Capt. Neal® wrote:

"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.

So what does "no standing" mean?


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.

No, sailboats follow ALL of the rules. There is nothing that exempts
them from that obligation.


When they do,
overtaking
situations are covered by the sailing rules.

Oh really, then why are you having so much trouble telling us which
sailboat is giveway in an overtaking situation?

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.

It ALWAYS applies. In fact, it even says "notwithstanding" any other
rule. This isn't a vague inference; it explicitly says it take priority.

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.

Sure you can. Why not? The are a variety of such cases in the rules.
A powerboat shall keep out of the way of a sailboat, except when various
rules say otherwise. What's the big deal?



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?

Why not? What's your problem?

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.

Should we forward this to your local Marine Safety Office?




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.

It isn't "my rule," its the rule that you agreed to abide by when you
got your license. This claim of yours that you don't feel obliged to
abide by the rules might come back to haunt you in court. However, its
virtually impossible that you will ever be in the position of overtaking
another vessel.




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.

That's why they explicitly say which take precedence.




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.

They are very explicit when that point is. Further, the overtaking rule
normally comes into play when the vessels are some distance apart. This
is not a case where the standon/giveway relationship suddenly changes.



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.

It would seem that two rules are too many for you to understand.

Capt. Neal® wrote:
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.

By what definition? The only definition in the rules says there is a
windward and leeward SIDE of a boat. There is nothing that could be
construed as mean a boat clear astern or ahead is to windward or leeward.

And you still haven't answered how a boat directly behind can be
windward or leeward if the wind is directly on the beam.

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?

Wally, please learn to leave the bait alone.
FYI there are no 'stationary observers' out at sea and moreover since one
of the boats is by definition faster than the other their apparent wind
directions will differ anyway. It is not really all that complicated. If you
are overtaking another boat you have to keep clear until you are 'clear
ahead'.

Capt. Neal® wrote: 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.



Another confession that you don't know how to sail, Neal? Now we
understand why you failed the test for the sailing endorsement.

BWAHAHAHAHA! What a PUTZ you are, Neal! You've completely embarrassed
yourself, here. Not only have you admitted you don't know the rules,
you've said you don;t care what they say, you have no intention of
abiding by them!

And now you're admitting that you don't even know how to sail!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

Crappy,

It is known as the "Luffing Rule" and it does apply to sailing vessels.

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"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.

Why?

So you're claiming that in a beam reach situation, the vessel ahead is
to windward, and therefore must stay clear of the overtaking vessel
which is to leeward? In other words, a high speed planing boat or
catamaran is the standon vessel WRT to a slow moving banana boat? Just
how do you expect to get out of the way? BWAHAHAHA!!!

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

So now you're claiming you learned everything you know about sailing by
reading Hornblower? And we thought it was Sailing For Dummies.

"Edgar" wrote in message news:U7aLd.6639

FYI there are no 'stationary observers' out at sea and moreover since one
of the boats is by definition faster than the other their apparent wind
directions will differ anyway. It is not really all that complicated. If
you
are overtaking another boat you have to keep clear until you are 'clear
ahead'.

So, are you saying that, when the colregs refers to one boat being to
windward of another, that this is with reference to the apparent wind?

In Neal's case, the only thing he's able to overtake is his beer bottle.

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

"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.

My god is he really that stupid?? Thanks Jeff for making it obvious.

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

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



Another confession that you don't know how to sail, Neal? Now we
understand why you failed the test for the sailing endorsement.

BWAHAHAHAHA! What a PUTZ you are, Neal! You've completely embarrassed
yourself, here. Not only have you admitted you don't know the rules,
you've said you don;t care what they say, you have no intention of abiding
by them!

And now you're admitting that you don't even know how to sail!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom