|
Rule 12 - Sailing Rule
Rule 11
Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another. Rule 12 (a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows: when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other; 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; if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other. (b) For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried. Pretty simple, isn't it? 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. CN |
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? |
OzOne wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:26:50 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: Rule 11 Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another. Rule 12 (a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows: when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other; 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; if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other. (b) For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried. Pretty simple, isn't it? 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. CN 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 |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another. . . Does that statement not include overtaking? One sailing vessel could be said to be approaching the other, but not the other way round - they're both heading in the same direction, and the notion of 'approach' rests in one travelling faster than the other. |
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. CN "Wally" wrote in message k... "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message (a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another. . . Does that statement not include overtaking? One sailing vessel could be said to be approaching the other, but not the other way round - they're both heading in the same direction, and the notion of 'approach' rests in one travelling faster than the other. |
"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. |
"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. 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. Prove me wrong. Give me one situation where the sailing rules don't cover all eventualities even those in all overtaking situations. CN |
"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. Even if the windward boat was close-hauled, he can always tack away if he can't point higher to avoid the stand-on vessel. If you'd ever been racing, you'd see this happen a dozen or more times in every race. |
"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. 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. 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. The entire point is rule 13 is superfluous if the sailing rules are followed. CN |
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. |
"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. |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... 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. Rule 13 cannot take priority over the sailing rules. It has no standing to do so. 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? In order to follow rule 13 one would have to abandon the sailing rules. One would be put in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose at what point to abandon one rule in order to follow another. You know as well as I do that that's bullcrap! 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. CN |
"Wally" wrote in message ... Even if the windward boat was close-hauled, he can always tack away if he can't point higher to avoid the stand-on vessel. If you'd ever been racing, you'd see this happen a dozen or more times in every race. Ah, but Neal isn't a racer, and he has stated on many occasions that racers aren't real sailors. He'd brown his bermudas if he ever had to maneuver in close quarters with other boats at a start line. John Cairns |
OzOne wrote in message ... 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 |
Wrong, bozo, like Jeff and Wally said, he could always tack. At any rate,
if both boats are complying with the sailing rules overtaking situations are covered. The need for Rule 13 is nil. CN OzOne wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:34:38 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: 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 Cappy, you have already given the scenario. If the windward boat is not able to point as high as the leeward yacht, he must employ another method to stay clear, or slow and pass the baton to the now overtaking boat. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
It depends on what boats are involved, a ****y Coronado which can only point
at 90 degrees to the wind versus a normal yacht , the situation is totally different. "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... "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. 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. Prove me wrong. Give me one situation where the sailing rules don't cover all eventualities even those in all overtaking situations. CN |
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. |
What the fork does any of this thread have to do with alt.sailing.asa?
Capt. Neal® wrote: Rule 11 Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another. Rule 12 (a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows: when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other; 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; if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other. (b) For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried. Pretty simple, isn't it? 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. CN |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
OzOne wrote in message ... 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. |
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? 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! |
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"? 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. 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? 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. 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..." 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. 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? CN |
Capt. Neal® wrote in message ... Wrong, bozo, like Jeff and Wally said, he could always tack. At any rate, if both boats are complying with the sailing rules overtaking situations are covered. The need for Rule 13 is nil. I find it hard to believe some of the posts in this thread, especially when one poster admits he does not know what is in the colregs! In a non-racing situation why should anyone seriously suggest that a boat which is being overtaken by another should 'tack away'? The overtaken boat needs to do nothing except stand on, keeping an eye on the overtaking boat in case the skipper is drunk or stupid. The overtaking boat has a duty to keep clear until clear ahead and a further duty not to create a situation where risk of collision exists. This implies the necessity to bear away, easing sheets if necessary, to keep well clear of the boat being overtaken until he is clear ahead. Some of the posts are obviously from people who are thinking in racing terms. In racing it often happens that the overtaking boat is going to come quite close and try to lee-bow the other boat and leave it wallowing in his wind shadow, in which case the boat being overtaken should anticipate what is coming and then perhaps 'tack away' if he does not like what's coming to him and has room to do so.. |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Capt. Neal® wrote: OzOne wrote in message ... 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 |
"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 |
Edgar wrote:
Capt. Neal® wrote in message ... Wrong, bozo, like Jeff and Wally said, he could always tack. At any rate, if both boats are complying with the sailing rules overtaking situations are covered. The need for Rule 13 is nil. I find it hard to believe some of the posts in this thread, especially when one poster admits he does not know what is in the colregs! In a non-racing situation why should anyone seriously suggest that a boat which is being overtaken by another should 'tack away'? The overtaken boat needs to do nothing except stand on, keeping an eye on the overtaking boat in case the skipper is drunk or stupid. The overtaking boat has a duty to keep clear until clear ahead and a further duty not to create a situation where risk of collision exists. This implies the necessity to bear away, easing sheets if necessary, to keep well clear of the boat being overtaken until he is clear ahead. Some of the posts are obviously from people who are thinking in racing terms. In racing it often happens that the overtaking boat is going to come quite close and try to lee-bow the other boat and leave it wallowing in his wind shadow, in which case the boat being overtaken should anticipate what is coming and then perhaps 'tack away' if he does not like what's coming to him and has room to do so.. You have to be more specific Edgar, are you supporting Neal? Everyone else has said that the overtaking vessel is giveway, regardless of Rule 12. And what's wrong with not knowing every detail in the Colregs? Everyone here seems to have a proper understanding except for Neal, who has the rules in front of him but doesn't understand the words. I didn't see anyone applying racing rules; did I miss something? |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Capt. Neal® wrote: OzOne wrote in message ... 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 ... "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. CN |
"Edgar" wrote in message news:C_7Ld.6675
I find it hard to believe some of the posts in this thread, especially when one poster admits he does not know what is in the colregs! Get a clue, dummy - I said I didn't know what the colregs had for defining 'overtaking'. In a non-racing situation why should anyone seriously suggest that a boat which is being overtaken by another should 'tack away'? Get another clue, dummy - I was referring to the overtakING boat. If he's upwind and can't point any higher, he can tack away to avoid a collision. |
"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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com