more ROW questions....
 

I was about to but thought maybe I better not, you never
know what some creep might do to your boat when you're away
and it's in the slip. This happened right near my marina.

I did however flip off some stupid jerks who were trolling
and cut right across my intended path and then yelled that
they had lines in the water. I heard some big time cussing,
then a loud SNAP! , and more cussing. I gave the finger and
kept on sailing :o

Scotty


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sounds like you did the right thing. Giving them the
finger is about right
also.

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

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
it was JUST before, I think had I tried to gybe or tack,
,
in that light wind I would have ended up more in their
way.

SBV



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Seems like blowing a horn after the fact is a bit late,
but it's not clear
if they were sounding the horn before or during.

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

"otnmbrd" wrote in message


25.201...
"Scotty" wrote in
:

Last week while sailing up a river channel, about
200yds
wide, doing 3 kts in light. wind, I spotted , off my
starboard stern quarter,2 powerboats, 'sitting'
next
to
each other. I figured they were fishing, or just
talking to
each other. Then they seemed to be trolling, very
slowly up
river, as I was cutting across the channel at an
angle,
I
figured I had plenty of time to cross in front of
them,
rather than behind in case they WERE trolling
lines.
Then the lead PB starts honking his horn ( like a
NYer,
when
the light turns green) and yelling. I heard
something
about
my Mother, and towing and privilege. Since we were
both
going slow, and not real close, I continued on my
coarse. he
never got closer than 100 ft. Only after they passed
did I
see the small towing line between them.

Would a 'tow' like this have 'privilege?

Not necessarily

Would he be
considered a RAM?

Possibly....if he cannot deviate from his
course/speed
up/slow down

Wouldn't he need to be displaying a day
shape?

Can't remember where I read this, but no. If a vessel
is
not normally
engaged in this type operation and would not normally
carry these type
day shapes because of their size then they need not
be
displayed but they
should make every effort to inform (blowing a horn
like
a NY taxi driver)

Given that I had ample time to cross, was I still
wrong to do so?

If you could do so safely with ample clearance,
no....
ample clearance is
the key phrase.


Even if it had been a properly marked 'real'
towboat,
and
someone crossed in front, causing the tow to turn,
but
no
collision happened, what if anything could/should be
done to
the crossing boat?

First off, a "real" towboat is still obligated to
obey
the normal
steering and sailing rules unless they are RAM (and
RAM
is not an
automatic designation for a towboat), so there can be
any number of
possibilities as to right or wrong in your maneuver.
In answer to your question..... no harm no foul....
expect a tongue
lashing. Naturally if your maneuver was "illegal" and
the turn the
towboat had to make to avoid a collision endangered
or
caused injury to
the tug,it's tow,or crew then you should expect a
report
to the various
authorities and possible actions, collision or not.

Is there penalties for near misses?

To date, not generally.


otn

more ROW questions....near misses Schooner Aurora
 

What is ones status while hove-to? I guess you should
always try to hove-to on starboard tack?

What would your status be , while single handing, drifting,
up at the bow pulling down your jib?

Scotty



"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com..
..

Joe wrote:
Is there penalties for near misses?

can be if someone pushes the issue and gets the USCG
involved.

Joe

On starboard tack hove-to, with the helm lashed, I was
nearly run over
by the schooner Aurora in Newport Harbor. I yelled at the
skipper and
later when I was on port tack, altered course several
times to try and
run me down again--failing to maintain his stand-on
course. I wrote a
formal letter to the USCG and gave the names of witnesses.
The USCG
gave them a telephone call and a mild slap on the wrist.
The USCG
officer I spoke to told me they could not take action
unless there
was in fact a collision.

I still have a copy of the original letter. I should post
it here.

If you ever go to Newport. Don't patronize the Aurora.

more ROW questions....near misses Schooner Aurora
 

"Chuckles Morgan" wrote

Bart's just ****ed because the Aurora has lazy jacks from
Wal Mart.

Chuckles the Clown

more ROW questions....near misses Schooner Aurora
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 22 Oct 2006 19:50:56 -0700, "Bart" wrote:

Joe wrote:
Is there penalties for near misses?
can be if someone pushes the issue and gets the USCG involved.

Joe
On starboard tack hove-to, with the helm lashed, I was nearly run over
by the schooner Aurora in Newport Harbor. I yelled at the skipper and
later when I was on port tack, altered course several times to try and
run me down again--failing to maintain his stand-on course. I wrote a
formal letter to the USCG and gave the names of witnesses. The USCG
gave them a telephone call and a mild slap on the wrist. The USCG
officer I spoke to told me they could not take action unless there
was in fact a collision.

I still have a copy of the original letter. I should post it here.

If you ever go to Newport. Don't patronize the Aurora.

Bart's just ****ed because the Aurora has lazy jacks rather than that goofy,
"Dutchboy" system. They sure wouldn't want black stripes and chafe from cheap
plastic fishing lines ruining THOSE sails!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cruadin...7594283171391/

CWM
Day-glo orange sails????? tacky......

more ROW questions....near misses Schooner Aurora
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:49:00 -0400, katy
wrote:

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 22 Oct 2006 19:50:56 -0700, "Bart" wrote:

Joe wrote:
Is there penalties for near misses?
can be if someone pushes the issue and gets the USCG involved.

Joe
On starboard tack hove-to, with the helm lashed, I was nearly run over
by the schooner Aurora in Newport Harbor. I yelled at the skipper and
later when I was on port tack, altered course several times to try and
run me down again--failing to maintain his stand-on course. I wrote a
formal letter to the USCG and gave the names of witnesses. The USCG
gave them a telephone call and a mild slap on the wrist. The USCG
officer I spoke to told me they could not take action unless there
was in fact a collision.

I still have a copy of the original letter. I should post it here.

If you ever go to Newport. Don't patronize the Aurora.
Bart's just ****ed because the Aurora has lazy jacks rather than that goofy,
"Dutchboy" system. They sure wouldn't want black stripes and chafe from cheap
plastic fishing lines ruining THOSE sails!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cruadin...7594283171391/

CWM
Day-glo orange sails????? tacky......

They are not day glow orange, Katy. Oxblood dyed sails are very
traditional.

CWM

Looks like dayglo in the picture...have seen lots of tanbark sails but
never any that shade...

more ROW questions....near misses Schooner Aurora
 

Scotty wrote:
What is ones status while hove-to? I guess you should
always try to hove-to on starboard tack?

No special rights. This is why it is preferable to heave-to
onto starboard tack.

more ROW questions....near misses Schooner Aurora
 

Bart wrote:
Joe wrote:
Is there penalties for near misses?

can be if someone pushes the issue and gets the USCG involved.

Joe

On starboard tack hove-to, with the helm lashed, I was nearly run over
by the schooner Aurora in Newport Harbor. I yelled at the skipper and
later when I was on port tack, altered course several times to try and
run me down again--failing to maintain his stand-on course.


http://www.slingking.com/launcher.html

Joe






I wrote a
formal letter to the USCG and gave the names of witnesses. The USCG
gave them a telephone call and a mild slap on the wrist. The USCG
officer I spoke to told me they could not take action unless there
was in fact a collision.

I still have a copy of the original letter. I should post it here.

If you ever go to Newport. Don't patronize the Aurora.

more ROW questions....
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Excuse me, but the "little powerboat" *nature of her work* was towing the
| other vessel.


That's a hoot. You say *I* have a narrow interpretation. Instead your the one.
You only use half the rule. The whole rule says nature of her work that *severely *
limits her maneuverability. 1) pleasure boat towing isn't *work* . The examples in the
rule make that clear. 2) You can't take one part of the rule and ignore the other. It's
doing that that's narrow... You keep ignoring the severely limited maneuverability part.

| As long as
| the powerboat that's towing can maneuver OK then it's not RAM.
|
| True, but even you have enough reading comprehension to realize I said
| that.

I said you were part right and part wrong. Again, it's because your
using half the rule and half doesn't get the job done....

| All it
| had to do to keep outta the way of Scotty was to throttle down or take
| it out of gear or turn the steering wheel. Duh! It had no rule on
| it's side to expect a sailboat to give way.
|
| I wasn't there;I don't know what the channel is like; I don't know the
| state of the tide; direction and/or strength of current; wind; handling
| characteristics of the vessels in question; abilities of the towing
| vessel and operator; etc.....

But you do know the rule (or claim you do). It's plain and black and white.
Why do you insist on making something out of it that's not there? Why do you
only use half of it? Why do you ignore the *severely* limits maneuverability part?
The little pleasure boat is not severely limited. It has all it's controls. It has all
the maneuverability it ever has. Tide, current, wind make no difference. The only
thing that's different is a rope over the transom. It might take a little extra time
to turn or stop but that's not *severe.* So stop ignoring the severe part of the rule,
please.

| Another thing. You can see from (i) thru (vi) that work means
| serious work. It doesn't mean playing around
| on a pleasure boat or helping out somebody whose motor broke.
|
| Show me where it says that.

Duh, the examples say that. All of them are serious work. None of them are
pleasure craft out playing. If the rule was for pleasure craft one would have been
put in the examples. If you go to a dinner party that's "formal attire required" you don't
show up in sneaker and a t-shirt and expect to get in. If you read a rule that's all about
serious work you don't expect playing to be part of it.
Your trouble is your trying to hedge your bets. You won't say the rule says X. Instead
you say the rules says X, Y, Z and sometimes A,B,C. Duh! Read the rule and understand
what it says. Stop adding your own stuff so you can have an *out* every time.
Maybe you should argue with my instructor Captain Donna Kirby, She's been teaching
the rules for years and years. She knows them better than you and she says two little
recreational boats towing each other are not RAM. How does she know? Because it's
consensus. Your wrong.

| G It pleases me to know you are off the water, and your above first
| sentence is one of the reasons why.....no, I don't agree that this is
| always the case.

Too much wiggle room makes a fact a fiction....

|| The fact that you've asked this series of stupid questions just adds to
| my ongoing confirmation that you are a highly inexperienced amateur with
| limited powers of intelligent reasoning/thought.

And, your a typical man who wouldn't admit he was wrong to stick his ass out
of the fox hole even when the bullet make him a second asshole.... Or, in your case
a third. :-)

Cheers,
Ellen

more ROW questions....
 

Thank you Jeff for giving the right answers. I hope otn reads your post.
I've been arguing with him. I've proved he's wrong but he won't be a man
and admit it. Like you say. Scotty's little pleasure boats towing each other are
not RAM according to the rule. That's what I said too. That's what my instructor
says.
You made my day....

Cheers,
Ellen





"Jeff" wrote in message . ..
| Scotty wrote:
| Last week while sailing up a river channel, about 200yds
| wide, doing 3 kts in light. wind, I spotted , off my
| starboard stern quarter, 2 powerboats, 'sitting' next to
| each other. I figured they were fishing, or just talking to
| each other. Then they seemed to be trolling, very slowly up
| river, as I was cutting across the channel at an angle, I
| figured I had plenty of time to cross in front of them,
| rather than behind in case they WERE trolling lines.
| Then the lead PB starts honking his horn ( like a NYer, when
| the light turns green) and yelling. I heard something about
| my Mother, and towing and privilege. Since we were both
| going slow, and not real close, I continued on my coarse. he
| never got closer than 100 ft. Only after they passed did I
| see the small towing line between them.
|
| Would a 'tow' like this have 'privilege?
|
| No, not unless they asked for it.
|
| Would he be considered a RAM?
|
| Not unless they so claimed. Even then, if there was an incident, they
| would have to prove they really were RAM.
|
| Wouldn't he need to be displaying a day
| shape?
|
| Yes, or a suitable substitute. Unfortunately, in the dark, there's no
| easy way for small boats to convey the nature of this situation.
|
| Many, if not most, recreational boaters make the assumption that if
| they're doing something special, like towing, they magically have
| right of way and everyone has to stay clear. The truth is they have
| not such rights, though you should stay clear because they are
| probably incompetent. The other assumption they make is that everyone
| can clearly understand what is going on, even its dark and they have
| no lights.
|
| Given that I had ample time to cross, was I still
| wrong to do so?
|
| No, they were wrong to assume you would understand their situation.
| The fact that you didn't realize it was a tow until after the fact, is
| a good indication they did not adequately convey the situation. If
| you cleared with over 100 feet and they did not have to alter course
| or speed, you were not too close.
|
|
| Even if it had been a properly marked 'real' towboat, and
| someone crossed in front, causing the tow to turn, but no
| collision happened, what if anything could/should be done to
| the crossing boat?
|
| Unless they declare RAM, you are standon. And a real towboat would
| have the means to do so.
|
| Is there penalties for near misses?
|
| Not typically. The ColRegs themselves don't specify any punishment,
| so it would have to be under some other law.

more ROW questions....
 

G Interesting....somehow because it's a "pleasure boat" towing, it can't
be *severely* limited in it's ability to deviate from it's course.

otn

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

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Excuse me, but the "little powerboat" *nature of her work* was towing
the
| other vessel.


That's a hoot. You say *I* have a narrow interpretation. Instead your
the one.
You only use half the rule. The whole rule says nature of her work that
*severely *
limits her maneuverability. 1) pleasure boat towing isn't *work* . The
examples in the
rule make that clear. 2) You can't take one part of the rule and ignore
the other. It's
doing that that's narrow... You keep ignoring the severely limited
maneuverability part.

| As long as
| the powerboat that's towing can maneuver OK then it's not RAM.
|
| True, but even you have enough reading comprehension to realize I said
| that.

I said you were part right and part wrong. Again, it's because your
using half the rule and half doesn't get the job done....

| All it
| had to do to keep outta the way of Scotty was to throttle down or take
| it out of gear or turn the steering wheel. Duh! It had no rule on
| it's side to expect a sailboat to give way.
|
| I wasn't there;I don't know what the channel is like; I don't know the
| state of the tide; direction and/or strength of current; wind; handling
| characteristics of the vessels in question; abilities of the towing
| vessel and operator; etc.....

But you do know the rule (or claim you do). It's plain and black and
white.
Why do you insist on making something out of it that's not there? Why do
you
only use half of it? Why do you ignore the *severely* limits
maneuverability part?
The little pleasure boat is not severely limited. It has all it's
controls. It has all
the maneuverability it ever has. Tide, current, wind make no difference.
The only
thing that's different is a rope over the transom. It might take a little
extra time
to turn or stop but that's not *severe.* So stop ignoring the severe part
of the rule,
please.

| Another thing. You can see from (i) thru (vi) that work means
| serious work. It doesn't mean playing around
| on a pleasure boat or helping out somebody whose motor broke.
|
| Show me where it says that.

Duh, the examples say that. All of them are serious work. None of them
are
pleasure craft out playing. If the rule was for pleasure craft one would
have been
put in the examples. If you go to a dinner party that's "formal attire
required" you don't
show up in sneaker and a t-shirt and expect to get in. If you read a rule
that's all about
serious work you don't expect playing to be part of it.
Your trouble is your trying to hedge your bets. You won't say the rule
says X. Instead
you say the rules says X, Y, Z and sometimes A,B,C. Duh! Read the rule and
understand
what it says. Stop adding your own stuff so you can have an *out* every
time.
Maybe you should argue with my instructor Captain Donna Kirby, She's
been teaching
the rules for years and years. She knows them better than you and she says
two little
recreational boats towing each other are not RAM. How does she know?
Because it's
consensus. Your wrong.

| G It pleases me to know you are off the water, and your above first
| sentence is one of the reasons why.....no, I don't agree that this is
| always the case.

Too much wiggle room makes a fact a fiction....

|| The fact that you've asked this series of stupid questions just adds to
| my ongoing confirmation that you are a highly inexperienced amateur with
| limited powers of intelligent reasoning/thought.

And, your a typical man who wouldn't admit he was wrong to stick his
ass out
of the fox hole even when the bullet make him a second asshole.... Or, in
your case
a third. :-)

Cheers,
Ellen