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

Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.

This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.

What if they're both on a slightly close reach? Ie, such that the apparent
wind is forward of the beam but, to a stationary observer, the real wind is
precisely on their beams? In this situation, would one or other be the
windward boat?


In the situation you describe the lead boat would be to weather because
he's in the lead.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

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.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

Why do you say that? However you want to define windward and leeward,
there must be an angle to the wind where a boat directly astern is
neither windward nor leeward. The rules, however, define the windward
and leeward side not by the wind but by which side the main boom is on.
Clearly, by this definition a boat directly astern is neither windward
not leeward.


The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

You've said this over and over, but what's your point? Even if a rule
is "superfluous" by your reckoning, it still must be followed. And
since an overtaking boat may pass to windward or leeward, or may be on a
different tack, its clear the Rule 12 and Rule 13 can lead one to think
a different vessel is giveway. However, Rule 13 has priority,
regardless of your lame arguments.

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

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.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of
apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when
neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.
What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to
leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent wind"? In
fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on,
but which side the sail are on.

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

Rule 13 cannot take priority over the sailing rules. It has no standing to do so.

What do you mean by this? "No standing"??? Are you claiming that your boat does not qualify as "all vessels"?

I'm claiming my sailboat is obligated to follow the sailing rules which
cover all eventualities, yes even overtaking and that makes Rule 13
superfluous. Superfluous means it has no standing.

When one follows the sailing rules then Rule 13 never has a chance to
even come into play. It is not needed so how can it take priority?

What do you mean by this? These is nothing in the rules that say that they are randomly applied.

Exactly, sailboats are to follow the sailing rules. When they do, overtaking
situations are covered by the sailing rules. This makes Rule 13 superfluous.
If one also tries to apply rule 13 along with the sailing rules one runs into
situations where the sailng rules says vessel A is the stand on vessel while
Rule 13 says it is the give way vessel. You can't have it both ways. You have
to ask yourself at what point rule 13 applies. You say it applies at all times.
This tells me there are situations where Rule 13 would negate the sailing
rules. You cannot have one rule conflicting with another.


In order to follow rule 13 one would have to abandon the sailing rules.

Well sort of. In the sense that Rule 13 starts with "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and
II". This means that Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. Why is this a problem?

It does not mean Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. How can a rule that
contradicts another have priority? You either follow the sailing rules
or you ignore them. As captain, I'll make the choice of which rules
I will follow and since I sail, I will follow the sailing rules which
make Rule 13 unnecessary and superfluous. I will not be put in a
position to be liable for a poor set of rules that contradict each other
by embracing the contradictions.


One would be put in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose at
what point to abandon one rule in order to follow another.

Why is this a problem? The rules are very explicit and precise. They even give guidance as to what to do when in doubt.

You know as well as I do that that's bullcrap!

What? That the rules are optional? So how much did you pay someone to take the test for you? Its clear you never could have
passed it on your own.

That's the point. The sailing rules are NOT optional. Your precious
Rule 13 attempts to make them optional. This alone makes rule 13
something real sailors should ignore.


As long as one follows the sailing
rules one is operating entirely legally. As soon as one deviates from
the sailing rules one is acting entirely illegally.

Negatory pseudo-Cap. The rule apply in their entirety, not selectively. Rule 1 says "These Rules shall apply to all vessels" not
"Some of these rules..."

How can two rules that contradict each other apply at the same time.
It is not possible.


Rule 2 says "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any
neglect to comply with these Rules". It is clear that all of the rules must be followed, not selectively applied.

But, you are suggesting selective following. You are saying at some point
one must abandon one set of rules in favor of another rule.


Rule 13 specifically take priority over rule 12. They could have written "except for rule 12," but they didn't. Sorry Neal - are
you sure you want this blunder on the permanent record?

You are looking at this wrong, yourself. You are a typical confused
thinker who actually believes two rules that countermand each other
in certain situations can be applied together. It's simply not possible
in real life situations.

CN

By definition, the lead boat in situations other than when the wind is
abaft the beam is the windward boat. There is never a situation where
neither boat is to windward.

CN


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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

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.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

Why do you say that? However you want to define windward and leeward, there must be an angle to the wind where a boat directly
astern is neither windward nor leeward. The rules, however, define the windward and leeward side not by the wind but by which
side the main boom is on. Clearly, by this definition a boat directly astern is neither windward not leeward.


The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

You've said this over and over, but what's your point? Even if a rule is "superfluous" by your reckoning, it still must be
followed. And since an overtaking boat may pass to windward or leeward, or may be on a different tack, its clear the Rule 12 and
Rule 13 can lead one to think a different vessel is giveway. However, Rule 13 has priority, regardless of your lame arguments.

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

As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.


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.

Superfluous or not, it still exists. Or are you claiming that the rules are optional?


Definitely not! The Rules are not optional. This is why the sailing rules
must be followed. And, if they are followed and understood, there
is no case where it is necessary to apply Rule 13.

That's all I'm saying and you are trying to play lawyer and confuse the
simple issue.

CN

When two sailboats are interacting, Rule 12 covers all eventualities.

Abandoning them in favor of Rule 13 is the only thing that would
cause this toggling you refer to. My point is toggling is not necessary
if the sailing rules are followed.

If one decides to abandon one set of rules in favor of a contradictory
rule then one is adding confusion to the mix and increasing the chances
of a collision. This is not the intent of the Rules.

CN


"Trantor" wrote in message ...
I believe the rule on overtaking takes precedence over the windward/leeward
rules. else it would be toggling between the two rules if the overtaking
boat is to the leeward.

"Wally" wrote in message
...
"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.

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

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ...


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

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.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.
What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent
wind"? In fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on, but which side the sail are on.

Duh! And it's the wind that determines on which side the boom is.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:
However, I'll give you a case where Rule 12 does not cover two
sailboats: Two sailboats A and B are on a beam reach. B is directly
behind A and overtaking. Both are on the same tack, neither is
windward or leeward or the other. Nothing in Rule 12 covers this
situation. In fact, this is the simplest case of where Rule 13
would supersede Rule 12. How could Neal be so stupid as to not see it?


Wrong! By definition, the lead vessel is to weather of the following
vessel when both are on a beam reach. Don't you know ANYTHING
about sailing?

CN


Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.

So which is it Neal? You're making a real fool of yourself here! I
can see the smoke coming out of your ears, just like an overloaded
android on Star Trek!


This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.


So you're saying that windward/leeward depends on the exact direction of
the wind? That must mean that there is a point exactly in the middle
neither is windward or leeward. Which applies then?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
However, I'll give you a case where Rule 12 does not cover two sailboats: Two sailboats A and B are on a beam reach. B is
directly behind A and overtaking. Both are on the same tack, neither is windward or leeward or the other. Nothing in Rule 12
covers this situation. In fact, this is the simplest case of where Rule 13 would supersede Rule 12. How could Neal be so
stupid as to not see it?


Wrong! By definition, the lead vessel is to weather of the following
vessel when both are on a beam reach. Don't you know ANYTHING
about sailing?

CN


Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.

So which is it Neal? You're making a real fool of yourself here! I can see the smoke coming out of your ears, just like an
overloaded android on Star Trek!


This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.


So you're saying that windward/leeward depends on the exact direction of the wind? That must mean that there is a point exactly
in the middle neither is windward or leeward. Which applies then?

In this case, the lead vessel is to weather. You need to read some
old-time, square-rigger novels like Horatio Hornblower where this
concept is well understood. Weather gage is the term to which I
refer

http://www.answers.com/weather+gage&r=67

CN