My seamanship question #2
 

"Jeff" wrote

| Sorry, NUC is reserved for "exceptional circumstance." There are far
| more appropriate reasons in the regs to avoid the collision. "Special
| circumstances" or "limitations of vessels" would apply. And
| certainly, any vessel with the ability to avoid the collision is
| required to do so.

Being in irons and not being able to get out of irons is an *exceptional*
circumstance. I don't think *special* circumstance applies to N.U.C. boats.
Exceptional circumstance includes a boat unable to maneuver to keep out
of the way of other vessels. You can't maneuver when your in irons going
backwards in a current.

| If the rudder or mast had broken, or if the skipper was injured, you
| might be able to claim NUC status applied, but simple incompetence is
| not enough. Also, on this boat with a breeze there is no reason to be
| in irons for more than a few seconds.

Sorry but it's not always incompetence when you get in irons. Sometimes
it just happens. It could be a badly designed boat. Sunfish get in irons
all the time...

| However, there is nothing in the rules that explicitly covers the
| situation of in irons, it is not port/starboard or windward/leeward
| and the various powerboat rules don't apply. In these cases, "special
| circumstances" apply.

Nyut ah! Special circumstances is more about more than two boats involved.
It doesn't apply to two boats unless there isn't a rule and in this case there's
a rule. N.U.C.

| Thus the answer is not that boat B be should avoid the collision
| because boat A was NUC, its that boat B should avoid the collision
| because it can.

*AND* because a sailboat mustn't get near enough to N.U.C. boats to hit them.

| BTW, NUC is a condition that implies other should avoid hitting you.
| It does not absolve you of responsibility. Consider this
| situation: a 25 foot sloop crosses a major shipping lane at night and
| becomes becalmed in front of an oncoming tanker. They try to start
| the outboard and break the throttle. The tanker runs aground to avoid
| collision. Who is at fault?

A shipping lane doesn't give a ship any extra rights. (or did you mean a
narrow channel?) The tanker needs to alter course so it won't hit the sailboat
and since it's also N.U.C. it goes double. If the tanker ran aground, it's his
own fault.


Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message
reenews.ne
t...


| BTW, NUC is a condition that implies other should avoid
hitting you.
| It does not absolve you of responsibility. Consider
this
| situation: a 25 foot sloop crosses a major shipping lane
at night and
| becomes becalmed in front of an oncoming tanker. They
try to start
| the outboard and break the throttle. The tanker runs
aground to avoid
| collision. Who is at fault?

A shipping lane doesn't give a ship any extra rights.
(or did you mean a
narrow channel?) The tanker needs to alter course so it
won't hit the sailboat
and since it's also N.U.C. it goes double. If the tanker
ran aground, it's his
own fault.


The courts don't agree with you.

SBV

My seamanship question #2
 

"Scotty" wrote
| The courts don't agree with you.


My doubles partner doesn't seem to think so. ;-)
(turnabout's fair play, huh Scotty?)

Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
Nyut ah! Special circumstances is more about more than two boats involved.
It doesn't apply to two boats unless there isn't a rule and in this case there's
a rule. N.U.C.



How was vessel 2 to know the other was N.U.C. ? Did the captain of the
vessel in iron's switch on the NUC lights, or hoist two balls into the
rigging before the other Sunfish collided?

Joe


Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

In the situation you described, being in irons isn't exceptional and is easy
to remedy. It's incompetence that keeps you in irons in this situation.

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

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jeff" wrote

| Sorry, NUC is reserved for "exceptional circumstance." There are far
| more appropriate reasons in the regs to avoid the collision. "Special
| circumstances" or "limitations of vessels" would apply. And
| certainly, any vessel with the ability to avoid the collision is
| required to do so.

Being in irons and not being able to get out of irons is an
*exceptional*
circumstance. I don't think *special* circumstance applies to N.U.C.
boats.
Exceptional circumstance includes a boat unable to maneuver to keep out
of the way of other vessels. You can't maneuver when your in irons going
backwards in a current.

| If the rudder or mast had broken, or if the skipper was injured, you
| might be able to claim NUC status applied, but simple incompetence is
| not enough. Also, on this boat with a breeze there is no reason to be
| in irons for more than a few seconds.

Sorry but it's not always incompetence when you get in irons.
Sometimes
it just happens. It could be a badly designed boat. Sunfish get in irons
all the time...

| However, there is nothing in the rules that explicitly covers the
| situation of in irons, it is not port/starboard or windward/leeward
| and the various powerboat rules don't apply. In these cases, "special
| circumstances" apply.

Nyut ah! Special circumstances is more about more than two boats
involved.
It doesn't apply to two boats unless there isn't a rule and in this case
there's
a rule. N.U.C.

| Thus the answer is not that boat B be should avoid the collision
| because boat A was NUC, its that boat B should avoid the collision
| because it can.

*AND* because a sailboat mustn't get near enough to N.U.C. boats to hit
them.

| BTW, NUC is a condition that implies other should avoid hitting you.
| It does not absolve you of responsibility. Consider this
| situation: a 25 foot sloop crosses a major shipping lane at night and
| becomes becalmed in front of an oncoming tanker. They try to start
| the outboard and break the throttle. The tanker runs aground to avoid
| collision. Who is at fault?

A shipping lane doesn't give a ship any extra rights. (or did you mean
a
narrow channel?) The tanker needs to alter course so it won't hit the
sailboat
and since it's also N.U.C. it goes double. If the tanker ran aground, it's
his
own fault.


Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote

| Sorry, NUC is reserved for "exceptional circumstance." There are far
| more appropriate reasons in the regs to avoid the collision. "Special
| circumstances" or "limitations of vessels" would apply. And
| certainly, any vessel with the ability to avoid the collision is
| required to do so.

Being in irons and not being able to get out of irons is an *exceptional*
circumstance. I don't think *special* circumstance applies to N.U.C. boats.
Exceptional circumstance includes a boat unable to maneuver to keep out
of the way of other vessels. You can't maneuver when your in irons going
backwards in a current.

Claiming that the current has any bearing on this shows that you do
not understand how a boat works, and pretty much disqualifies your
opinion. The current has no observable affect if land based features
are not considered. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

Many boats (including mine, including sunfish) sometimes have
difficulty tacking so getting stuck in irons is certainly not
exceptional. As you say below, sometimes it just happens. This is to
be anticipated.

Further, with this boat it is possible to get out of irons within a
few seconds simply by backing the sail. Frankly, I've sailed entire
downwind legs of races going backwards with the sail backed. This
does not in any way prevent you from maneuvering.


| If the rudder or mast had broken, or if the skipper was injured, you
| might be able to claim NUC status applied, but simple incompetence is
| not enough. Also, on this boat with a breeze there is no reason to be
| in irons for more than a few seconds.

Sorry but it's not always incompetence when you get in irons. Sometimes
it just happens. It could be a badly designed boat. Sunfish get in irons
all the time...

And therefore you claim its exceptional??? No, this is a reason why
it should be anticipated, and you should know how to deal with it.


| However, there is nothing in the rules that explicitly covers the
| situation of in irons, it is not port/starboard or windward/leeward
| and the various powerboat rules don't apply. In these cases, "special
| circumstances" apply.

Nyut ah! Special circumstances is more about more than two boats involved.
It doesn't apply to two boats unless there isn't a rule and in this case there's
a rule. N.U.C.

Circular logic. The discussion is not whether its OK to hit the boat.
It's whether it has NUC status.

Special circumstances is about many situations, some of them including
more than 2 boats. And it covers boats in irons.


| Thus the answer is not that boat B be should avoid the collision
| because boat A was NUC, its that boat B should avoid the collision
| because it can.

*AND* because a sailboat mustn't get near enough to N.U.C. boats to hit them.

"Getting near enough to hit" is a tautology. If you don't actually
hit, you're not near enough! But, you shouldn't hit any boat,
regardless of its status.

What you probably mean to say is you shouldn't increase the risk of
collision.


| BTW, NUC is a condition that implies other should avoid hitting you.
| It does not absolve you of responsibility. Consider this
| situation: a 25 foot sloop crosses a major shipping lane at night and
| becomes becalmed in front of an oncoming tanker. They try to start
| the outboard and break the throttle. The tanker runs aground to avoid
| collision. Who is at fault?

A shipping lane doesn't give a ship any extra rights. (or did you mean a
narrow channel?) The tanker needs to alter course so it won't hit the sailboat
and since it's also N.U.C. it goes double. If the tanker ran aground, it's his
own fault.

This was in the Chesapeake shipping channel, and the fact that the
tanker ran aground to avoid the collision should be a good clue that
it is a narrow channel.

The woman sailing received a substantial fine. Being a NUC (and I
doubt she was even given that) did not absolve her of any liability.
All it does is means that the other boat has to stay clear as
specified in Rule 16. Otherwise, it has to avoid collision as
specified in 17(b), or in several other rules. Actually, since rule 9
applies in this case, the sailboat shouldn't have "impeded" the tanker
even it if was a NUC.

Here's a report:

Baltimore Sun, 8/18/2001 - Sailing Trip Turns Treacherous.
Sailboat Meets 700-foot Tanker
One Mile North of the Bay Bridge in the Craighill Shipping Channel - A
couple tacking southbound at 3 a.m. in a 27-foot Catalina were unable
to get out of the way of a northbound 700-foot tanker loaded with 10
million gallons of fuel. The wind had died & the sailboat's skipper
broke the key to the outboard motor and was unable to use the radio to
effect. Before the collision, the couple abandoned their boat, wearing
life jackets & carrying a whistle and rope (to avoid being separated.)
The tanker brushed past the sailboat. The couple were rescued after 2
hours and a search effort by boats & helicopters from six federal,
state and local rescue teams. The tanker ran aground, briefly, but was
refloated without damage or loss of fuel. The sailboat remained
operational and was returned to the unhurt couple who sailed it to
their destination.

from the 11/15/2001 Baltimore Sun:
The operator of a sailboat who, with the skipper, jumped overboard to
avoid an oil tanker which was bearing down on them in the darkness was
fined for blocking a shipping channel, and was ordered by the judge to
take a boating safety course.

A DNR representative said that small boats are supposed to yield to
large vessels that have less room to maneuver, and that the episode
should teach boaters the dangers of sailing by starlight, and the
necessity of learning the rules of the 'water'. "They should follow
the boating safety laws and rules the state sets forth". DNR offers
frequent boating safety courses throughout the state.

My seamanship question #2
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:06:45 -0400, Jeff said:

Both skippers are likely incompetent and their testimony
is therefore unreliable.

That's a non-sequitur. In fact if both are incompetent, their testimony may
be more reliable, as they haven't the knowledge to lie in a manner favorable
to their case.

Of course, I would not assume anyone would lie. Only a lawyer would
assume that.

My seamanship question #2
 

If the wind is pushing you backwards the rudder will work and you should be
able to regain control. The other boat should have taken avoiding action
anyway.

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...
You are sailing your Sunfish. There's a lot of current where your
sailing and the
wind is pretty strong and blowing the same direction the currents going.
You tack and get in irons. The wind pushes you backwards and the
current pushes
you backwards. Your sail flutters and your rudder doesn't work. Suddenly
another
Sunfish runs into the side of your boat.
Who's at fault for the collision and why?


Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

"Edgar" wrote
| If the wind is pushing you backwards the rudder will work and you should be
| able to regain control. The other boat should have taken avoiding action
| anyway.


Didn't I say there was a strong current going the same way as the wind?
Your in irons. The wind is blowing you backwards. The current is going backwards
about the same speed. There isn't any water going past the rudder. That makes the
rudder not work. It has to have some speed through the water to work. The only thing
that might work is like somebody else said. You can try backing the sail by hand but
that's not easy on a sunfish. It's narrow and tippy.
And your right the Hobie Cat should have turned away and the Optimist should
have held its course.

Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Edgar" wrote
| If the wind is pushing you backwards the rudder will work and you should be
| able to regain control. The other boat should have taken avoiding action
| anyway.



Let me say this again: The current has NO affect. If the boats were
out of sight of land and had no GPS (or other such instruments) they
would be unable to even detect the current. If there is a 20 knot
wind from the North, and a 5 knot current running South, all the
sailor knows is that there is a 15 knot breeze.


Didn't I say there was a strong current going the same way as the wind?
Your in irons. The wind is blowing you backwards. The current is going backwards
about the same speed.

No it doesn't quite work that way. The current is always pushing you
backwards over the ground. When the wind pushes you backwards it
means backwards through the water.

There isn't any water going past the rudder. That makes the
rudder not work. It has to have some speed through the water to work.

No, when the wind starts "pushing you backwards" you will have
sternway through the water. And then your rudder works.

The only thing
that might work is like somebody else said. You can try backing the sail by hand but
that's not easy on a sunfish. It's narrow and tippy.

If that's the case, you really shouldn't be sailing the boat! You
said in another post that this boat frequently gets stuck in irons; if
its too difficult to deal with that, you shouldn't be out there.
Incompetence does not make you a NUC!