It doesn't have special rights.

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

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:38:19 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:13:14 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Ding! Right answer.

Nope. Don't know enough. Always reverts to "least manueverable
vessel"



Frank

Where does a seaplane figure in?

CWM

In the middle of the bay???

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

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:01:44 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:13:14 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Ding! Right answer.

Nope. Don't know enough. Always reverts to "least manueverable
vessel"



Frank
That explains why I always see sport fishermen not giving way to
sailboats. (Really - this is by far the most common flagrant violation
I see.) They just assume the sailboat is more maneuverable.




So Frank, what additional information do you think is needed?

The statement, "neither vessel is channel bound"

Capt. JG wrote:
In the middle of the bay???

Yes, that was my first thought, but there are lots of wide open bays
with a narrow channel down the middle. Galveston comes to mind.

Jeff wrote:
Capt. JG wrote:
In the middle of the bay???

Yes, that was my first thought, but there are lots of wide open bays
with a narrow channel down the middle. Galveston comes to mind.

Would taht channel be International Water, though?

katy wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Capt. JG wrote:
In the middle of the bay???

Yes, that was my first thought, but there are lots of wide open bays
with a narrow channel down the middle. Galveston comes to mind.

Would taht channel be International Water, though?
No, I think Galveston Bay is all Inland, but this question didn't
specify Intl.

Since she was not specific, I used that (lack of) information to make my
judgement.

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Capt. JG wrote:
In the middle of the bay???

Yes, that was my first thought, but there are lots of wide open bays with
a narrow channel down the middle. Galveston comes to mind.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:38:40 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

In the middle of the bay???


The Mississippi Sound is 12-15 miles wide and it has about four north
south channels and an east west channel down the middle. St Joe's Bay
is probably about six miles wide at the widest point and it has a
channel running diagonally from the point to Port St. Joe and another
going the length of the bay.

Many fishing boats that ordinarily would leave the channel are using
it in the sound post Katrina to avoid any obstructions that have not
been cleared, marked or noted in notices to mariners.

I personnally have tacked up Gulfport small craft channel (at one
point about 40' across), with a dead engine in a boat drawing 5' and
had teenagers on sunfish screaming starboard at me. They might need
to go back to the sailing school and learn the meaning of "least
manueverable".

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
....

I personnally have tacked up Gulfport small craft channel (at one
point about 40' across), with a dead engine in a boat drawing 5' and
had teenagers on sunfish screaming starboard at me. They might need
to go back to the sailing school and learn the meaning of "least
manueverable".

Frank

OK, I have to ask. What is the rule of "Least Maneuverable"? Is this
some special local rule down in the Gulf? I scanned the Colregs and
it doesn't show up there.

You invoked that before but didn't quite explain. Did you mean that
the sport fisherman has right of way because its less maneuverable?

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:35:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

I personnally have tacked up Gulfport small craft channel (at one
point about 40' across), with a dead engine in a boat drawing 5' and
had teenagers on sunfish screaming starboard at me. They might need
to go back to the sailing school and learn the meaning of "least
manueverable".

Frank

OK, I have to ask. What is the rule of "Least Maneuverable"? Is this
some special local rule down in the Gulf? I scanned the Colregs and
it doesn't show up there.

You invoked that before but didn't quite explain. Did you mean that
the sport fisherman has right of way because its less maneuverable?


Truth be known, I don't think I have ever read it. It was explained
to me in a piloting course I took many years ago in the context that
sailing vessels don't automatically have right of way over power
boats.

And it may always be determined after the fact, i.e. in the courts if
there is an incident.

Concept is simple. In the example above, my channel bound boat
tacking to windward in a narrow channel always has the right of way
over a sunfish that is not channel bound, regardless of what tack I'm
on. Because I am " least manueverable" given the narrow amount of
room I have to manuever.

If you are sailing and on intersection with a supertanker that
requires miles to stop or change course, even if not channel bound,
least manueverable is the rule.

If you are sailing and approaching a barge train of two or three coal
barges heading for the power plant, they will always be considered
"least manueverable" and have right of way.

If the sport fisherman is channel bound, and you are not, it is your
obligation to avoid, if on a collusion course that would occur in the
channel.

at least that is the way it was explained to me in the course.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
OK, I have to ask. What is the rule of "Least Maneuverable"?
....

Truth be known, I don't think I have ever read it. It was explained
to me in a piloting course I took many years ago in the context that
sailing vessels don't automatically have right of way over power
boats.

I have to say I have a *huge* problem with this. I don't mean to say
that I wouldn't give a wide berth to a vessel that has a
maneuverability problem, but the way you're presenting it, we are
supposed to ignore the Colregs, and sort out situations in a way that
would place vessels on some sort of maneuverability continuum.


And it may always be determined after the fact, i.e. in the courts if
there is an incident.

The courts tend to follow a fairly strict interpretation of the rules
- departures are generally frowned upon. It does seem that they've
allowed vessels to go faster than some of the rules might imply, but
there's a lot of politics behind that.


Concept is simple. In the example above, my channel bound boat
tacking to windward in a narrow channel always has the right of way
over a sunfish that is not channel bound, regardless of what tack I'm
on. Because I am " least manueverable" given the narrow amount of
room I have to manuever.

Nope. Not buying it. If you said you were the Sunfish and you
deferred to less maneuverable boats I'd say that's very nice of you, I
often do the same. But to expect others to get out of your way just
isn't right. If I thought I needed other vessels to ignore the rules
and give me a break, I'd turn on the engine. In fact, there are a
number of such situations in my harbor where I used to sail my
Nonsuch, but now power the catamaran. If I wanted to get back into
daysailing rather than longer cruises, I get a more maneuverable boat.


If you are sailing and on intersection with a supertanker that
requires miles to stop or change course, even if not channel bound,
least manueverable is the rule.

Different case entirely. And frankly, a different discussion. If its
physically impossible for the tanker to stop, claiming "right of way"
is just plain stupid. The courts and powers that be have supported
large ship practices that appear at odds the the rules, and that we
have to live with.

However, I don't believe this applies when smaller vessels are
considered. The Colregs do a pretty good job of giving guidance for
most (2 boat) situations


If you are sailing and approaching a barge train of two or three coal
barges heading for the power plant, they will always be considered
"least manueverable" and have right of way.

Again, I'd give them a wide berth, but if they have a maneuverability
problem, all they have to do is turn turn on the RAM lights.


If the sport fisherman is channel bound, and you are not, it is your
obligation to avoid, if on a collusion course that would occur in the
channel.

Here we differ completely.

How would I know what a particular sport fisherman draws? How would
he know the maneuvering ability of Ellen's sailboat? Or my catamaran?
And why is he somehow exempt from Rule 6, which requires a safe
speed? If he's doing thirty knots, he's closing a quarter mile in 30
seconds. In the time, the sailboat might only be able to go a few
hundred feet, much less if it has to tack. No - this doesn't work.

Of course, if this situation falls under Rule 9, the sailboat should
not impede the powerboat - you don't have to invent a new rule for
this. But may be impossible for the sailboat to comply unless the
powerboat slows down.


at least that is the way it was explained to me in the course.

I can believe that an instructor advised that you should give a wide
berth to vessel that appear to be less maneuverable, that's just
common sense and simple courtesy. But to say that concept supersedes
the ColRegs just doesn't fly.