For who might claim I'm picky about the rules, here's a quiz to show
what picky really means:

Capt. Neal posted a "Rules Lesson"

http://captneal.homestead.com/lessonnew1.html

where he said the following:

There are seven different classifications of vessels. EVERY vessel in
the entire world is classified as one of the following:

NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE

How to remember?? How about this handy little saying: New Reels Catch
Fish So Purchase Several!

These seven different classifications are listed in what is often
referred to as the pecking order. A NUC has the right of way above all
the rest, while a seaplane is low man on the totem pole. Please note
that a sailing vessel is third from the bottom of the list. Despite
what many people think, a sailboat does NOT have the right of way in
many situations.
[snip meaning of terms, shapes, etc.]
See, so far it is not too difficult is it? You know how to identify
vessels and you know where you stand with respect to who is considered
the stand-on vessel and who is considered the give-way vessel. For
example, if you see a vessel while you are sailing and it is
displaying a black cylinder(CBD) in the rigging you know that you are
the give-way vessel. The only circumstance when you would be the stand
on vessel is if the CDB is overtaking you. Any vessel being overtaken
is always the stand-on vessel---unless. . .
[narrow channel and sailing rules follow]
[end of Neal's lesson]

Sound familiar? This is the classic "Pecking Order" that everyone
learns. However, there are two problems with it. I'm not talking
about the recent changes, or Neal's use of "right of way," or the
claim that it includes all boats. Actually, Neal does have a few
problems here, but it isn't anything about Neal's version, since most
pecking order presentations have the same two flaws that I'm looking
for. One of the issues is blatant, but not a situation that is likely
to occur often, the other is more subtle but actually happens
frequently. This is not a case that everyone's understanding of the
rules is flawed, or that you'll get into trouble following the pecking
order; its more that the rules don't actually say what you might think
they say.

Otn, JG, and other masters, don't give it away too quickly, I'd be a
bit disappointed if you didn't know this. Of course, probably no one
else cares.

It's too bad Neal was such a bore, because this stuff is really good.

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
For who might claim I'm picky about the rules, here's a quiz to show what
picky really means:

Capt. Neal posted a "Rules Lesson"

http://captneal.homestead.com/lessonnew1.html

where he said the following:

There are seven different classifications of vessels. EVERY vessel in the
entire world is classified as one of the following:

NUC
RAM
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE

How to remember?? How about this handy little saying: New Reels Catch
Fish So Purchase Several!

These seven different classifications are listed in what is often referred
to as the pecking order. A NUC has the right of way above all the rest,
while a seaplane is low man on the totem pole. Please note that a sailing
vessel is third from the bottom of the list. Despite what many people
think, a sailboat does NOT have the right of way in
many situations.
[snip meaning of terms, shapes, etc.]
See, so far it is not too difficult is it? You know how to identify
vessels and you know where you stand with respect to who is considered the
stand-on vessel and who is considered the give-way vessel. For example, if
you see a vessel while you are sailing and it is displaying a black
cylinder(CBD) in the rigging you know that you are the give-way vessel.
The only circumstance when you would be the stand on vessel is if the CDB
is overtaking you. Any vessel being overtaken is always the stand-on
vessel---unless. . .
[narrow channel and sailing rules follow]
[end of Neal's lesson]

Sound familiar? This is the classic "Pecking Order" that everyone learns.
However, there are two problems with it. I'm not talking about the recent
changes, or Neal's use of "right of way," or the claim that it includes
all boats. Actually, Neal does have a few problems here, but it isn't
anything about Neal's version, since most pecking order presentations have
the same two flaws that I'm looking for. One of the issues is blatant,
but not a situation that is likely to occur often, the other is more
subtle but actually happens frequently. This is not a case that
everyone's understanding of the rules is flawed, or that you'll get into
trouble following the pecking order; its more that the rules don't
actually say what you might think they say.

Otn, JG, and other masters, don't give it away too quickly, I'd be a bit
disappointed if you didn't know this. Of course, probably no one else
cares.

"Jeff" wrote
(deleted the whole thing)

I don't know where you got Captain Neal's Rule lesson. The one I get isn't the same as the
one you posted. Maybe you have an old one in your computer folders. There's a little button
you can click. It has two twisty arrows on it. It puts the latest weblog on the screen.

Cheers,
Ellen

Very good Neal. Thanks for absolutely confirming your identity.

But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that
embarrassing because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order"
presentation I've seen has these flaws.

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
(deleted the whole thing)

I don't know where you got Captain Neal's Rule lesson. The one I get isn't the same as the
one you posted. Maybe you have an old one in your computer folders. There's a little button
you can click. It has two twisty arrows on it. It puts the latest weblog on the screen.

Cheers,
Ellen

"Jeff" wrote

But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that embarrassing
because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order" presentation I've
seen has these flaws.

I think I know what you are driving at Jeff. There is a variation
of this pecking order that includes your two exceptions.

Bart wrote:
"Jeff" wrote

But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that embarrassing
because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order" presentation I've
seen has these flaws.

I think I know what you are driving at Jeff. There is a variation
of this pecking order that includes your two exceptions.


Go for it, unless you're so sure you don't want to ruin it for others.

But I'll give the first hint - you would only know these flaws if you
looked carefully at the wording of the ColRegs. That's why this
qualifies as pedantic.

"Jeff" wrote
| Very good Neal. Thanks for absolutely confirming your identity.

So I noticed you posted stuff from a page that's not there any more. Does that make
me him? Y'all are such conspiracy freaks. Why do you think I'm Captain Neal? I've been
to his web pages lots of times. Some of it's educational, some of it's nonsense and some of
it's fun. Some of it's poking fun. I laugh at what he says about women sometimes. He's soooo
old fashioned. (like Katy in lots of ways) Or maybe he never had a fun girl like me to play
with. :-) He could never be me. Shame on you for saying it.....

| But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that
| embarrassing because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order"
| presentation I've seen has these flaws.

I can only think of one flaw. How's RAM supposed to stay out of the way of NUC?
RAM's unable to maneuver and NUC's unable to maneuver. They should be equals.
Did I get one right?

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Very good Neal. Thanks for absolutely confirming your identity.

So I noticed you posted stuff from a page that's not there any more. Does that make
me him? Y'all are such conspiracy freaks. Why do you think I'm Captain Neal? I've been
to his web pages lots of times. Some of it's educational, some of it's nonsense and some of
it's fun. Some of it's poking fun. I laugh at what he says about women sometimes. He's soooo
old fashioned. (like Katy in lots of ways) Or maybe he never had a fun girl like me to play
with. :-) He could never be me. Shame on you for saying it.....

The change was made today.


| But you could still answer the quiz. The flaws are not that
| embarrassing because they're subtle. In fact, every "pecking order"
| presentation I've seen has these flaws.

I can only think of one flaw. How's RAM supposed to stay out of the way of NUC?
RAM's unable to maneuver and NUC's unable to maneuver. They should be equals.
Did I get one right?

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. But also, a fishing vessel has restricted maneuverability,
potentially much more restricted than a NUC or RAM. There is no logic
that can be applied from individual cases. Although one may deduce
that there was some logic behind the rules, it does not follow that
the same logic applies to each real case.

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?

"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

"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