|
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand . . .
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot claim you do not know what the words "sight" and "hearing" mean. Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about it. sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing 2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense of which the eye is the receptor and by which qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color) are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming 5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot 3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments (as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated "At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise. Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal if Ellen has a collision argue falsely. Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat. Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere. I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally. Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission. Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and explicitness of Rule 5. Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. |
Capt. Neal=AE wrote:
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Spot the newly qualified dayskipper! Most people ignore bits of the Col Regs[1]. Just relax. [1] and plenty of the Highway code to boot. |
"Dan" wrote in message oups.com... Capt. Neal® wrote: Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Spot the newly qualified dayskipper! Most people ignore bits of the Col Regs[1]. Just relax. [1] and plenty of the Highway code to boot. ************************************* Are you saying you have to be caught breaking the law before you are actually breaking the law? I think not! CN |
Capt. Neal=AE wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message Are you saying you have to be caught breaking the law before you are actually breaking the law? I think not! You think right! I'm saying there are thing I choose to ignore. Eg: Col Regs: Motorsailing Triangle Highway code: Wearing a fluresent Jacket as a pedestrian. I've slept for 15 mins when sailing alone, we all have. You'd be inhuman not to. |
wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:06:19 -0500, Capt. Neal=AE For the rest of us, "maintaining a proper watch at all times" may legally consist of physically taking a look and listen every 30 minutes, every 20 seconds, or every 4 hours, depending on the specific circumstances. You got a source somewhere that demonstrates that a lookout every 4 hours meets the 'lookout at all times' in this first rule? |
Your a dunce BBob. A 4 hour break would not be legal. And your to dumb
to know why. Joe |
Neal wrote:
Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat. *********** So accept her feat for what it was: a marvelous stunt. Much like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Many people have tried it, and some have survived the attempt to become the home town hero for a week or two.There's no doubt it requires courage beyond what most people could muster- but it doesn't make the activity either useful or well advised and certainly should not serve as an inspiration for every yahoo along the river who just happens to own a barrel. Ellen displayed a lot of guts to undertake her stunt, and no small amount of fortitude to complete it. Her sponsors will undoubtedly receive satisfactory returns on their investments as every bit of gear that was aboard that boat will now be marketed with a burst on the packaging, "Broke the solo circumnavigation record with Ellen!" (actually, "broke" is a negative word in marketing, will probably say "set"). We marvel at her accomplishment because most of us realize that we would be unlikely to attempt anything similar. Some will even say, "I'm brave enough, and fit enough, and sailor enough to do that well or better- but I'm too fricking smart to try"....sure. She did a remarkable thing, but like those previously engaged in the same activity she was perfroming a stunt moreso than completing a voyage. |
wrote:
On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. |
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand
about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? So this negates ALL solo records. Right, Neal??? Bwahahahaha! Busted again! RB |
|
This reg only really matters if there is an "incident"..... at which point a
solo sailor cannot use this fact as an excuse. It is a clear example of rules generated by lawyers and politicans......... If ANY solo was have a 10 minute kip / made a cup of tea / put a note on the chart / had a **** / etc and something happens they will get the blame....... This would be exactly the same if you didn't have a motorsailing day signal in place you would in the rules be at fault. That said..... it really is a bit anal to expect ppl to comply in all circumstances. And try to remember...... every yachtmaster was a dayskipper once............................ Matt "Dan" wrote in message oups.com... Capt. Neal® wrote: "Dan" wrote in message Are you saying you have to be caught breaking the law before you are actually breaking the law? I think not! You think right! I'm saying there are thing I choose to ignore. Eg: Col Regs: Motorsailing Triangle Highway code: Wearing a fluresent Jacket as a pedestrian. I've slept for 15 mins when sailing alone, we all have. You'd be inhuman not to. |
wrote in message The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. According to Jim Austin in Ocean Navigator - "ColRegs and Inland Rule 5 are identical in their description as to the lookout requirement: "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing AS WELL AS BY ALL AVAILABLE MEANS APPROPRIATE" (emphasis added). The last phrase adds, by implication, both radar and radio to the requirement. (Courts have looked at binoculars, the depth sounder, radar and radio as included in the armamentarium for a proper lookout.)" CM |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? rant snipped Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. What's that funny smell? Oh yes, hard cheese. If there was a world class US single handed sailor I bet you would change your tune. John |
wrote in message You have run into the end of a dock on your starboard side. You were keeping a CONSTANT ear and eyeball watch , but not a "proper watch at all times". When you get to court, what portion of the blame do you suppose will be alloted to the dock? Do you usually provide scenarios which defy logic to substantiate logic?? CM |
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:06:19 -0500, Capt. Neal®
wrote: Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and explicitness of Rule 5. Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. Geeze, who ****ed in your cornflakes? Dave |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
... Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Proper? What is proper? If it means 'sufficient to avoid collision' then Ellen's must have been 'proper'. |
|
Troll
Plonk "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? |
Dan wrote:
wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. There have been numerous cases that involved the issue of a proper lookout. Many court decisions have set precedents, and many textbooks have written on it. However, the fundamental concept they focus on the question of whether a better lookout could have prevented a particular incident. For instance, and early ruling says that a proper lookout is so designated, and this must be his primary duty. However, a later decision allowed that a lookout could also sound a fog horn. However, a lookout can't also be a navigator. But if you apply decisions based on large ships, you end up requiring an impossibly large crew for a small boat. The courts don't require the same level of "lookout" on a small boat. Further, failure to have a proper lookout (or failure to comply with any rule) is not penalized unless it contributes to an accident. However, if you're looking for a court decision relevant to this situation, the ruling that I posted (again below) involves David Scully, who was sailing the single hand racing boat Coyote (an Open 60?), which he had chartered from the widow of Mike Plant. (Actually, I don't think they were married before Mike disappeared when the keel fell off in the mid-Atlantic). Scully was sleeping during a qualifying run from the Azores to Newport when Coyote hit a fishing boat off Nova Scotia. Its interesting reading - the original decision apparently cited the "vessel moving should avoid vessel stationary" concept, but the appeal court agreed with Scully that the fishing boat was not really "stationary" according to the law, since it was not anchored. But the court held that the lack of a lookout was the primary cause of the incident. The fact that Coyote was not running its radar, lights, or radios didn't help. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not having proper lights, etc. |
Duh! Go to the back of the class, Vito! "Proper" is defined by the content of Rule 5. Here's your lesson for today. Study it hard and please forego the wanking. Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even someone of Italian heritage might understand. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." I hope this helps. CN "Vito" wrote in message ... "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Proper? What is proper? If it means 'sufficient to avoid collision' then Ellen's must have been 'proper'. |
BBob, you're as stupid as Vito. Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out. Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . . Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even a Bobsprit clone might understand. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." I hope this helps. CN wrote in message ... On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan" wrote: wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case, would determine whether or not the watch had been proper. BB |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not having proper lights, etc. Bwahahahahhahahahahhahaha! Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored in international waters? (outside of a few designated anchorages, that is.) Jeff, before you play the lawyer perhaps you should seek out a law school and matriculate. CN |
One knows he has won the argument and the opponent
is humiliated when said opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks. Bwaaaahhahhahahahhahahahahah! May I offer you a handkerchief so you can dry those tears? CN wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:23:31 -0500, Capt. Neal® wrote: Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out. No, it most emphatically does not. Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . . Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." maintaing a watch at all times is not the same thing as maintaining a watch constantly without interuption. You breathe "at all times", but sometimes you are inhaling, sometimes you are exhaling, and sometimes you are doing neither. I hope this helps. You are pretty much beyond help, baby ****er. BB Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa From: "Capt. Neal®" Date: 1999/12/12 Subject: P30 Lowrider Correction. Those were not electric shocks that made Bobsprit's boat bounce up and down. They were hydraulic jackstands. I think you also need a lesson about flat-chested women. Flat chested women are, almost without exception, better lovers. They have had to develop certain skills below the waistline in order to compensate for their small mammaries. They know what it takes to please a man because of it. I don't know about you but I have never had a pair of mammaries, regardless of how big they were, give me what an educated vagina can. There is yet another reason why every man should learn to love flat-chested women . . . many young women do not grow them until they are 12 or 13. Would you honestly rule them out because of it? Respectfully, Capt. Neal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CN wrote in message ... On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan" wrote: wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case, would determine whether or not the watch had been proper. BB |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not having proper lights, etc. Bwahahahahhahahahahhahaha! Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored in international waters? (outside of a few designated anchorages, that is.) No, they don't. They may do it outside the Colregs line, but not in international waters. |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... One more point - although Neal keeps claiming that not having a lookout is "illegal." As far as I know, there is no "law" that says you must follow the ColRegs in international water. That is, there is no penalty for failing to comply, unless that failure leads to an accident. In inland waters, that is not the case - you can be penalized for not having proper lights, etc. Bwahahahahhahahahahhahaha! Did you know the Coast Guard can, does and will write a citation for not displaying an anchor light if anchored in international waters? (outside of a few designated anchorages, that is.) Jeff, before you play the lawyer perhaps you should seek out a law school and matriculate. CN Can someone explain how this boating thread is any better than the worst of the OT political threads often complained about by some here at rec.boats? |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Just what don't you little Ellen supporters understand about the first part of the following COLREG Rule? Rule 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing . . . Folks, even the most ignorant among you cannot claim you do not know what the words "sight" and "hearing" mean. Check out what Merriam Webster has to say about it. sight \"sït\ n 1 : something seen or worth seeing 2 : the process or power of seeing; esp : the sense of which the eye is the receptor and by which qualities of appearance (as position, shape, and color) are perceived 3 : inspection 4 : a device (as a small bead on a gun barrel) that aids the eye in aiming 5 : view, glimpse 6 : the range of vision - sight.less adj hear.ing n 1 : the process, function, or power of perceiving sound; esp : the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli 2 : earshot 3 : opportunity to be heard 4 : a listening to arguments (as in a court); also : a session of (as of a legislative committee) in which testimony is taken from witnesses © 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated "At all times" means at all times. It means if Ellen is sleeping she is failing to comply with Rule 5. In order to be legal there needs to be a human being seeing AND hearing at all times. This means Rule 5 states ANY long-distance race where solo skipper sleeps is in violation of the rule and an illegal enterprise. Those of you who argue that it only becomes illegal if Ellen has a collision argue falsely. Legal and responsible racing cannot include long-distance solo sailing racing by definition. Neither little Ellen nor anybody else is capable of sight or hearing while they are asleep, exhausted below in a speeding sailboat. Ellen is a whore because she gets paid and has a whole team pimping her engaging in an illegal activity. It's about time real sailors stopped supporting this illegal activity which is detrimental and dangerous to sailors everywhere. I certainly will not identify with, worship or give kudos to any law breaker. Until such time as little Ellen operates legally, I will continue to call a spade a spade. The only record she has broken, in my opinion, is 71 days in violation of Rule 5. It does not matter how much or what kind of electronic measures her boat employs. Unless she stays awake and maintains a look-out by sight and hearing twenty-four hours a day, she is operating illegally. Ellen is a lawbreaker by law and by her own admission. Those who support little Ellen support law breaking. You cannot argue otherwise intelligently. Every argument you attempt to employ will be shot down by the simplicity and explicitness of Rule 5. Captain Neal Warren USCG Licensed U.S. Merchant Marine Officer ser.# 1045941 --- Safety at sea is no accident. Oy! What a load of twaddle. Why don't you just go and **** up a rope! If it was up to you, you would keelhaul every singlehander on sight. Then you could go down to the local dive and swap stories with your close buddy Capt. Joseph Hazelwood. Done feeding the Troll. Paul E. -- "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society" - Theodore Roosevelt |
"JimH" wrote in message Can someone explain how this boating thread is any better than the worst of the OT political threads often complained about by some here at rec.boats? Geez jimmy... it has to do with boats... Are all you guys at rec.boats such whiners or is it that jimmy boy is the group weenie? CM |
I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you
idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss. Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout. Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case, allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how Rule 5 defines 'proper'. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Jumpin' Jehosaphat, but you people are retarded! CN OzOne wrote in message ... Define 'proper'. Is it a lookout for every minute while underway, or sufficient to avoid an incident. Radar and active warning devices were more than capable of waking the skipper in the event of an approaching vessel in plenty of time to keep a lookout properly to avoid any incident. On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:23:31 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: BBob, you're as stupid as Vito. Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out. Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . . Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even a Bobsprit clone might understand. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." I hope this helps. CN wrote in message ... On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan" wrote: wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case, would determine whether or not the watch had been proper. BB Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Jumpin' Jehosaphat, but you people are retarded! Well Neal... truthfully speaking.... the "at all times" is a little vague don't you think? If there is nothing visible, nothing on the radar and nobody answering radio hails.... does it mean you are expected to stand like a stork and keep looking??... or do you have time to go below and fetch another brew? I generally totally ignore the COLREGS... and for the most part any other regulations or enforcement personnel involved. Then again I don't get into a fit because some woman sailed around the world in a sailboat either. CM |
At all times means at all times. How can it be more clear than that.
It means you can't be below cooking a meal or you can't be sleeping. You can't be listening to your walkman and you can't be climbing the mast making repairs. You cannot sail solo around the world and comply with Rule 5. In order to make sailing around the world comply with the COLREGS, it would probably require a three-person crew at minimum. One to run the ship, one to maintain a look-out and one to be resting, off-duty. Or, if you wanted to call it solo racing the two others on board could do the cooking, and watching in shifts while the person going for the record ran the ship. No help from the two people designated as look-outs would be allowed and this could be monitored using a number of small cameras. CN "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:3zaOd.14663$K54.8748@edtnps84... "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Jumpin' Jehosaphat, but you people are retarded! Well Neal... truthfully speaking.... the "at all times" is a little vague don't you think? If there is nothing visible, nothing on the radar and nobody answering radio hails.... does it mean you are expected to stand like a stork and keep looking??... or do you have time to go below and fetch another brew? I generally totally ignore the COLREGS... and for the most part any other regulations or enforcement personnel involved. Then again I don't get into a fit because some woman sailed around the world in a sailboat either. CM |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... At all times means at all times. How can it be more clear than that. It means you can't be below cooking a meal or you can't be sleeping. You can't be listening to your walkman and you can't be climbing the mast making repairs. You cannot sail solo around the world and comply with Rule 5. Whoa..... that makes Joshua Slocum a "criminal"?? CM |
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:mUaOd.14762$K54.4908@edtnps84... "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... At all times means at all times. How can it be more clear than that. It means you can't be below cooking a meal or you can't be sleeping. You can't be listening to your walkman and you can't be climbing the mast making repairs. You cannot sail solo around the world and comply with Rule 5. Whoa..... that makes Joshua Slocum a "criminal"?? It does not! The COLREGS were not even a gleam in some lawyer's grandfather's eye when the legendary Joshua Slocum was plying his manly trade. CN P.S. Chapter 9 of Sailing Alone Around the World I WAS determined to rely on my own small resources to repair the damages of the great gale which drove me southward toward the Horn, after I had passed from the Strait of Magellan out into the Pacific. So when I had got back into the strait, by way of Cockburn Channel, I did not proceed eastward for help at the Sandy Point settlement, but turning again into the northwestward reach of the strait, set to work with my palm and needle at every opportunity, when at anchor and when sailing. It was slow work; but little by little the squaresail on the boom expanded to the dimensions of a serviceable mainsail with a peak to it and a leech besides. If it was not the best-setting sail afloat, it was at least very strongly made and would stand a hard blow. A ship, meeting the Spray long afterward, reported her as wearing a mainsail of some improved design and patent reefer, but that was not the case. The Spray for a few days after the storm enjoyed fine weather, and made fair time through the strait for the distance of twenty miles, which, in these days of many adversities, I called a long run. The weather, I say, was fine for a few days; but it brought little rest. Care for the safety of my vessel, and even for my own life, was in no wise lessened by the absence of heavy weather. Indeed, the peril was even greater, inasmuch as the savages on comparatively fine days ventured forth on their marauding excursions, and in boisterous weather disappeared from sight, their wretched canoes being frail and undeserving the name of craft at all. This being so, I now enjoyed gales of wind as never before, and the Spray was never long without them during her struggles about Cape Horn. I became in a measure inured to the life, and began to think that one more trip through the strait, if perchance the sloop should be blown off again, would make me the aggressor, and put the Fuegians entirely on the defensive. This feeling was forcibly borne in on me at Snug Bay, where I anchored at grey morning after passing Cape Froward, to find, when broad day appeared, that two canoes which I had eluded by sailing all night were now entering the same bay stealthily under the shadow of the high headland. They were well manned, and the savages were well armed with spears and bows. At a shot from my rifle across the bows, both turned aside into a small creek out of range. In danger now of being flanked by the savages in the bush close aboard, I was obliged to hoist the sails, which I had barely lowered, and make across to the opposite side of the strait, a distance of six miles. But now I was put to my wits' end as to how I should weigh anchor, for through an accident to the windlass right here I could not budge it. However, I set all sail and filled away, first hauling short by hand. The sloop carried her anchor away, as though it was meant to be always towed in this way underfoot, and with it she towed a ton or more of kelp from a reef in the bay, the wind blowing a wholesale breeze. Meanwhile I worked till blood started from my fingers, and with one eye over my shoulder for savages, I watched at the same time, and sent a bullet whistling whenever I saw a limb or a twig move; for I kept a gun always at hand, and an Indian appearing then within range would have been taken as a declaration of war. As it was, however, my own blood was all that was spilt – and from the trifling accident of sometimes breaking the flesh against a cleat or a pin which came in the way when I was in haste. Sea-cuts in my hands from pulling on hard, wet ropes were sometimes painful and often bled freely; but these healed when I finally got away from the strait into fine weather. After clearing Snug Bay I hauled the sloop to the wind, repaired the windlass, and hove the anchor to the hawse, catted it, and then stretched across to a port of refuge under a high mountain about six miles away, and came to in nine fathoms close under the face of a perpendicular cliff. Here my own voice answered back, and I named the place "Echo Mountain." Seeing dead trees farther along where the shore was broken, I made a landing for fuel, taking, besides my axe, a rifle, which on these days I never left far from hand; but I saw no living thing here, except a small spider, which had nested in a dry log that I boated to the sloop. The conduct of this insect interested me now more than anything else around the wild place. In my cabin it met, oddly enough, a spider of its own size and species that had come all the way from Boston – a very civil little chap, too, but mighty spry. Well, the Fuegian threw up its antennae for a fight; but my little Bostonian downed it at once, then broke its legs, and pulled them off, one by one, so dexterously that in less than three minutes from the time the battle began the Fuegian spider didn't know itself from a fly. I made haste the following morning to be under way after a night of wakefulness on the weird shore. Before weighing anchor, however, I prepared a cup of warm coffee over a smart wood fire in my great Montevideo stove. In the same fire was cremated the Fuegian spider, slain the day before by the little warrior from Boston, which a Scots lady at Cape Town long after named "Bruce" upon hearing of its prowess at Echo Mountain. The Spray now reached away for Coffee Island, which I sighted on my birthday, February 20, 1896. There she encountered another gale, that brought her in the lee of great Charles Island for shelter. On a bluff point on Charles were signal-fires, and a tribe of savages, mustered here since my first trip through the strait, manned their canoes to put off for the sloop. It was not prudent to come to, the anchorage being within bow-shot of the shore, which was thickly wooded; but I made signs that one canoe might come alongside, while the sloop ranged about under sail in the lee of the land. The others I motioned to keep off, and incidentally laid a smart Martini-Henry rifle in sight, close at hand, on the top of the cabin. In the canoe that came alongside, crying their never-ending begging word "yammerschooner," were two squaws and one Indian, the hardest specimens of humanity I had ever seen in any of my travels. "Yammerschooner" was their plaint when they pushed off from the shore, and "yammerschooner" it was when they got alongside. The squaws beckoned for food, while the Indian, a black-visaged savage, stood sulkily as if he took no interest at all in the matter, but on my turning my back for some biscuits and jerked beef for the squaws, the "buck" sprang on deck and confronted me, saying in Spanish jargon that we had met before. I thought I recognized the tone of his "yammerschooner," and his full beard identified him as the Black Pedro whom, it was true, I had met before. "Where are the rest of the crew? " he asked, as he looked uneasily around, expecting hands, maybe, to come out of the fore-scuttle and deal him his just deserts for many murders. "About three weeks ago," said he, "when you passed up here, I saw three men on board. Where are the other two?" I answered him briefly that the same crew was still on board. "But," said he, "I see you are doing all the work," and with a leer he added, as he glanced at the mainsail, "hombre valiente." I explained that I did all the work in the day, while the rest of the crew slept, so that they would be fresh to watch for Indians at night. I was interested in the subtle cunning of this savage, knowing him, as I did, better perhaps than he was aware. Even had I not been advised before I sailed from Sandy Point, I should have measured him for an arch-villain now. Moreover, one of the squaws, with that spark of kindliness which is somehow found in the breast of even the lowest savage, warned me by a sign to be on my guard, or Black Pedro would do me harm. There was no need of the warning, however, for I was on my guard from the first, and at that moment held a smart revolver in my hand ready for instant service. "When you sailed through here before," he said, "you fired a shot at me," adding with some warmth that it was "muy malo." I affected not to understand, and said, "You have lived at Sandy Point, have you not?" He answered frankly, "Yes," and appeared delighted to meet one who had come from the dear old place. "At the mission?" I queried. "Why, yes," he replied, stepping forward as if to embrace an old friend. I motioned him back, for I did not share his flattering humour. "And you know Captain Pedro Samblich?" continued I. "Yes," said the villain, who had killed a kinsman of Samblich – "yes, indeed; he is a great friend of mine." "I know it," said I. Samblich had told me to shoot him on sight. Pointing to my rifle on the cabin, he wanted to know how many times it fired. "Cuantos?" said he. When I explained to him that that gun kept right on shooting, his jaw fell, and he spoke of getting away. I did not hinder him from going. I gave the squaws biscuits and beef, and one of them gave me several lumps of tallow in exchange, and I think it worth mentioning that she did not offer me the smallest pieces, but with some extra trouble handed me the largest of all the pieces in the canoe. No Christian could have done more. Before pushing off from the sloop the cunning savage asked for matches, and made as if to reach with the end of his spear the box I was about to give him; but I held it toward him on the muzzle of my rifle, the one that "kept on shooting." The chap picked the box off the gun gingerly enough, to be sure, but he jumped when I said, "Quedao [Look out]," at which the squaws laughed and seemed not at all displeased. Perhaps the wretch had clubbed them that morning for not gathering mussels enough for his breakfast. There was a good understanding among us all. From Charles Island the Spray crossed over to Fortescue Bay, where she anchored and spent a comfortable night under the lee of high land, while the wind howled outside. The bay was deserted now. They were Fortescue Indians whom I had seen at the island, and I felt quite sure they could not follow the Spray in the present hard blow. Not to neglect a precaution, however, I sprinkled tacks on deck before I turned in. On the following day the loneliness of the place was broken by the appearance of a great steamship, making for the anchorage with a lofty bearing. She was no Diego craft. I knew the sheer, the model, and the poise. I threw out my flag, and directly saw the Stars and Stripes flung to the breeze from the great ship. The wind had then abated, and toward night the savages made their appearance from the island, going direct to the steamer to "yammerschooner." Then they came to the Spray to beg more, or to steal all, declaring that they got nothing from the steamer. Black Pedro here came alongside again. My own brother could not have been more delighted to see me, and he begged m! to lend him my rifle to shoot a guanaco for me in the morning. I assured the fellow that if I remained there another day I would lend him the gun, but I had no mind to remain. I gave him a cooper's draw-knife and some other small implements which would be of service in canoe-making, and bade him be off. Under the cover of darkness that night I went to the steamer, which I found to be the Colombia, Captain Henderson, from New York, bound for San Francisco. I carried all my guns along with me, in case it should be necessary to fight my way back. In the chief mate of the Colombia, Mr. Hannibal, I found an old friend, and he referred affectionately to days in Manila when we were there together, he in the Southern Cross and I in the Northern Light, both ships as beautiful as their names. The Colombia had an abundance of fresh stores on board. The captain gave his steward some order, and I remember that the guileless young man asked me if I could manage, besides other things, a few cans of milk and a cheese. When I offered my Montevideo gold for the supplies, the captain roared like a lion and told me to put my money up. It was a glorious outfit of provisions of all kinds that I got. Returning to the Spray, where I found all secure, I prepared for an early start in the morning. It was agreed that the steamer should blow her whistle for me if first on the move. I watched the steamer, off and on, through the night for the pleasure alone of seeing her electric lights, a pleasing sight in contrast to the ordinary Fuegian canoe with a brand of fire in it. The sloop was the first under way, but the Colombia, soon following, passed, and saluted as she went by. Had the captain given me his steamer, his company would have been no worse off than they were two or three months later. I read afterward, in a late California paper, "The Colombia will be a total loss." On her second trip to Panama she was wrecked on the rocks of the California coast. The Spray was then beating against wind and current, as usual in the strait. At this point the tides from the Atlantic and the Pacific meet, and in the strait, as on the outside coast, their meeting makes a commotion of whirlpools and combers that in a gale of wind is dangerous to canoes and other frail craft. A few miles farther along was a large steamer ashore, bottom up. Passing this place, the sloop ran into a streak of light wind, and then – a most remarkable condition for strait weather – it fell entirely calm. Signal-fires sprang up at once on all sides, and then more than twenty canoes hove in sight, all heading for the Spray. As they came within hail, their savage crews cried, "Amigo yammerschooner," "Anclas aqui," "Bueno puerto aqui," and like scraps of Spanish mixed with their own jargon. I had no thought of anchoring in their "good port." I hoisted the sloop's flag and fired a gun, all of which they might construe as a friendly salute or an invitation to come on. They drew up in a semicircle, but kept outside of eighty yards, which in self-defence would have been the death-line. In their mosquito fleet was a ship's boat stolen probably from a murdered crew. Six savages paddled this rather awkwardly with the blades of oars which had been broken off. Two of the savages standing erect wore sea-boots, and this sustained the suspicion that they had fallen upon some luckless ship's crew, and also added a hint that they had already visited the Spray's deck, and would now, if they could, try her again. Their sea-boots, I have no doubt, would have protected their feet and rendered carpet-tacks harmless. Paddling clumsily, they passed down the strait at a distance of a hundred yards from the sloop, in an offhand manner and as if bound to Fortescue Bay. This I judged to be a piece of strategy, and so kept a sharp lookout over a small island which soon came in range between them and the sloop, completely hiding them from view, and toward which the Spray was now drifting helplessly with the tide, and with every prospect of going on the rocks, for there was no anchorage, at least, none that my cables would reach. And, sure enough, I soon saw a movement in the grass, just on top of the island, which is called Bonet Island and is one hundred and thirty-six feet high. I fired several shots over the place, but saw no other sign of the savages. It was they that had moved the grass, for as the sloop swept past the island, the rebound of the tide carrying her clear, there on the other side was the boat, surely enough exposing their cunning and treachery. A stiff breeze, coming up suddenly, now scattered the canoes while it extricated the sloop from a dangerous position, albeit the wind, though friendly, was still ahead. The Spray, flogging against current and wind, made Borgia Bay on the following afternoon, and cast anchor there for the second time. I would now, if I could, describe the moonlit scene on the strait at midnight after I had cleared the savages and Bonet Island. A heavy cloud-bank that had swept across the sky then cleared away, and the night became suddenly as light as day, or nearly so. A high mountain was mirrored in the channel ahead, and the Spray sailing along with her shadow was as two sloops on the sea. The sloop being moored, I threw out my skiff, and with axe and gun landed at the head of the cove, and filled a barrel of water from a stream. Then, as before, there was no sign of Indians at the place. Finding it quite deserted, I rambled about near the beach for an hour or more. The fine weather seemed, somehow, to add loneliness to the place, and when I came upon a spot where a grave was marked I went no farther. Returning to the head of the cove, I came to a sort of Calvary, it appeared to me, where navigators, carrying their cross, had each set one up as a beacon to others coming after. They had anchored here and gone on, all except the one under the little mound. One of the simple marks, curiously enough, had been left there by the steamship Colimbia, sister ship to the Colombia, my neighbour of that morning. I read the names of many other vessels; some of them I copied in my journal, others were illegible. Many of the crosses had decayed and fallen, and many a hand that put them there I had known, many a hand now still. The air of depression was about the place, and I hurried back to the sloop to forget myself again in the voyage. Early the next morning I stood out from Borgia Bay, and off Cape Quod, where the wind fell light, I moored the sloop by kelp in twenty fathoms of water, and held her there a few hours against a three-knot current. That night I anchored in Langara Cove, a few miles farther along, where on the following day I discovered wreckage and goods washed up from the sea. I worked all day now, salving and boating off a cargo to the sloop The bulk of the goods was tallow in casks and in lumps from which the casks had broken away; and embedded in the seaweed was a barrel of wine, which I also towed alongside. I hoisted them all in with the throat-halyards, which I took to the windlass. The weight of some of the casks was a little over eight hundred pounds. There were no Indians about Langara; evidently there had not been any since the great gale which had washed the wreckage on shore. Probably it was the same gale that drove the Spray off Cape Horn from March 3 to 8. Hundreds of tons of kelp had been torn from beds in deep water and rolled up into ridges on the beach. A specimen stalk which I found entire, roots, leaves, and all, measured one hundred and thirty-one feet in length. At this place I filled a barrel of water at night, and on the following day sailed with a fair wind at last. I had not sailed far, however, when I came abreast of more tallow in a small cove, where I anchored, and boated off as before. It rained and snowed hard all that day, and it was no light work carrying tallow in my arms over the boulders on the beach. But I worked on till the Spray was loaded with a full cargo. I was happy then in the prospect of doing a good business farther along on the voyage, for the habits of an old trader would come to the surface. I sailed from the cove about noon, greased from top to toe, while my vessel was tallowed from keelson to truck. My cabin, as well as the hold and deck, was stowed full of tallow, and all were thoroughly smeared. |
Then you admit she did not follow Rule 5 in its entirety? CN OzOne wrote in message ... Hmmm consider this. Ellen did maintain a lookout appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:41:32 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss. Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout. Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case, allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how Rule 5 defines 'proper'. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Jumpin' Jehosaphat, but you people are retarded! OzOne wrote in message ... Define 'proper'. Is it a lookout for every minute while underway, or sufficient to avoid an incident. Radar and active warning devices were more than capable of waking the skipper in the event of an approaching vessel in plenty of time to keep a lookout properly to avoid any incident. On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:23:31 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: BBob, you're as stupid as Vito. Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out. Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . . Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even a Bobsprit clone might understand. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." I hope this helps. CN wrote in message ... On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan" wrote: wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case, would determine whether or not the watch had been proper. BB Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Like I said, you agree, then, that she did not follow Rule 5 in its entirely. . .
CN OzOne wrote in message ... Not at all, She maintained a lookout appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions. On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:30:39 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: Then you admit she did not follow Rule 5 in its entirety? CN OzOne wrote in message ... Hmmm consider this. Ellen did maintain a lookout appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:41:32 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: I've defined proper until I'm blue in the face and you idiots either can't read the definition or choose to not read it and retain your usual ignorant bliss. Rule 5, itself, defines what constitutes a proper lookout. Read it again. Read it with comprehension. In case your language skills are lacking, which seems to be the case, allow me to re-state Rule 5 so you might understand how Rule 5 defines 'proper'. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Jumpin' Jehosaphat, but you people are retarded! OzOne wrote in message ... Define 'proper'. Is it a lookout for every minute while underway, or sufficient to avoid an incident. Radar and active warning devices were more than capable of waking the skipper in the event of an approaching vessel in plenty of time to keep a lookout properly to avoid any incident. On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:23:31 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: BBob, you're as stupid as Vito. Rule 5 defines what constitutes a proper look-out. Try reading it again. Here. I'll make it easy for you. . . Rule 5 Look-out "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." Be so kind as to allow me to re-state it so even a Bobsprit clone might understand. "A proper look-out is defined by every vessel at all times maintaining a look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." I hope this helps. CN wrote in message ... On 8 Feb 2005 09:12:43 -0800, "Dan" wrote: wrote: On 8 Feb 2005 08:55:34 -0800, "Dan" The Colregs do not specify exactly what you have to do to maintain a proper watch at all times. That is purposely left for a court to adjucate on a case by case basis. In that case there must be some prior cases. I'm not disagreeing. I just want some evidence. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. It's possible that no one has ever been brought to court who kept watch by looking around and listening exactly every four hours. What I stated would be true for someone who looked around only every 8 hours. The fact remains that the colregs does not specify what constitutes a proper watch, and it would be up to a court to make the determination. You may think you have some notion of what YOU think is a proper watch, but that is neither part of the colregs, or the opinion of a court. Where does the colregs specify how often you must look around with your eyes for your watch to be considered proper? The court, after hearing the case, would determine whether or not the watch had been proper. BB Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
|
Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:mUaOd.14762$K54.4908@edtnps84... "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... At all times means at all times. How can it be more clear than that. It means you can't be below cooking a meal or you can't be sleeping. You can't be listening to your walkman and you can't be climbing the mast making repairs. You cannot sail solo around the world and comply with Rule 5. Whoa..... that makes Joshua Slocum a "criminal"?? It does not! The COLREGS were not even a gleam in some lawyer's grandfather's eye when the legendary Joshua Slocum was plying his manly trade. Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972. |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Capt. Neal® wrote: "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message news:mUaOd.14762$K54.4908@edtnps84... "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... At all times means at all times. How can it be more clear than that. It means you can't be below cooking a meal or you can't be sleeping. You can't be listening to your walkman and you can't be climbing the mast making repairs. You cannot sail solo around the world and comply with Rule 5. Whoa..... that makes Joshua Slocum a "criminal"?? It does not! The COLREGS were not even a gleam in some lawyer's grandfather's eye when the legendary Joshua Slocum was plying his manly trade. Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972. But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about which I made my true statement. CN |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972. But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about which I made my true statement. CN G Lame, Neal ..... real lame. otn |
"otnmbrd" wrote in message ... Capt. Neal® wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote Wrong again, Neal. Your batting average is only slightly better than jaxie's. The current Colregs (adopted in 1972) obvious did not exist, but most of the major seafaring countries had rules by the 1860's. The first international rules were drafted in 1889, 6 years before Slocum left on his famous voyage. They are surprisingly similar to the current rules, with many of the same phrases. Regarding lookouts: "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case." This was worded the same in the 1948 version, and then lookouts were move to Rule 5 in 1972. But they weren't the COLREGS and it was the COLREGS about which I made my true statement. CN G Lame, Neal ..... real lame. otn Why is it lame to point out the truth? Jeff, himself, wrote the COLREGS were adopted in 1972. That makes my statement about Slocum and the COLREGS entirely true. You people need to take a couple remedial English courses. . . CN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com