"Jeff" wrote
| The definitions of NUC and RAM do not say they are unable to maneuver
| at all, only that they are unable to maneuver as required by the
| rules.

Almost right.....

3(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which 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.**

3(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional
circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore
**unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. **

Do you see it now. NUC is unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. RAM is
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. Both are equal. One shouldn't be above
the other on the list. Even if one is unable to maneuver and the other restricted maneuverability,
the end result is the same. Both are uanble to keep out of the way.... Two boats both unable to
keep out of the way of another boat are equally crippled.

| But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
| potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM.

Not really.....

3(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or
other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing
with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

It doesn't say anything about being unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
By definition, FISH has more maneuverability than NUC or RAM because it's not unable
to keep out of the way.

NUC = unable to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
RAM = restricted to maneuver/unable to keep out of the way
FISH = restricted to maneuver/able to keep out of the way

| The question has little to do with logic or common sense, but is
| specifically about the way the rules are worded and thus must be
| answered in those terms. Also, the "flaws" are not in the rules, they
| are that the "pecking order" and the way it is normally explained
| does not match the wording of the rules. So what exactly are these
| discrepancies?

I gave you one discrepancy but you rejected it. So I proved it up there. So now you have
to give me one point for having a valid point. But it sounds like your looking for something
else besides NUC and RAM should have equal status in the pecking order list.
I guess you'll have to give me a clue because I don't have a clue..... I'm sorry but your
logic so far isn't so logical.

Cheers,
Ellen