cannot fall off without creating a close quarters
situation, and he cannot speed up or slow down because those things
depend on the speed of the wind. These facts alone negate rule 13
which works well for motor vessels but not for sailing vessels. It is

plain

to me if one follows the sailing rules then rule 13 is superfluous.


The vessel to windward is not neccessarily close-hauled, it's merely the
vessel which is upwind of the other. The reason he is the give-way vessel is
because he has a better chance of maintaining full control because the
downwind boat may be in his wind shadow - the downwind boat may not be able
to maneuvre out of trouble.


I disagree with you. I say the reason the windward vessel in an overtaking
situation is the give way vessel is precisely because he has more options.


Total nonsense. There are many cases where the rule are arbitrary. You can't change them because you think they make more sense
another way!


He has more options up until the time the overtaking vessel is abreast of him,
that is. Therefore it's incumbent on the windward vessel to take action to
avoid a close quarters situation.

Once again, demonstrating why its obvious you never passed the test!


This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over.

The sailing rule doesn't take affect at all. The windward/leeward rule doesn't apply if one of the vessels is overtaking. You
might be able to create an ambiguous condition where two vessels are converging and it isn't clear if the windward vessel is
overtaking, but Rule 13 resolves that with:

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she if overtaking
another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation. The entire point
is rule 13 is superfluous if the sailing rules are followed.

That's why you never could have passed the test!

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Perhaps in a different world. There is no reason why the rules always
have to make sense, but they still must be followed. As I said, in
racing the rules are different, but still self-consistent.


You still refuse to understand the fact that there is no need for Rule 13
provided the two sailboats follow the three sailing rules.

If rule 13 did not exist at all then the three sailing rules would still cover
overtaking situations. I will not deviate from the sailing rules
in order to follow superfluous Rule 13. In doing so I would be in violation
of one rule in order to adhere to another. Folly and, in of itself, against
the rules. Whereas I think like a sailor, you think like a stinkpotter.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

This is a meaningless comment. You're only saying that an alternate
version of the sailing rules could have been invented - one that
doesn't include the overtaking rule. For example, the yacht racing
rules handle overtaking quite differently. However, they are not the
issue here. The Colregs are quite clear the Rule 13 takes priority,
and it is the responsibility of the overtaking vessel to avoid getting
so close that it can't keep clear of the overtaken vessel.


But it's not meaningless. Take any two sailboats on any point of sail
where overtaking takes place and the situation is already covered by
one of the three sailing rules. If the sailing rules are followed, then
there is no need for Rule 13. For sailboats, Rule 13 is superfluous.
This is why Rule 13 is qualified by the notwithstanding word.

Are you now questioning the meaning of "notwithstanding"? Clearly Rules
12 and 13 have different implications for which vessel is Give-way in
some situations. This is why they included the word "notwithstanding"
to say that Rule 13 take priority.



I can't say it any plainer than that. All it takes for you to disprove
what I am saying is to come up with one scenario where if two sailboats
are following the rules that an extra rule covering overtaking is needed.

Whether an extra rule is "needed" is irrelevant. The rule is there and
it explicitly takes priority. You can't ignore the rules as written
because you think you could have a smaller set that is self-consistent.

Now, if you want to create an alternative set of rules, just as a mind
exercise, that's a different thing. But if, at some late time, you
actually go sailing, then you should learn the real rules and abide by them.

"Wally" wrote in message k...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Tut tut! approaching one another means 'to move nearer to.'

It cannot be denied that the two vessels are moving nearer
to one another when they are approaching one another.
Relative speeds of the vessels does not matter.

If you are trying to run away from a gun nut who's running faster than you,
it cannot be said that you are 'approaching' him.

But you can say you are approaching one another which is how the rule is worded . . .

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...


Perhaps in a different world. There is no reason why the rules always
have to make sense, but they still must be followed. As I said, in
racing the rules are different, but still self-consistent.


You still refuse to understand the fact that there is no need for Rule 13
provided the two sailboats follow the three sailing rules.

The "need" for a rule is irrelevant. For those of us who actually sail,
the rules must be followed as written, regardless of the perceived
"need" for them.

If rule 13 did not exist at all then the three sailing rules would still
cover
overtaking situations.

Irrelevant.

I will not deviate from the sailing rules
in order to follow superfluous Rule 13. In doing so I would be in
violation of one rule in order to adhere to another.

It is highly unlikely that you will ever overtake another vessel, so
what's the point?

Folly and, in of
itself, against the rules. Whereas I think like a sailor, you think like
a stinkpotter.

Yes Neal, you may "think like a sailor." I, however, sail.