Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"DSK" wrote
| Agreed, if they're not racing, then ColRegs says A is not
| under command and B should give way.

Doug, you win. The Sunfish in irons is N.U.C. and a sailboat mustn't hit N.U.C. boats of any sort.
I knew you were intelligent. (wink)

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.

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.

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. Some people think these cases are rare, but in
practice, special circumstances situations are very common, and we
deal with them without thinking. For example, we wait for boats
backing out of slips and maneuvering in tight situations without
considering exactly which rule covers this. Human powered rowboats
and kayaks have no special status, but we usually avoid running them
down.

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.

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?

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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.

I'm wondering if it would have been better to stay with the sailboat, rather
than abandon ship... comments?

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.

As I remember, the boat came through just fine.

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I'm wondering if it would have been better to stay with
the sailboat, rather
than abandon ship... comments?

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Yes, the boat had no problem, the sailors were put back onboard and
they continued on.

Given my limited swimming ability, I would stay with the boat simple
because I doubt if I could get far enough away to improve my chances.
But I understand that many people have the fear that the boat will
get sucked under, and they along with it. I wonder if that really
happens?


Scotty wrote:
As I remember, the boat came through just fine.

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I'm wondering if it would have been better to stay with
the sailboat, rather
than abandon ship... comments?

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.