What I find interseting...
 

What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty

What I find interseting...
 

The arguments are good. I'd bet you have picked up quite a bit
from listening in.

If you are like me after a while, the noise is greater than the content
and you tune out of the threads that die too slowly.

"Scotty" wrote
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty

What I find interseting...
 

True that Bart.
I look for the word "fool" - then I know the thread is really finished.
Scout

"Bart" .@. wrote in message ...
The arguments are good. I'd bet you have picked up quite a bit
from listening in.

If you are like me after a while, the noise is greater than the content
and you tune out of the threads that die too slowly.

"Scotty" wrote
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty

What I find interseting...
 

"Scout" wrote in message
. ..
True that Bart.
I look for the word "fool" - then I know the thread is
really finished.
Scout


that's foolish!












"Bart" .@. wrote in message
...
The arguments are good. I'd bet you have picked up
quite a bit
from listening in.

If you are like me after a while, the noise is greater
than the content
and you tune out of the threads that die too slowly.

"Scotty" wrote
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR,
or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument
on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here.
To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a
lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I
haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I
wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use
common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty

What I find interseting...
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year before they located
the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red paint streaks were all over
the boat. The investigation was relatively easy, and the red barge that ran
the tug down was located in Chicago, sporting damage to the bow and
underbelly. Charges were filed and the "captain" who skippered the tug
pushing the barge either faces trial for, or has been convicted of,
negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.

Max

What I find interseting...
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year before they located
the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red paint streaks were all
over the boat. The investigation was relatively easy, and the red barge
that ran the tug down was located in Chicago, sporting damage to the bow
and underbelly. Charges were filed and the "captain" who skippered the
tug pushing the barge either faces trial for, or has been convicted of,
negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

What I find interseting...
 

You are right Scotty, common sense is what really matters. Steer clear of
potential trouble.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty

What I find interseting...
 

"Maxprop" wrote
| Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
| shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.


Me too! Can't you just tell from otn. *His* colreg rules are all for the big ships.
"Little boats don't really count, IMHO G". I don't think he understands the meaning
of the word *severe*. He thinks one little boat towing another one has severely limited
maneuverability. Duh! Jeff's just as bad. But, Jeff is like a politician. He can't seem
to say it plain and clear. He covers all bases. But, he doesn't stand firm on any of them....

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

No, usually the professionals and those of us who have actually
studied the rules are in agreement.

It's the people who haven't read the rules or haven't learned what
they really mean that create the disagreements. Like Ellen claiming
she doesn't have to honor a RAM signal from a small vessel that she
doesn't think deserves it. Or Neal claiming no one can make him slow
down in the fog. And then there's always the kayakers who insist the
smaller boat always has ROW, or the "common sense" sailors that insist
that the boat that "needs" it more must have ROW.


Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

Isn't Otn a harbor pilot?

They more I understand the rules, the more appreciation I have for the
masters of large ships and commercial ferries. They show an
impressive ability for anticipating how situations will evolve.

And I've learned that the helmsman of the sport fisherman headed at me
at 35 knots is probably digging a beer out of the fridge.


I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year before they located
the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red paint streaks were all over
the boat. The investigation was relatively easy, and the red barge that ran
the tug down was located in Chicago, sporting damage to the bow and
underbelly. Charges were filed and the "captain" who skippered the tug
pushing the barge either faces trial for, or has been convicted of,
negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

There was a similar case here in 2001, the Russian tanker Virgo sunk
the Gloucester fishing vessel Starbound and continued on to
Newfoundland. It turned into a legal quagmire, and the Russian
crewmen who were on watch eventually returned to Russia. US courts
wanted to prosecute for involuntary manslaughter and negligence, but
its not clear they had standing.


Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.


I'm not sure what it shows at all. Are you claiming that tug masters
shouldn't learn the rules because then they would keep a better
lookout? Yeh, that makes sense.

What I find interseting...
 

"Jeff" wrote
| Like Ellen claiming
| she doesn't have to honor a RAM signal from a small vessel that she
| doesn't think deserves it.

Show me where I said that in those words and I'll give you oral sex! I think I
see your problem. You can't read too well. You jump to false conclusions.

| Or Neal claiming no one can make him slow
| down in the fog.

*Neal* do you mean Captain Neal? He should know. He's wrote lessons... I wish
he'd come back here. He'd set y'all straight. He's got a Master's license. I can't
even pass the test yet for a six-pak. (But I keep studying :-))

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Like Ellen claiming
| she doesn't have to honor a RAM signal from a small vessel that she
| doesn't think deserves it.

Show me where I said that in those words and I'll give you oral sex! I think I
see your problem. You can't read too well. You jump to false conclusions.


So it must have been some other Ellen who said:
"No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring"
they are RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says
they're RAM."

What I find interseting...
 

"Jeff" wrote
| So it must have been some other Ellen who said:
| "No I don't have to respect it! People can't go around "declaring"
| they are RAM. They have to be in compliance with a rule that says
| they're RAM."


Uh, Jeff, do you really think honor and respect have the same meaning?
"Do you, Jeff, promise to love, honor and respect.....till death do you part?"
If the words mean the same thing why use them both? Duh! (little blonde head
bouncing from side to side off shoulder ruffles....shoulder pads are out!)
No Bill Jefferson for you, I'm afraid.

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

I don't have a Master's licence and never will. I have a professional
crew that takes our ship where I want it to go subject to overriding
safety factors. We also don't care overmuch about bumping into stuff,
provided it's not more than 1 couple metres thick or weighs less than
5K tonnes.

The only qualification I need for my toy sailboat is my desire to sail
it.

Otnbrd is a pro, IIRC.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

As I said to Donal years ago, the main rule to keep in mind when
dealing with commercial vessels is the rule of tonnage. As per usual,
he didn't understand it because he couldn't find it in the ColRegs.

PDW

What I find interseting...
 

"Scout" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

Perhaps it's fortunate that the "experts" and "captains" herein aren't
actually doing commercial work on the water, Pete excepted.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Yup. I avoid commercial vessels like the plague. And I try to avoid
shipping lanes and channels whenever possible.

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year before they
located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red paint streaks
were all over the boat. The investigation was relatively easy, and the
red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago, sporting damage
to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the "captain" who
skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial for, or has been
convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Max

What I find interseting...
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.


Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.


I'm not sure what it shows at all. Are you claiming that tug masters
shouldn't learn the rules because then they would keep a better lookout?
Yeh, that makes sense.

I left Scotty's first paragraph (above) for you to re-read.

Max

What I find interseting...
 

"Maxprop" wrote in m

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake
Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year
before they
located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red
paint streaks
were all over the boat. The investigation was
relatively easy, and the
red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,
sporting damage
to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the
"captain" who
skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial
for, or has been
convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first
paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

What I find interseting...
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..
What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.


Rather supports your theory stated in your first paragraph, Scoot.

I'm not sure what it shows at all. Are you claiming that tug masters
shouldn't learn the rules because then they would keep a better lookout?
Yeh, that makes sense.

I left Scotty's first paragraph (above) for you to re-read.

I read it again and still don't see the connection. As I said, I
don't buy the basic premise that the "pro's" and the "experts"
disagree on the rules. Its the amateurs and wannabees, who make up
rules because they sound reasonable, that have the disagreements.

And the case you mentioned presumably involved total lack of lookout
by both parties, followed by leaving the scene, possibly a criminal
act. How this relates to a disagreement over the rules is beyond me.

What I find interseting...
 

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:11:56 -0400, "Scotty"
wrote:

What I find really interesting is, that whenever a ROR, or
ColRegs question pops up, there's *always* an argument on
interpretation between the experts and ''Capts." here. To
hear the goings on here you would think there'd be a lot
more accidents than what there already is.

I don't have a Capt license, nor do I want one. I haven't
read all the rules and regs., and even if I did I wouldn't
remember 90% of them. When I sail I basically use common
sense and try to be safe.

Just a thought.

Scotty





After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.

Frank

What I find interseting...
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.

Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said. Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in. While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel? Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.

Going back to the original question posed by Ellen: A large sport
fisherman is on a plane (I assume that means 20+ knots) headed towards
a 17 foot low speed sailboat. You claimed we can't tell what type of
situation it really was and that more information is needed saying it
'Always reverts to "least maneuverable vessel"' and further stated
that we have to know if a vessel was "channel bound." I still have
trouble with this: how do you (or really, the person on the sailboat)
even assess the maneuverability of a planing sport fisherman? I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.

If this truly was narrow channel situation, planing at 25 knots does
not seem very prudent. And even in this situation, the sailboat is
still the "stand-on" vessel, though it may be obligated "not to
impede," in other words, give the "channel bound" vessel the space to
get around. The rules provide plenty of guidance in this situation
(whatever it really was); you don't have to get into a debate over
which vessel is more maneuverable.

Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.

What I find interseting...
 

Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
small pleasure boats.....

Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
line.
Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
corrections.
Is he apt to have dayshapes or lights to indicate anything such as RAM?
Highly unlikely.
You'll be lucky if he has a portable radio, but your best bet will be, to
find out from him if he considers himself RAM, his yelling at you.
If I were to be approaching him in a sailboat, would I need to see signals
or hear from him that he was RAM? No. It is my responsibility (Rule 2) to
assess the situation and realize the possibilities and act accordingly....
In this case, treat him as RAM.
I realize this is an extreme example, but these examples can run the gamut
and in Scotty's case, there's an excellent chance that there was no RAM
condition..... each case on it's own merits (since I wasn't there, I would
have to say the possibility exist).

otn

What I find interseting...
 

otnmbrd wrote:
Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
small pleasure boats.....

Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
line.
Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
corrections.
Is he apt to have dayshapes or lights to indicate anything such as RAM?
Highly unlikely.
You'll be lucky if he has a portable radio, but your best bet will be, to
find out from him if he considers himself RAM, his yelling at you.
If I were to be approaching him in a sailboat, would I need to see signals
or hear from him that he was RAM? No. It is my responsibility (Rule 2) to
assess the situation and realize the possibilities and act accordingly....
In this case, treat him as RAM.
I realize this is an extreme example, but these examples can run the gamut
and in Scotty's case, there's an excellent chance that there was no RAM
condition..... each case on it's own merits (since I wasn't there, I would
have to say the possibility exist).

otn


Which just goes to show that if it looks like a duck....common sense....

What I find interseting...
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
| small pleasure boats.....
| Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
| using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
| line.
| Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
| the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
| corrections.


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

"(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and
her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

The question you should be asking isn't *would this boat be maneuverable*. It's *is this
boat severely restricted in its ability to deviate from it's course*? It's plain that it's NOT!
It's as simple as turning the tiller handle. Or throttling back. It might not turn as fast or
slow down as fast as it can by itself. But it can do both. There's nothing severe about it.
Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe, or being attached to a boat your supplying or being
attached to a wreck or having a mine ten feet away on either side of you. That's what
the examples tell you. A towboat severely restricted means the same freakin' thing. Say
it's going around the bend in a river. It can't change course or the barge will hit the
bank. It can't slow down or the barge will hit the bank. That's severe. Duh!

3(g) "from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by
these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

How can you say your example is *unable* to keep out of the way of Scotty's sailboat?
It's so simple. Turn the tiller sooner instead of later of turn off the freakin' motor and
stay out of the way of the sailboat.
It's silly to say your example is RAM. The rule just doesn't support it. Two motor boats
is all they are. One's running the other's broke down.

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.

Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

Going back to the original question posed by Ellen: A large sport
fisherman is on a plane (I assume that means 20+ knots) headed towards
a 17 foot low speed sailboat. You claimed we can't tell what type of
situation it really was and that more information is needed saying it
'Always reverts to "least maneuverable vessel"' and further stated
that we have to know if a vessel was "channel bound." I still have
trouble with this: how do you (or really, the person on the sailboat)
even assess the maneuverability of a planing sport fisherman?


I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?
If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.


If this truly was narrow channel situation, planing at 25 knots does
not seem very prudent. And even in this situation, the sailboat is
still the "stand-on" vessel, though it may be obligated "not to
impede," in other words, give the "channel bound" vessel the space to
get around. The rules provide plenty of guidance in this situation
(whatever it really was); you don't have to get into a debate over
which vessel is more maneuverable.

Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.

What I find interseting...
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote
| Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM and
| small pleasure boats.....
| Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25' powerboat
| using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
| line.
| Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and with
| the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
| corrections.


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

He just described a case were being underpowered and restricted in the
ability to manuver.
If he just slows the tow would run him over, turning may take a while
due to mass so the guy towing is severly resricted, but you feel free
to push the issue with the next heavy underpowered tow you see.

Joe

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

"Joe" wrote
| He just described a case were being underpowered and restricted in the
| ability to manuver.

No argument. That's what he did. But the rule doesn't say that. It says
*severely* Being restricted isn't RAM. Being severely restricted and unable
to keep out of the way of another vessel is RAM.

| If he just slows the tow would run him over, turning may take a while
| due to mass so the guy towing is severly resricted, but you feel free
| to push the issue with the next heavy underpowered tow you see.

Tuff. Tows slow down too when they stop being towed. Tuff again on
the turning. Taking a while isn't in the rule. Unable is in the rule.
Me? Get in front of those things? Never! But, that don't make em RAM.


Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

Leaving the colregs entirely to on side my basic thought is that if he is
moving at least 4-5 times faster than I can he must take avoiding action
because there is nothing I can usefully do. With such a big speed difference
I am in effect 'an obstruction to sea room' so he had better avoid me...


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
Let me give an example which may help some understand my thoughts on RAM
and
small pleasure boats.....

Take an 8' pram with a small Seagull outboard (2hp?) towing a 25'
powerboat
using a bridle from cleats on either side of the stern and, say, 20' tow
line.
Would this boat be maneuverable? Not really..... he's underpowered and
with
the bridle set-up will have a problem making any but the smallest course
corrections.
Is he apt to have dayshapes or lights to indicate anything such as RAM?
Highly unlikely.
You'll be lucky if he has a portable radio, but your best bet will be, to
find out from him if he considers himself RAM, his yelling at you.
If I were to be approaching him in a sailboat, would I need to see signals
or hear from him that he was RAM? No. It is my responsibility (Rule 2) to
assess the situation and realize the possibilities and act accordingly....
In this case, treat him as RAM.
I realize this is an extreme example, but these examples can run the gamut
and in Scotty's case, there's an excellent chance that there was no RAM
condition..... each case on it's own merits (since I wasn't there, I would
have to say the possibility exist).

otn

What I find interseting...
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.
Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.


and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!


While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.


Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

....

I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?

No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.

What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

....
Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.

I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?

What I find interseting...
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, I'm going to make the assmumption that you just can't be as dumb
as your response sounds. So you must want to take over RB's position
at the side of the boat throwing over that rotten chum to bait up what
you can.

Good luck on that one. I'll still go with common sense when it is
appropriate. That is what the thread was about.

Frank



Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.
Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.

I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored

I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.

Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.


and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.

Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.

So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!


While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?

I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.

Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.


Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.

So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.

Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

...

I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.

So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?

No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.

What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

...
Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.

No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.

I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?

What I find interseting...
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, I'm going to make the assmumption that you just can't be as dumb
as your response sounds.

Sorry Frank, I was serious about everything. What part did you think
was dumb? The part where I suggested you learn the rules?

Making up rules and then being ****ed when other people don't follow
them is not a very good way to go through life.

So you must want to take over RB's position
at the side of the boat throwing over that rotten chum to bait up what
you can.
low blow! But pretty wimpy if that's all you got!

Good luck on that one. I'll still go with common sense when it is
appropriate. That is what the thread was about.

Common Sense is what you need to apply the rules. It is not a
substitute for the rules. Please Frank, learn the rules before you
kill someone with your "common sense."

Here's two links:
http://www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm

Read especially Rule 2:
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to
comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may
be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be
had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special
circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved,
which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid
immediate danger.

Therein lies all the "common sense" you need to handle any situation
not explicitly covered in the rest of the rules. But it only works
*if* you know the rest of the rules.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.
Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.
I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored
I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.
Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.

and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.
Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.
So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!

While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?
I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.
Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.

Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.
So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.
Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

...
I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.
So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?
No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.
What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

...
Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.
No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.
I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?

What I find interseting...
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know. Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.
Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish. You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored. To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting. I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

Frank



Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, I'm going to make the assmumption that you just can't be as dumb
as your response sounds.

Sorry Frank, I was serious about everything. What part did you think
was dumb? The part where I suggested you learn the rules?

Making up rules and then being ****ed when other people don't follow
them is not a very good way to go through life.

So you must want to take over RB's position
at the side of the boat throwing over that rotten chum to bait up what
you can.
low blow! But pretty wimpy if that's all you got!

Good luck on that one. I'll still go with common sense when it is
appropriate. That is what the thread was about.

Common Sense is what you need to apply the rules. It is not a
substitute for the rules. Please Frank, learn the rules before you
kill someone with your "common sense."

Here's two links:
http://www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm

Read especially Rule 2:
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to
comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may
be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be
had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special
circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved,
which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid
immediate danger.

Therein lies all the "common sense" you need to handle any situation
not explicitly covered in the rest of the rules. But it only works
*if* you know the rest of the rules.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:40:55 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

After Jeff tried to convince me and the group that ColRegs would
indicate that a couple of kids on beach launched sunfish's playing in
a fifty foot wide channel did have the right of way based on tack over
my channel bound, engineless, sail boat, tacking up wind in that
narrow channel to get to port, and that I, in deference to them,
should put my boat on the rocks or up on the beach, or possibly turn
around and go back out until they get tired of playing in said
channel, I think I'll go with Scotty's common sense approach.
Frank, you misinterpreted entirely what I said.
I think not

Your claim is that
the ColRegs should generally be ignored
I neverr said that nor implied it. I said in that situation if
ColRegs indicated I needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I
would revert to common sense.
Actually, if you read the first page of the ColRegs (actually Rule 2)
you would understand that they do not require that. They do tend to
imply that you use a bit of foresight to avoid getting yourself to
that point.

BTW, you admit down below that you have no knowledge of the rules, and
seemingly have no desire to learn them. That sounds a lot like
"ignoring" to me.

and replaced by a vague mix of
common sense and the "rule of least maneuverability." It was clear
from the way you presented the case that the kids did not fully
appreciate the circumstances that you were in.
Why would that be clear?. These were Yacht club kids who had
attended several educational sessions, and knew the waters. All three
of my sons attended the same sessions. The oldest attended with the
kids in question. They (my sons) certainly knew, at that age, that
they did not have the right of way in the situation, or if ColRegs
said they did as you indicated, they would have the common sense to
defer.
So your kids never would have done such a thing, therefore no kid
every would. Thanks, Frank, that's the best laugh I've had in a while!

While one might hope
the kids had common sense, I certainly wouldn't expect it. So perhaps
you should explain how your rule works in practice? Perhaps you could
explain how a kid who probably learned to sail a few weeks before,
would understand that you were not in control of your vessel?
I was always in control, just not willing to come about, run out and
wait the fools out with a storm approaching.
Ahah! This was actually just a matter of your convenience! You had
cut things a bit thin, and these kids were slowing you down. You
could have come about but that would have been too much work. Sorry
Frank, back to school with you!

Why not just say to the kids, "Can you please give me some room?" If
its clear that the other vessel doesn't appreciate your situation, its
your responsibility to inform them, not whine about it on the internet.

BTW, you never did tell us what actually happened. I'm guessing they
didn't force you onto the rocks and you didn't really have to weather
the storm at sea, so this crisis is really in your imagination.

Yes,
I'd agree that common sense was lacking in this situation, but I don't
think it was on the kid's part.

For most of the last 15 years I've had to sail past 5 sailing programs
(2 mainly for kids) to get from my berth to open water. While it
been on occasion a bit annoying when they seemed to go out of their
way to exercise their rights, I've never had a problem following the
rules. The rules even provide guidance in your case (Rule 9, Narrow
Channels; Rule 2, special circumstances, limitations of vessels) but
expecting kids to fully grasp the rules or have common sense seems to
be a losing strategy.
So there are rules for the situation? you were not willing to offer
that in the original thread.
Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").

...
I have
to say, I have no idea what they can do while planing, but I do know
they can very easily throttle back and gain a lot of maneuverability.
So if they are channel bound and throttle back then they can leave the
channel ?
No, but its a lot easier for both vessels to avoid a collision if one
of them is not doing 25 knots. You *really* have to read the rules,
at least once. And why would you assume the powerboat draws more than
the sailboat? You are a sailor, aren't you? You're sounding an awful
lot like a landlubber in this.


If you think" least manueverable" is not a valid concept you should
certainly spend some time in the gulf intercoastal in front of a coal
barge train yelling starboard. However, let me know when so I can
watch.
What's your point? If you're trying to make this about the "law of
tonnage" then you really are pretty ignorant. I have no trouble
deferring to large ships, and even smaller ferries that really should
give way to me. But are you saying that a 45 foot Carver has the
right to claim "Law of Tonnage" and blast everyone out of the channel?
Or that any boat smaller than yours should stay out of your way
because you don't want to do an extra tack?

...
Frank, you should learn the rules. And you should learn some common
sense. But mainly, you should think things out before ranting.
No rant here, just trying to understand an individual who thinks that
the book takes precedent over common sense. That was Scotty's post.
You know my position.
I know it now. Your meaning of "common sense" is that everyone should
stay out of your way.

And really, Frank, are your bragging to us that you were outsailed by
a group of kids on sunfish?

What I find interseting...
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Sorry. I though you had at least a passing understanding of the
rules. Here it is, in very simple terms: The Sunfish had right of
way (Rule 12), but were obligated to give you room to get by (Rule 9).
They can't make you go one the rocks (Rule 2, I guess). If it was
normal for sailboats to go in that channel with the engine running,
only a fool would assume that kids would appreciate that your's was
dead (Rule 2, "neglect of any precaution").


Please refresh my memory, Jeff. I've seen the term "Right of Way" in the Inland
rules, and in the Connecticut Automobile Drivers handbook. How does it apply to
the Colregs?

As I said, "simple terms." Frank doesn't seem ready for "standon" and
"giveway."

What I find interseting...
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:35:33 -0500, Jeff wrote:

Jeff, in the situation I described, even though you were not there,
you, consistently projected and drew conclusions about what the teens
on the sunfish knew or did not know.

Of course, I only had your very simple description to go by.

Without being there you
projected and concluded that I did not have control of my vessel.

If you had control, why did you need some special dispensation from
the rules?

Without being there you concluded that I was outsailed by a couple of
kids on a sunfish.

That was a joke. But you have to admit, that's what it sounds like!
The kids were picking on you! So what did you do? You keep
complaining that I make assumptions, but you're not filling us in.

You indicated that I had said that ColRegs
"generally" should be ignored.

You seem to have absolutely no knowledge of the rules. This is a very
simple situation, and claiming the the rules should be thrown out in
favor of "common sense" verifies such ignorance.

The kids were also clearly ignorant if they called for starboard
rights if you were in obvious difficulty in the channel. You should
have recognized that and informed them that you needed room. Isn't
that what an adult would do?

To assume and conclude so much with so
little knowledge of the facts indicates either extreme arrogance and
stupidity or you are baiting.

Hey, I didn't "assume" you don't know the rules. You told us so. For
example, you said "I said in that situation if ColRegs indicated I
needed to put my vessel in danger to comply I would revert to common
sense." Clearly the rules do not say this. You even complained that
I did not explain a simple situation.

I choose to believe the latter, knowing
full well I might be wrong.

You seem to keep making the wrong choices. You know, I don't have a
big problem with Scotty's "I can't learn the rules, so I stay out of
trouble" attitude. But claiming you don't the need them because
common sense is better, well that's just stupid.

Do the right thing Frank. Read the rules.

What I find interseting...
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:


Your thoughts are your own.... But the Rules are the Rules!

"(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely
restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate
from their course."

The question you should be asking isn't *would this boat be
maneuverable*.

No, the question is *would this boat (in my example) and it's tow be
severly restricted in their ability to deviate from their course*......
answer..... quite probably under most conditions, yes.

It's *is this
boat severely restricted in its ability to deviate from it's course*?
It's plain that it's NOT! It's as simple as turning the tiller handle.

G Try turning that tiller handle with no regard to the size/weight of
your tow and see how far you get. At best you'll get nowhere, at worst
you'll get tripped and end up in the drink with the pram on top of you.


Or throttling back.

...... and start praying the tow doesn't run you over.


It might not turn as fast or slow down as fast as
it can by itself. But it can do both. There's nothing severe about it.

Depends on the circumstances.... in my example it's probably severe.


Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe

Doesn't apply to this case in questio
, or being attached to a boat
your supplying or being attached to a wreck

Doesn't apply to the case in question.

or having a mine ten feet
away on either side of you.

May or may not apply.
That's what the examples tell you.

You really do have limited experience. The examples are of types of
vessels which may be RAM..... not all are considered "towing vessels" and
in fact few are.


A
towboat severely restricted means the same freakin' thing. Say it's
going around the bend in a river. It can't change course or the barge
will hit the bank. It can't slow down or the barge will hit the bank.
That's severe. Duh!

ROFL


3(g) "from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to
maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel."

How can you say your example is *unable* to keep out of the way of
Scotty's sailboat?

Simple.....because of the size/hullshape/hp/towing arrangement of the
pram, it and it's tow are severely restricted in it's ability to deviate
from it's course.

It's so simple. Turn the tiller sooner instead of later of turn off
the freakin' motor and stay out of the way of the sailboat.

BG

It's silly to say your example is RAM. The rule just doesn't
support it. Two motor boats
is all they are. One's running the other's broke down.

G If we listen to you, then you should be highly qualified to go aboard
any towboat and do the job..... simple....turn the tiller and jocky the
throttles.......

otn

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

:

Leaving the colregs entirely to on side my basic thought is that if he
is moving at least 4-5 times faster than I can he must take avoiding
action because there is nothing I can usefully do. With such a big
speed difference I am in effect 'an obstruction to sea room' so he had
better avoid me...


Stop/come about.......

What I find interseting...
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 18:05:06 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:30:37 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Please refresh my memory, Jeff. I've seen the term "Right of Way" in the Inland
rules, and in the Connecticut Automobile Drivers handbook. How does it apply to
the Colregs?
Pedantry, pedantry, Charlie.

It's not as if he's speaking in tongues. I applaud Jeff for using plain
English. Most of us could figure out what he means.

Oh, no, Dave. When it's Jeff's turn to correct others he INSISTS on absolute
accuracy. When he is arguing a technical point, he owes it to all of us to be
completely accurate. The thread is about using either a strict or loose
interpretation. Every syllable counts! Reducing jargon is a fine goal, but this
particular thread is not the place. As a lawyer, you should know that. :^)


That's a crock of **** - I've never been picky about this issue. I've
only mentioned it to get it out of the way. When I learned the rules
phrases like right of way and burden and privilege were common, so I'm
quite happy to use them, even prefer them, with the understanding that
it isn't the way the rules are currently worded and the concepts have
shifted.

This thread is certainly not about a strict interpretation. It can't
be, because the facts of the the various cases recently referenced
(the sunfish, the sport fishermen, the amateur tow) are quite vague.
The issue is whether the rules can be ignored in favor of common
sense. Or, if the rules and common sense lead to different results,
which do you follow? Or, can the casual student of the rules learn
enough so that with a little common sense, a safe course can be
followed?

My issue with Frank is that some people make up concepts that simply
don't exist in the rules. In a very large sense, maneuverability is
behind many of the rules. However, in real life the rules have to be
applied without that being the primary deciding factor. As a
secondary issue, a 20 foot sailboat must consider the "limitations" of
a 600 foot tanker, but the sailboat is still standon. (If you really
want pedantry, consider why a CBD is not standon wrt the sailboat -
worth 5 points.)

And another thing - Scotty implied he avoids getting into situations
where knowledge of the rules is needed. In Frank's case, he seemed to
be demanding that others should follow his private definitions.
There's a big difference.

What I find interseting...
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in m

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake
Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year
before they
located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red
paint streaks
were all over the boat. The investigation was
relatively easy, and the
red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,
sporting damage
to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the
"captain" who
skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial
for, or has been
convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first
paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

You're me? How am I enjoying living in Pennsylvania?

Max

What I find interseting...
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in m

Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake
Michigan on a clear,
calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year
before they
located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red
paint streaks
were all over the boat. The investigation was
relatively easy, and the
red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,
sporting damage
to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the
"captain" who
skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial
for, or has been
convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first
paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

You're me? How am I enjoying living in Pennsylvania?

You love it!
Scout

What I find interseting...
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote
| How high is that pile of leaves?
| How high is that lampost? How high is that... wave?


How high are you? Pot?

Cheers,
Ellen

What I find interseting...
 

Scout wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
.net...

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in m


Several years ago a fishing tug disappeared on Lake

Michigan on a clear,

calm, sunny day without a trace. It was almost a year

before they

located the wreck. It had been crushed, and linear red

paint streaks

were all over the boat. The investigation was

relatively easy, and the

red barge that ran the tug down was located in Chicago,

sporting damage

to the bow and underbelly. Charges were filed and the

"captain" who

skippered the tug pushing the barge either faces trial

for, or has been

convicted of, negligent homicide--I can't recall which.

Rather supports your theory stated in your first

paragraph, Scoot.

Am I Scoot or is Scotty Scoot?? :-o
Scout

Scotty = Scooter = Scoot.

Also known as Capt Neal, Binary Bill, Joe Redcloud, OzOne,
Dr. Armpit, Jax, Loco, Marty, Capt Mooron, Nav, Bart and
Max.

SBVCNBBJRODAJLMCMNBM

You're me? How am I enjoying living in Pennsylvania?


You love it!
Scout


He shouldn't complain...PA's better than Indiana any day...

What I find interseting...
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Severe is being stuck to a dredge pipe
|
| Doesn't apply to this case in questio
| , or being attached to a boat
| your supplying or being attached to a wreck
|
| Doesn't apply to the case in question.
|
| or having a mine ten feet
| away on either side of you.
|
| May or may not apply.
| That's what the examples tell you.
|
| You really do have limited experience. The examples are of types of
| vessels which may be RAM..... not all are considered "towing vessels" and
| in fact few are.


BG Limited maybe so. But you still don't understand why they put those examples of
RAM boats in that rule. I'll tell you so listen. Here's a Q tip. Get that wax outta your ears.
Wipe that smirk off your face. I'm not ready to give up on you yet.
They put those examples in there so everybody would be able to understand what's meant
by *severe* and *unable*. They are defining those words. They're examples of what the rule
says. Mind pictures. You could think of other examples. That's why they said not limited to.
But any other examples you think of have to be similar. IOW just as severe and just as unable.
Your example isn't anyway near it. It's totally NOT similar. It's a joke. Well intended but
*severely unable* to make your point. :-))))))
BFG I proved you made a mistake. Why not be a man and admit it? I'm amazed you can be
driving big ships around without fully understanding simple rules. Even when the rule's
written so any old retard can understand it. Even when I tell you twice why they put the
examples in there. Duh! (You and Jeff brothers?)
Cri-men-ny, otn your hopeless/you really are. Typical bull headed man..... Stubborn ,obstinate,
self-righteous! Oh! And smug. I'd like to smack ya. BBG (that's big blonde grin)

Cheers,
Ellen