OzOne wrote in message news
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:27:54 -0500, Capt. Neal®
scribbled thusly:


Please indicate where anything is mentioned about overtaking?


Rule 12
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another. . .

Does that statement not include overtaking?

CN

Not when there is another rule to cover overtaking!

You need to read and understand ALL the rules Cappy, it's the same old
story,


And perhaps you need to go sailing once in a while and try following
the sailing rules and then you will see you will never even have a
chance to use Rule 13.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is describe one situation where,
if two sailboats are both following the sailing rules, rule 13 would
even come into play. You cannot do it and neither can Jeff because the
three sailing rules, if followed, cover it all.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

OzOne wrote in message news
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:27:54 -0500, Capt. Neal®
scribbled thusly:


Please indicate where anything is mentioned about overtaking?


Rule 12
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another. . .

Does that statement not include overtaking?

CN


Not when there is another rule to cover overtaking!

You need to read and understand ALL the rules Cappy, it's the same old
story,



And perhaps you need to go sailing once in a while and try following
the sailing rules and then you will see you will never even have a
chance to use Rule 13.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is describe one situation where,
if two sailboats are both following the sailing rules, rule 13 would
even come into play. You cannot do it and neither can Jeff because the
three sailing rules, if followed, cover it all.

First of all, the issue is not whether Rule 13 is "needed," by some
measure; the rule exists and therefore mus be followed.

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?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

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?

How do you define 'overtaking', and in what way is it different from
'gaining on'? If one boat is clear astern of the other, is it overtaking?

Wally wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message


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?


How do you define 'overtaking', and in what way is it different from
'gaining on'? If one boat is clear astern of the other, is it overtaking?

It doesn't matter how I might define overtaking; the Colregs do a pretty
good job of it:

13 (b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with
another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her
beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is
overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight
of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

A curious aspect of the wording is that it uses the stern light as the
reference point. Thus, you might claim that once an overlap is
established (to use the racing term) then it is no longer an overtaking
situation. However, Rule 13(c) says that "when in doubt, you must
consider it to be overtaking" and Rule 13(d) says that if a boat
approaches from astern, it is an overtaking situation until it is clear
ahead:

(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.
(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels
shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the
meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of
the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

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

OzOne wrote in message news
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:27:54 -0500, Capt. Neal®
scribbled thusly:


Please indicate where anything is mentioned about overtaking?


Rule 12
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another. . .

Does that statement not include overtaking?

CN


Not when there is another rule to cover overtaking!

You need to read and understand ALL the rules Cappy, it's the same old
story,



And perhaps you need to go sailing once in a while and try following
the sailing rules and then you will see you will never even have a
chance to use Rule 13.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is describe one situation where,
if two sailboats are both following the sailing rules, rule 13 would
even come into play. You cannot do it and neither can Jeff because the
three sailing rules, if followed, cover it all.

First of all, the issue is not whether Rule 13 is "needed," by some measure; the rule exists and therefore mus be followed.

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

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ...

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

OzOne wrote in message news
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:27:54 -0500, Capt. Neal®
scribbled thusly:


Please indicate where anything is mentioned about overtaking?


Rule 12
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another. . .

Does that statement not include overtaking?

CN


Not when there is another rule to cover overtaking!

You need to read and understand ALL the rules Cappy, it's the same old
story,



And perhaps you need to go sailing once in a while and try following
the sailing rules and then you will see you will never even have a
chance to use Rule 13.

All you need to do to prove me wrong is describe one situation where,
if two sailboats are both following the sailing rules, rule 13 would
even come into play. You cannot do it and neither can Jeff because the
three sailing rules, if followed, cover it all.

First of all, the issue is not whether Rule 13 is "needed," by some measure; the rule exists and therefore mus be followed.

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.

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.

CN

"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" 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

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:
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?