"Jeff" wrote
| The Colregs give no particular guidance on this.


Wrong Jeff! There's definitely at least one rule covering it.

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| The Colregs give no particular guidance on this.


Wrong Jeff! There's definitely at least one rule covering it.

Cheers,
Ellen

Don't kill innocent chilfren trying to learn how to sail?

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| The Colregs give no particular guidance on this.


Wrong Jeff! There's definitely at least one rule covering it.

Cheers,
Ellen
Well, of course they both acted to avoid the collision, but whether to
turn left or right is not in the rules. The Opti was standon, but the
way you told it the Hobie bore off so the Opti was free to do
whatever. You could claim that the Opti should have held its course,
but if that's what you were looking for you should have worded it
differently.

"Jeff" wrote
| You could claim that the Opti should have held its course,
| but if that's what you were looking for you should have worded it
| differently.

I do claim the Optimist should have remained on course. The sailing rules
require it to stay on course. That's what stand on means. It means to stay on
the same course and speed. It was on starboard tack.
My wording was as clear as I could make it. It was clear enough for any
sensible person. You can nitpik anything if you've a mind to...

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| You could claim that the Opti should have held its course,
| but if that's what you were looking for you should have worded it
| differently.

I do claim the Optimist should have remained on course. The sailing rules
require it to stay on course. That's what stand on means. It means to stay on
the same course and speed. It was on starboard tack.
My wording was as clear as I could make it. It was clear enough for any
sensible person. You can nitpik anything if you've a mind to...

Cheers,
Ellen

Perhaps a bit of nitpicking, but if that's "as clear as you can make
it" you don't have very good command of the language. If the boats
were a certain distance apart, then the Opti is under no obligation to
hold course. Also, if they are close and "in extremis" the the Opti
must act to avoid collision. The rewording of the '72 rules also says
the standon vessel can alter course earlier if it thinks the giveway
vessel in not taking appropriate action. Thus, there's actually a
relatively small window (if any!) where you could claim the opti
*must* hold its course. Further, by saying the cat bore off and the
opti headed up, you open the possibility that the cat bore off first.
If I was in the opti I would probably head up the instant I sensed
the cat was bearing off.

Unless you can state the problem so that it clear you're talking about
the standon obligation, you should pick a different scenario.

"Jeff" wrote
| Unless you can state the problem so that it clear you're talking about
| the standon obligation, you should pick a different scenario.

I thought it was pretty clear. I gave courses and speeds. You guys just like to imagine complications that
don't exist. It was a head-on situation just like in the rules. I was making a point. Head-on for sailboats is not
the same as head-on for motor powered boats.

Cheers,
Ellen

There is no requirement for the Opti to hold course. Sorry, but from what
you described that's a fact.

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

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

"Jeff" wrote
| Unless you can state the problem so that it clear you're talking about
| the standon obligation, you should pick a different scenario.

I thought it was pretty clear. I gave courses and speeds. You guys
just like to imagine complications that
don't exist. It was a head-on situation just like in the rules. I was
making a point. Head-on for sailboats is not
the same as head-on for motor powered boats.

Cheers,
Ellen