My seamanship question #2
 

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
 

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


1. The guy that rented the two Sunfishes to two morons that
don't know how to sail.

2. Because he should have known better when he heard you
yell, ''Dee Dee Dee''.


Scotty

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
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


You''re both at fault for not having control of your respective vessels...

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
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


The current is irrelevant. All you have is boat A blew a tack and
while it was in irons, boat B hit it. If A tacked too close, it could
be A's fault. Otherwise, B gets most of the blame.

However, I don't see why the rudder wouldn't work - with even the
smallest amount of sternway it should be possible to get out of irons
immediately. Both skippers are likely incompetent and their testimony
is therefore unreliable.

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
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?


Sorry, my rudder never "doesn't work." But I know it
occasionally happens to others... an Sunfish are pretty easy
to get in irons anyway, especially with the old rudder
design (round tip profile).


Jeff wrote:
The current is irrelevant. All you have is boat A blew a tack and while
it was in irons, boat B hit it. If A tacked too close, it could be A's
fault. Otherwise, B gets most of the blame.


Agreed, if they're not racing, then ColRegs says A is not
under command and B should give way. If they are racing then
it's A's fault under the IYRU rules which say that a boat
which is tacking shall keep clear of a boat on a tack.



However, I don't see why the rudder wouldn't work - with even the
smallest amount of sternway it should be possible to get out of irons
immediately. Both skippers are likely incompetent and their testimony
is therefore unreliable.

What "Ellen" was trying to say is that the boat could be
making sternway at approx the same rate as the current,
leaving the boat effectively dead in the water and the
rudder would have no 'bite.' That's aside from getting stuck
in irons which some boats do from sheer pig-headedness... in
fact Hobie 16s and Sunfish are probably the worst I know of
for this.

If the skipper knows how to back the sail, or scull with the
rudder, or roll-tack, this doesn't happen (or at least, it
happens far less frequently).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

My seamanship question #2
 

DSK wrote:
....
What "Ellen" was trying to say is that the boat could be making sternway
at approx the same rate as the current, leaving the boat effectively
dead in the water and the rudder would have no 'bite.'

Yes, I guess that's what she's thinking. But from the perspective of
the two sailors, the current doesn't exist. If there was a fixed
object, like a starting line, then this gets more interesting.

My seamanship question #2
 

DSK wrote:
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
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?


Sorry, my rudder never "doesn't work." But I know it occasionally
happens to others... an Sunfish are pretty easy to get in irons anyway,
especially with the old rudder design (round tip profile).


Jeff wrote:
The current is irrelevant. All you have is boat A blew a tack and
while it was in irons, boat B hit it. If A tacked too close, it could
be A's fault. Otherwise, B gets most of the blame.


Agreed, if they're not racing, then ColRegs says A is not under command
and B should give way. If they are racing then it's A's fault under the
IYRU rules which say that a boat which is tacking shall keep clear of a
boat on a tack.

I've always wondered about claiming NUC in these cases. Clearly, the
letter of the law isn't followed if you don't show the appropriate
signals. However, its been ruled that obvious signs like the outboard
cover off are close enough. While the luffing sails could be
considered a clear signal, being in irons is not an "exceptional
circumstance" as required by the rule.

OTOH, rule 2 certainly would cover this under "limitations of vessels."

My seamanship question #2
 

You for being stupid. The other boat for hitting you.

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

"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
 

"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)


Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

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?

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!

My seamanship question #2
 

"Jeff" wrote
| 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.


Oh fooey! This is getting hopeless..
Jeff, your just wrong! Your in irons. Your not going foward. The wind's
pushing you backwards. The sail is banging around in the middle of the boat.
If there's no current water will be going by you from back to front. The rudder
will work but opposite of how it usually works.
In this case there's a current going the same direction as the wind and
about the same speed. Your going backwards and the water is going backwards
at the same speed. The rudder has no motion through the water. It won't work.
I can't see why you keep talking about land. It's got nothing to do with
land. Only wind, current and water.


Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

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.

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| 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.


Oh fooey! This is getting hopeless..

No, this is the most fun I've had since Jaxashby disappeared.


Jeff, your just wrong!
Oh No!

Your in irons.
OK

Your not going foward.
If there was a current I might never have been going forward. Think
about it.


The wind's pushing you backwards.

Backwards over the ground or through the water? If its over the
ground, how would I know? If its through the water, then the rudder
works!

The sail is banging around in the middle of the boat.
enough of the drama ...


If there's no current water will be going by you from back to front. The rudder
will work

Yes, I'm glad you understand this.

but opposite of how it usually works.

That depends how you look at it.

In this case there's a current going the same direction as the wind and
about the same speed.
Ahhh! We have a problem here. If the wind and the current is the
same speed and direction, then the boat (and all other boats in the
vicinity) feel no wind - it will effectively be flat calm, and the
alleged collision could not happen.

However, you stated there was both a strong wind and a strong current.
To my way of thinking, a strong current is between 3 and 6 knots,
beyond that would be extremely strong and only rarely encountered by
most sailors. However, a strong wind would be at least 15 knots, and
many would consider that pretty wimpy. If the "strong current" was 5
knots, and the "strong wind" was 20, this would be indistinguishable
from 15 knots of wind with no current.

Your going backwards and the water is going backwards
at the same speed. The rudder has no motion through the water.

No. This point is the identical to (and indistinguishable from) the
point where with no current, you stopped moving forwards. Immediately
following that, you start moving backwards, assuming the wind is
stronger than the current.

It won't work.
I can't see why you keep talking about land. It's got nothing to do with
land. Only wind, current and water.

It is only by looking at the land that you can tell there is a
current. If this concept illudes you, consider reading any physics
text written in the last 400 years, starting with Galileo's Theory of
Relativity.

My seamanship question #2
 

"Jeff" wrote
(lots of things that don't matter so I deleted them)

THIS is what matters and this is what happened in my question.
Your just being thick on purpose. Your wrong and I can prove it with an example.
In irons and the wind is pushing you backwards at 2 miles an hour over the bottom.
The current is going the same direction over the ground and at the same speed. 2 mph!
Your going backwards over the ground at 4 mph. Not through the water.
The boat has NO freaking motion through the water and the rudder won't work.
Duh! Forget about looking at the land. There doesn't have to be any land in sight
and you're still dead in the water.
Enough!

Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

Jeff wrote:
.... If the wind and the current is the same
speed and direction, then the boat (and all other boats in the vicinity)
feel no wind - it will effectively be flat calm, and the alleged
collision could not happen.


Are you saying that if the wind and current are from the
same direction at the same speed, then boats could not
sail?!??!!

Think it over Jeff, a guy who is familiar with applying
Maxwell's equations... much less one with your experience...
ought to know the answer.

Fresh Breezes (and currents)- Doug King

My seamanship question #2
 

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.

My seamanship question #2
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote



.
In irons and the wind is pushing you backwards at 2
miles an hour over the bottom.
The current is going the same direction over the ground
and at the same speed. 2 mph!
Your going backwards over the ground at 4 mph. Not
through the water.
The boat has NO freaking motion through the water and
the rudder won't work.
Duh! Forget about looking at the land. There doesn't have
to be any land in sight
and you're still dead in the water.
Enough!


If your boat is going backward at 4 MPH, and the current is
2 MPH ( that really should be in knots) then your rudder
should work just fine.

You're blond, aren't you?

Scotty

My seamanship question #2
 

DSK wrote:
Jeff wrote:
.... If the wind and the current is the same speed and direction,
then the boat (and all other boats in the vicinity) feel no wind - it
will effectively be flat calm, and the alleged collision could not
happen.


Are you saying that if the wind and current are from the same direction
at the same speed, then boats could not sail?!??!!

Think it over Jeff, a guy who is familiar with applying Maxwell's
equations... much less one with your experience... ought to know the
answer.

Fresh Breezes (and currents)- Doug King


Oh No! You've caused me to have Doubt!!!

Let's see - I'm sitting on my sailfish drifting south in a 2 knot
current. I blow a soap bubble and let it loose in a 2 knot true
breeze from the North. It drifts in the wind, headed south at 2 knots.
It sure seems like that soap bubble will sit over my boat. If the
apparent wind is not strong enough to blow a soap bubble into my sail,
I'd have to say I'm becalmed.

Let me try again. The true wind is 20 mph. I get in my XKE
convertible and drive 20 mph downwind. My daughter tries to fly a
kite from the passenger seat, but with zero apparent wind fails.

Again: I'm headed south to the Vineyard. Being a lazy SOB I'm
running both engines doing 8 knots. My wind indicator says zero knots
apparent. What's the true wind? What would happen if I raised sail
but kept the engines running? Why is this any different from being in
a southerly current?

What am I missing? (and I hope you're not referring back to the
kinetics discussion)

My seamanship question #2
 

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.

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
(lots of things that don't matter so I deleted them)

I you have any intention of understanding how boats work, or how to do
basic navigation, you will have to learn this stuff.


THIS is what matters and this is what happened in my question.
Your just being thick on purpose. Your wrong and I can prove it with an example.

If I'm being thick (and its happened once or twice before) I'm
certainly not doing it on purpose.


In irons and the wind is pushing you backwards at 2 miles an hour over the bottom.
The current is going the same direction over the ground and at the same speed. 2 mph!
Your going backwards over the ground at 4 mph. Not through the water.
The boat has NO freaking motion through the water and the rudder won't work.

Hello?! If the boat is moving 4 mph over ground, but the current is
only 2 mph, then the boat must be moving 2 mph through the water!
Thus the rudder works.

I knew you'd come around to my way of thinking.

Duh! Forget about looking at the land. There doesn't have to be any land in sight
and you're still dead in the water.

Consider this: assuming the current and the wind have different
strengths (which is the original question) if you get into irons you
will start to slow down. Then you will be dead in the water. Then
you will start to go backwards. at this point your rudder works
again. There is no magic that says if there's a current you can't go
backwards through the water.

Consider also: you've been plopped in the ocean with no position
revealing instruments, but you do have speed and wind gauges. You
sail for some time and then get rescued. Your rescuers ask if you
encountered any current. What can you tell them?

Enough!

never!

My seamanship question #2
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:

As kids, we often conducted informal backwards races in small boats around a
course. You probably did the same.


Actually, my intercollegiate teams did it in practice once a season,
and when I taught I included that, and rudderless sailing as advanced
topics.

My seamanship question #2
 

DSK wrote:
Jeff wrote:
.... If the wind and the current is the same speed and direction,
then the boat (and all other boats in the vicinity) feel no wind - it
will effectively be flat calm, and the alleged collision could not
happen.


Are you saying that if the wind and current are from the same direction
at the same speed, then boats could not sail?!??!!

Think it over Jeff, a guy who is familiar with applying Maxwell's
equations... much less one with your experience... ought to know the
answer.

Ah Ha! I got it! If you want to sail you set the anchor! OK, now I
can go to sleep.

My seamanship question #2
 

What I've heard is that it slams against the hull and fractures. Not sure if
this is true. Sure as **** don't want to try it.

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.

My seamanship question #2
 

Wait a sec... it's a sunfish. You could easily move the rudder and the sail
to get it moving.

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

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

"Jeff" wrote
(lots of things that don't matter so I deleted them)

THIS is what matters and this is what happened in my question.
Your just being thick on purpose. Your wrong and I can prove it with
an example.
In irons and the wind is pushing you backwards at 2 miles an hour over
the bottom.
The current is going the same direction over the ground and at the same
speed. 2 mph!
Your going backwards over the ground at 4 mph. Not through the water.
The boat has NO freaking motion through the water and the rudder won't
work.
Duh! Forget about looking at the land. There doesn't have to be any land
in sight
and you're still dead in the water.
Enough!

Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

I used to sail on a Sunfish in college off the coast of North County San
Diego. That's exactly what we did from time to time. Down wind all the way
to La Jolla, then we hitchhiked back with the boat. Of course, sometimes we
had to wait a bit for a pickup.

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

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:32:49 -0400, "Ellen MacArthur"
wrote:


"Jeff" wrote
(lots of things that don't matter so I deleted them)

THIS is what matters and this is what happened in my question.
Your just being thick on purpose. Your wrong and I can prove it with
an example.
In irons and the wind is pushing you backwards at 2 miles an hour
over the bottom.
The current is going the same direction over the ground and at the same
speed. 2 mph!
Your going backwards over the ground at 4 mph. Not through the water.
The boat has NO freaking motion through the water and the rudder
won't work.
Duh! Forget about looking at the land. There doesn't have to be any land
in sight
and you're still dead in the water.
Enough!

Cheers,
Ellen



If the wind is pushing you backwards, then that means there is wind. On a
Sunfish, you simply grab the boom with your hand and push it out into the
wind
that is blowing you backwards. You will now be in Alcort's undocumented
"reverse
gear" and you will have instant rudder control. For that matter, it's a
SUNFISH,
so you can either paddle with your hands like a surfboard, or dive in the
water
and push or pull it. Yank the dagger board and paddle with that if it
thrills
you. The only way I would ever consider a Sunfish NUC is if it is
capsized, or
it was adrift with no one alive and consious on it.

CWM

My seamanship question #2
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:04:16 -0400, "Scotty"
wrote:


"Ellen MacArthur" wrote



.
In irons and the wind is pushing you backwards at
2
miles an hour over the bottom.
The current is going the same direction over the ground
and at the same speed. 2 mph!
Your going backwards over the ground at 4 mph. Not
through the water.
The boat has NO freaking motion through the water
and
the rudder won't work.
Duh! Forget about looking at the land. There doesn't
have
to be any land in sight
and you're still dead in the water.
Enough!


If your boat is going backward at 4 MPH, and the current
is
2 MPH ( that really should be in knots) then your rudder
should work just fine.

You're blond, aren't you?

Scotty


She also said the wind was pushing her backwards at 2 mph.
That doesn't mean the
wind was blowing at 2 mph.


Your point?

My seamanship question #2
 

I would think it has more of a chance being pushed away from
the ship, or at least along the side. Joe probably knows,
I'm sure he's run over a sailboat or two.

Scotty


"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.

My seamanship question #2
 

"Jeff" wrote |
Hello?! If the boat is moving 4 mph over ground, but the current is
| only 2 mph, then the boat must be moving 2 mph through the water!
| Thus the rudder works.

Well, it doesn't work very good. :-O~

| Consider also: you've been plopped in the ocean with no position
| revealing instruments, but you do have speed and wind gauges. You
| sail for some time and then get rescued. Your rescuers ask if you
| encountered any current. What can you tell them?

Nothing but I can tell them if my rudder worked or not. If there's wind
but no current then it will work in irons because the boat goes backwards.
Look at it this way. The rudder feels a current going by it. (if it could feel).
How fast the current goes past land doesn't matter. Only what matters
is current passing the rudder. If the wind is pushing you back at the same
speed the current's going back the rudder feels no current. Oh, and it's
the same for trying to back the sail by hand. Even if the wind's blowing
10 mph if you're pushed backwards at 10 mph the sail won't feel any wind.
It'll think it's calm out.

Cheers,
Ellen

My seamanship question #2
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message
reenews.ne
t...
Oh, and it's
the same for trying to back the sail by hand. Even if the
wind's blowing
10 mph if you're pushed backwards at 10 mph the sail won't
feel any wind.
It'll think it's calm out.


WTF ?

My seamanship question #2
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote |
Hello?! If the boat is moving 4 mph over ground, but the current is
| only 2 mph, then the boat must be moving 2 mph through the water!
| Thus the rudder works.

Well, it doesn't work very good. :-O~

| Consider also: you've been plopped in the ocean with no position
| revealing instruments, but you do have speed and wind gauges. You
| sail for some time and then get rescued. Your rescuers ask if you
| encountered any current. What can you tell them?

Nothing but I can tell them if my rudder worked or not. If there's wind
but no current then it will work in irons because the boat goes backwards.
Look at it this way. The rudder feels a current going by it. (if it could feel).

NO NO NO! This is your mistake. The rudder does not feel the current
because the boat and the rudder are always being pushed by the
current. If the boat were anchored, then it could feel the current.
Drifting free, there is no way to know there is a current. There is
no observable affect.

Another analogy: if you're flying on a plane, at a steady speed, do
you feel the chair pushing you at 500 mph? In one of Galileo's works
on "relativity" he asked if a fly in a cabin on a boat would be
affected by the boat's forward motion - would it fly any differently?

This is all the same thing. When the medium in/on which you're
traveling is in constant motion, its very hard to detect that motion.


How fast the current goes past land doesn't matter. Only what matters
is current passing the rudder. If the wind is pushing you back at the same
speed the current's going back the rudder feels no current.

Again, NO. The current is already pushing you back at the speed of
the current. This is unobservable to you, except that it alters the
perceived wind. If the wind also pushes you back that will be
"through the water" and you will sense that as sternway.

Oh, and it's
the same for trying to back the sail by hand. Even if the wind's blowing
10 mph if you're pushed backwards at 10 mph the sail won't feel any wind.
It'll think it's calm out.

As I said, if the current is the same strength as the true wind (and
going in the same direction) it will feel like you're becalmed. In
fact, it is indistinguishable from being becalmed. But this only hold
when the wind and current are the same. In general, you subtract
(in a vector way) the current from the true wind and you have the
observable wind.