My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
| G It doesn't have to be written....one guy can't maneuver, one guy has
| restricted maneuverability.

That's half of it. To be complete you have to also say *And both are unable to keep out of the way of
another vessel.*

| Again, I'm on a carrier, launching aircraft.
| In the distance I see a vessel that is indicating NUC and we are on a
| collision course. A bit of radio traffic confirms he has no
| engine....what do I do?
| Since it's the nature of my work that is making me RAM, I have to

That's where you go wrong. It takes MORE than the nature of your work to make you RAM. You
also have to be "(1)restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules *and* is therefore
(2)unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." Two things. There are two things written there.
There, I've said it again. Are you ever going to listen? Your calling yourself RAM when you aren't RAM.
Again RAM is not restricted in ability to maneuver alone. It's restricted and unable. Two things!


| think.....can I slow up/speed up and continue my work and avoid him? No
| set and drift so that's out. Change course? Possibly, but not something
| that may be positive enough for safe clearance. Interrupt operations?
| Yup....gonna **** off a bunch of people, but.....

That proves it! Your not RAM. The carrier example you use here is flawed. If the nature of her work made
her unable to keep out of the way of another vessel she would be RAM. The nature of the work the carrier's
doing doesn't make her unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

| Take all the vessels regarded as RAM..... think of the possibilities.

First you gotta have it clear in your mind what vessel actually is RAM - not what vessel you *think* is RAM.
Once you start thinking that way the possibilities are more limited. A vessel is RAM by definition. The complete
definition! You still use an incomplete definition. You call a vessel RAM when it isn't RAM. Wake up!


Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:


"otnmbrd" wrote
| G It doesn't have to be written....one guy can't maneuver, one guy
| has restricted maneuverability.

That's half of it. To be complete you have to also say *And both
are unable to keep out of the way of
another vessel.*

This point of the discussion centers on differentiating between NUC and
RAM and how they may react to avoid a collision.


| Again, I'm on a carrier, launching aircraft.
| In the distance I see a vessel that is indicating NUC and we are on a
| collision course. A bit of radio traffic confirms he has no
| engine....what do I do?
| Since it's the nature of my work that is making me RAM, I have to

That's where you go wrong. It takes MORE than the nature of your
work to make you RAM. You
also have to be "(1)restricted in her ability to maneuver as required
by these Rules *and* is therefore (2)unable to keep out of the way of
another vessel." Two things. There are two things written there.
There, I've said it again. Are you ever going to listen? Your calling
yourself RAM when you aren't RAM. Again RAM is not restricted in
ability to maneuver alone. It's restricted and unable. Two things!

sigh..... The nature of my work launching aircraft makes me RAM



| think.....can I slow up/speed up and continue my work and avoid him?
| No set and drift so that's out. Change course? Possibly, but not
| something that may be positive enough for safe clearance. Interrupt
| operations? Yup....gonna **** off a bunch of people, but.....

That proves it! Your not RAM. The carrier example you use here is
flawed. If the nature of her work made
her unable to keep out of the way of another vessel she would be RAM.
The nature of the work the carrier's doing doesn't make her unable to
keep out of the way of another vessel.

sigh, again........yes I AM RAM. The nature of my work says that if I
continue doing that work I can not get out of the way of all those
vessels listed after me in rule 18 or a powerdriven vessel, but we're not
talking about those vessels. We are talking about a vessel which is
NUC/can't maneuver...... which means we have two possibilities:
A. Continue our status of RAM and work within our limited capabilities to
avoid the NUC since he can't maneuver, or
B. Interrupt our operations and "OF COURSE" no longer be RAM and maneuver
to avoid. Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with and assumed you would
know what would happen to the RAM status if I stopped operations (my
work).

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
|
| sigh..... The nature of my work launching aircraft makes me RAM

NO it doesn't. The nature of your work alone does not. It's just part of what defines RAM
It must also include making you unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. Your just not RAM
if you're able to keep out of the way. Can you count to two?

| sigh, again........yes I AM RAM. The nature of my work says that if I
| continue doing that work I can not get out of the way of all those
| vessels listed after me in rule 18 or a powerdriven vessel, but we're not
| talking about those vessels. We are talking about a vessel which is
| NUC/can't maneuver......

But, it's also RAM/unable to maneuver. Your RAM is able to maneuver. Therefore it isn't RAM.

| which means we have two possibilities:
| A. Continue our status of RAM and work within our limited capabilities to
| avoid the NUC since he can't maneuver, or

No. You were never RAM since you are not unable to maneuver to keep out of the way. A real RAM
is just like a NUC in that it's unable to maneuver to keep out of the way of another vessel.

| B. Interrupt our operations and "OF COURSE" no longer be RAM and maneuver
| to avoid. Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with and assumed you would
| know what would happen to the RAM status if I stopped operations (my
| work).

You weren't RAM to begin with...
Again, where you go wrong is saying the nature of your work makes you RAM. It doesn't. It's
the nature of your work combined with being unable to maneuver to keep out of the way of another
vessel that makes you RAM.
I think your being contrary now. You can't keep saying things that both Jeff and I have proved
aren't what the rules say. Well I take it back. You can keep saying it but as long as you do you won't
be helping your credibility.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:

No. I've read the list and seen the decending degree of difficulty
between the various "classes" of vessels, to maneuver, and I have not
limited my thinking to believe that there is no more than one thing being
said within the way this rule is written.

In other words, you've read it so many times you no longer see what it
really says and have projected your own version into it!

Again, in your imagination. There simply is not a single word to
indicate that a RAM must stay clear of a NUC. It would have been so
easy to put that in, but they didn't. In fact, I could argue that the
absence of such a statement is extremely telling.

G It doesn't have to be written....one guy can't maneuver, one guy has
restricted maneuverability. Again, I'm on a carrier, launching aircraft.
In the distance I see a vessel that is indicating NUC and we are on a
collision course. A bit of radio traffic confirms he has no
engine....what do I do?
Since it's the nature of my work that is making me RAM, I have to
think.....can I slow up/speed up and continue my work and avoid him? No
set and drift so that's out. Change course? Possibly, but not something
that may be positive enough for safe clearance. Interrupt operations?
Yup....gonna **** off a bunch of people, but.....

So what you have done is project your own experience into the rules to
create a pecking order that goes beyond what is actually written. To
the extent that it is "correct" that is fine, although it is still
outside the scope of a "Pedantic Rules Quiz."

But it can be a dangerous practice. If everyone amended the rules to
accommodate their own perceptions, there would be chaos. For example,
I've had kayakers insist to me that they have "right of way" because
they were smaller. Someone here seemed to be claiming that sport
fishermen had right of way because they were going fast. A large
Silverton claimed to me that he was entitled to do 6 knots and leave a
wake while passing a few feet from my wife and kid as they were trying
to get onboard from a kayak, because the boat is impossible to
handle otherwise. (He took great offense to my suggestion that he
find a boat that he *can* handle.)

That could be taken to mean that statistically it would fall out a
certain way, but that doesn't imply a letter of the law.

With the Rules, the intent comes first the letter comes second (Rule 2)

And only you know the intent? When the rules could have said one
thing, but they specifically say the other, then perhaps that tells us
something about what they meant.

And you keep insisting that a NUC is completely unable to maneuver,
while the rules only say "unable to maneuver as required by these
Rules." There is a difference, and this is why I claim that the two
classes can overlap, and this is why the rules left this issue open.

Certainly, your experience is meaningful in that it might take an
unusual circumstance for a RAM to be less maneuverable than a NUC, but
that doesn't mean the rules are "wrong."

Yes, you're right, I included one too many words in the comparison.
And no matter how often I looked at it, I didn't see that difference!

But the "conclusion" is identical - they are both "unable to keep out
of the way of another vessel."

Yes, but in the NUC's case it's because it's unable to.

Yes, but not totally unable, just "as required by the rules." Clearly
that implies that no vessel with ordinary maneuverability cannot
expect it to stay clear, but it does open the door for a "grey area"
and its easy to imagine a NUC having more maneuverability than a
dredge or salvage vessel.

Since you love to give examples, here's one from my experience: The
new Boston Harbor Tunnel built as part of the Big Dig was constructed
in parts (in Baltimore, no less) and floated into place and then sunk
and welded together. The local boating community was treated to the
two year spectacle of construction. During the "fitting operations"
one of ten 300 foot double tube (4 wide highway lanes) sections were
lowered down 100 feet to the harbor bottom, with accuracy of a
fraction of an inch, and a crew of divers welded it into place.
During this operation the barges were RAM's, and its hard to think of
a vessel with less maneuverability. Of course, the harbor was
effectively closed, but there were a variety of boats around, and one
might imagine a tour boat filled with dignitaries loosing control such
that it would be a NUC, but still have more options than the RAM's.
Even if all it could do is drop anchor, or run aground, this is still
a case where the NUC would have more maneuverability than the RAM, and
had to give way.

In the RAM's case
it's due to the "nature of it's WORK" (you are required to do whatever it
takes to avoid a collision).

OK, so where does "Viz Major" come in? The is the legal concept of
"unavoidable accident." Usually, this is applied in storm or other
"Act of God" situations, but it can also be applied to breakdowns.
This was a common defense in the old days, but the modern thinking is
that most breakdowns are avoidable with proper maintenance, so it is
not a good excuse. I'm guessing this only is mentioned in the
courtroom, and not on the water.

BTW, as I write, the USS Intrepid Museum is being towed from its berth
on New York's West Side, to a drydock in Bayonne for a two year refit.
I wonder if its a RAM?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

otnmbrd wrote:

No. I've read the list and seen the decending degree of difficulty
between the various "classes" of vessels, to maneuver, and I have not
limited my thinking to believe that there is no more than one thing
being said within the way this rule is written.

In other words, you've read it so many times you no longer see what it
really says and have projected your own version into it!

Yes and no.
Yes.... I've read it so many times and will continue to do so.
No..... I've never forgotten the basic premise that I was originally
taught that:
A. NUC .... A vessel that is broken down for some reason and unable to
maneuver.
B. RAM .... A vessel, which because of the work it is doing is restricted
in it's maneuverability.

In both cases these two vessels are either "unable to maneuver as
required by the rules" or "restricted in their ability to maneuver as
required by these rules" and unable to keep out of the way of the normal
vessel traffic.
Please note the difference in the "...". To me this difference is massive
and what makes the reason for having these two seperate groups to begin
with.
Also note that in the case of the RAM vessel it is because of the WORK it
is performing that it is restricted in it's ability to maneuver. (very
important).
A final note.... I'm sure we agree that it is impossible to write the
rules in such a way that every possible condition/circumstance will be
covered, so that we must use the rules (in many cases) as a basic
guideline to build on, and our own experience and knowledge of the
varying conditions as added "filler" to create a solution and avoid a
collision.


Again, in your imagination. There simply is not a single word to
indicate that a RAM must stay clear of a NUC. It would have been so
easy to put that in, but they didn't. In fact, I could argue that
the absence of such a statement is extremely telling.

G It doesn't have to be written....one guy can't maneuver, one guy
has restricted maneuverability. Again, I'm on a carrier, launching
aircraft. In the distance I see a vessel that is indicating NUC and
we are on a collision course. A bit of radio traffic confirms he has
no engine....what do I do?
Since it's the nature of my work that is making me RAM, I have to
think.....can I slow up/speed up and continue my work and avoid him?
No set and drift so that's out. Change course? Possibly, but not
something that may be positive enough for safe clearance. Interrupt
operations? Yup....gonna **** off a bunch of people, but.....

So what you have done is project your own experience into the rules to
create a pecking order that goes beyond what is actually written. To
the extent that it is "correct" that is fine, although it is still
outside the scope of a "Pedantic Rules Quiz."

G True.....did you really expect a rules discussion to remain pedantic?


But it can be a dangerous practice. If everyone amended the rules to
accommodate their own perceptions, there would be chaos. For example,
I've had kayakers insist to me that they have "right of way" because
they were smaller. Someone here seemed to be claiming that sport
fishermen had right of way because they were going fast. A large
Silverton claimed to me that he was entitled to do 6 knots and leave a
wake while passing a few feet from my wife and kid as they were trying
to get onboard from a kayak, because the boat is impossible to
handle otherwise. (He took great offense to my suggestion that he
find a boat that he *can* handle.)

I don't believe I am "amending" the rules, but instead, keeping the basic
rule foremost, then building a data base from observation, experience,
case history, etc., which I can use to fill in the many gaps which show
up in real world applications.


That could be taken to mean that statistically it would fall out a
certain way, but that doesn't imply a letter of the law.

With the Rules, the intent comes first the letter comes second (Rule
2)

And only you know the intent?

Never said nor implied that.

When the rules could have said one
thing, but they specifically say the other, then perhaps that tells us
something about what they meant.

What is specific to one person may be vague to another and vice versa.


And you keep insisting that a NUC is completely unable to maneuver,
while the rules only say "unable to maneuver as required by these
Rules." There is a difference, and this is why I claim that the two
classes can overlap, and this is why the rules left this issue open.

KISS....unable to maneuver is unable to maneuver, so we disagree.
I see absolutely no overlap....that is why they made these two seperate
classes.


Certainly, your experience is meaningful in that it might take an
unusual circumstance for a RAM to be less maneuverable than a NUC, but
that doesn't mean the rules are "wrong."

Never said the rules are wrong. It is your interpretation of the rules
which makes you believe that my interpretation somehow or other says this
BG


Yes, you're right, I included one too many words in the comparison.
And no matter how often I looked at it, I didn't see that
difference!

But the "conclusion" is identical - they are both "unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel."

Yes, but in the NUC's case it's because it's unable to.

Yes, but not totally unable, just "as required by the rules." Clearly
that implies that no vessel with ordinary maneuverability cannot
expect it to stay clear, but it does open the door for a "grey area"
and its easy to imagine a NUC having more maneuverability than a
dredge or salvage vessel.

That's your interpretation, not mine....G your reading of the rules may
be "projecting your own version" of what it says.


Since you love to give examples, here's one from my experience: The
new Boston Harbor Tunnel built as part of the Big Dig was constructed
in parts (in Baltimore, no less) and floated into place and then sunk
and welded together. The local boating community was treated to the
two year spectacle of construction. During the "fitting operations"
one of ten 300 foot double tube (4 wide highway lanes) sections were
lowered down 100 feet to the harbor bottom, with accuracy of a
fraction of an inch, and a crew of divers welded it into place.
During this operation the barges were RAM's, and its hard to think of
a vessel with less maneuverability. Of course, the harbor was
effectively closed, but there were a variety of boats around, and one
might imagine a tour boat filled with dignitaries loosing control such
that it would be a NUC, but still have more options than the RAM's.
Even if all it could do is drop anchor, or run aground, this is still
a case where the NUC would have more maneuverability than the RAM, and
had to give way.

You believe a NUC has maneuverability and is simply "restricted in it's
ability" whereas I believe a NUC has no maneuverability and at no time
can get out of the way until it solves/corrects it's problem.
My example was open ocean so that the NUC could not anchor. Yours seem to
revolve on inner harbors, so again, in those cases (99.9999%of the time-
there's always exceptions) the NUC simply anchors, in which case it is no
longer NUC....problem solved.....

In the RAM's case
it's due to the "nature of it's WORK" (you are required to do
whatever it takes to avoid a collision).

OK, so where does "Viz Major" come in? The is the legal concept of
"unavoidable accident." Usually, this is applied in storm or other
"Act of God" situations, but it can also be applied to breakdowns.
This was a common defense in the old days, but the modern thinking is
that most breakdowns are avoidable with proper maintenance, so it is
not a good excuse. I'm guessing this only is mentioned in the
courtroom, and not on the water.

LOL I should hope so !!! Hell, a breakdown may well be avoidable but this
doesn't change the fact that it happened !!!

BTW, as I write, the USS Intrepid Museum is being towed from its berth
on New York's West Side, to a drydock in Bayonne for a two year refit.
I wonder if its a RAM?

I doubt the Intrepid is lit/dayshaped as RAM, but the main tug towing it
may be....but....having said that I can envision a tug set-up that might
allow the Intrepid to be the one lit/dayshaped as RAM.....now, if he
should encounter a ship that is NUC (lost both anchors, main engine torn
down due to repairs) drifting down the Hudson......

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

snip


And you keep insisting that a NUC is completely unable to maneuver, while
the rules only say "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." There
is a difference, and this is why I claim that the two classes can overlap,
and this is why the rules left this issue open.

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement.
Please explain to me why you think that by adding "as required by these
Rules" somehow makes this vessel maneuverable and relate it to the maneuvers
the Rules would require you to make.
G I could have a case for saying you are reading too much or your own
thoughts into the rules or amending them to suit your perceptions....

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
And you keep insisting that a NUC is completely unable to maneuver, while
the rules only say "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." There
is a difference, and this is why I claim that the two classes can overlap,
and this is why the rules left this issue open.

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement.
Please explain to me why you think that by adding "as required by these
Rules" somehow makes this vessel maneuverable and relate it to the maneuvers
the Rules would require you to make.
G I could have a case for saying you are reading too much or your own
thoughts into the rules or amending them to suit your perceptions....

The phrase is: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." It is
not simply "unable to maneuver" - there is a big difference. If I
said, "my car couldn't run as fast as normal" you wouldn't be saying
it couldn't run at all; the extra clause is qualifying the statement.
I could give a thousand examples, but English is English and that's
what it says.

As it was explained to me, under ordinary circumstances a vessel is
expected to make certain maneuvers, slow down, stop, turn to either
side, perhaps even speed up, "as required by the rules." A NUC,
however, may not be able to fulfill these responsibilities, and thus
one can say it is "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." A
sailboat crossing a powerboat's path expects it to slow down, "as
required by the rules." However, if it lost reverse, it would be
"unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." By declaring itself
to be a NUC, the powerboat is saying "Don't expect me to be able to
maneuver 'as required by the rules.'"

So I asked, "Captain Instructor, why then is there a difference
between a RAM and a NUC?" The answer was, "When you see a RAM, you
can guess by the nature of the vessel what the limitation is and how
much room it might need, but with a NUC you have to presume anything
is possible."

"So," I asked, "what happens between a RAM and a NUC?" and the answer
was, "The same thing that happens between two RAM's or two NUC's or
two vessels in the fog or between a rowboat and a kayak or any of the
other infinite situations not fully described in the rules - you
figure it out."

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote
(deleted everything)

I think otn has a reading comprehension problem. We both tell him the same thing
over and over again but he just doesn't get it.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Interesting (I don't agree, but interesting). It also appears that we are
getting closer to the basic reason we disagree..... what vessels you
consider NUC.
(further comments interspersed)


Jeff wrote in
:


The phrase is: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." It is
not simply "unable to maneuver" - there is a big difference. If I
said, "my car couldn't run as fast as normal" you wouldn't be saying
it couldn't run at all; the extra clause is qualifying the statement.
I could give a thousand examples, but English is English and that's
what it says.

G that's NOT what it says to me.


As it was explained to me, under ordinary circumstances a vessel is
expected to make certain maneuvers, slow down, stop, turn to either
side, perhaps even speed up, "as required by the rules." A NUC,
however, may not be able to fulfill these responsibilities, and thus
one can say it is "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." A
sailboat crossing a powerboat's path expects it to slow down, "as
required by the rules." However, if it lost reverse, it would be
"unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." By declaring itself
to be a NUC, the powerboat is saying "Don't expect me to be able to
maneuver 'as required by the rules.'"

Here's the reason for my original statement above. Under NO circumstances
would I consider a vessel which had simply lost reverse to be NUC, "unable
to maneuver as required by these rules".


So I asked, "Captain Instructor, why then is there a difference
between a RAM and a NUC?" The answer was, "When you see a RAM, you
can guess by the nature of the vessel what the limitation is and how
much room it might need, but with a NUC you have to presume anything
is possible."

Your instructor and I disagree....when you see a NUC you have to presume
NOTHING is possible.


"So," I asked, "what happens between a RAM and a NUC?" and the answer
was, "The same thing that happens between two RAM's or two NUC's or
two vessels in the fog or between a rowboat and a kayak or any of the
other infinite situations not fully described in the rules - you
figure it out."


Again it appears that the basic disagreement is what vessels you consider
NUC.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
| Interesting (I don't agree, but interesting). It also appears that we are
| getting closer to the basic reason we disagree..... what vessels you
| consider NUC.
| (further comments interspersed)
| G that's NOT what it says to me.
| Here's the reason for my original statement above. Under NO circumstances
| would I consider a vessel which had simply lost reverse to be NUC, "unable
| to maneuver as required by these rules".
| Your instructor and I disagree....when you see a NUC you have to presume
| NOTHING is possible.
| Again it appears that the basic disagreement is what vessels you consider
| NUC.


No, that's not it. The problem is you don't understand what RAM is.
It's like the Twilight Zone with this guy.....
Jeff, are you shaking your head and pulling out your hair too?

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
Interesting (I don't agree, but interesting). It also appears that we are
getting closer to the basic reason we disagree..... what vessels you
consider NUC.
(further comments interspersed)


Jeff wrote in
:

The phrase is: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." It is
not simply "unable to maneuver" - there is a big difference. If I
said, "my car couldn't run as fast as normal" you wouldn't be saying
it couldn't run at all; the extra clause is qualifying the statement.
I could give a thousand examples, but English is English and that's
what it says.

G that's NOT what it says to me.

OK - I see how one could stretch the words to mean something like
"ordinarily the rules require one to be able maneuver, but in this
case, they are completely unable to maneuver." I would claim two
things: first, if this is intended, adding the extra "as required ..."
adds nothing, and in fact changes the meaning. Thus, if they meant
totally unable to maneuver, they could have simply said that.

Secondly, if that's what was meant, punctuation should have been
added, as in "unable to maneuver, as required by these Rules."


As it was explained to me, under ordinary circumstances a vessel is
expected to make certain maneuvers, slow down, stop, turn to either
side, perhaps even speed up, "as required by the rules." A NUC,
however, may not be able to fulfill these responsibilities, and thus
one can say it is "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." A
sailboat crossing a powerboat's path expects it to slow down, "as
required by the rules." However, if it lost reverse, it would be
"unable to maneuver as required by these Rules." By declaring itself
to be a NUC, the powerboat is saying "Don't expect me to be able to
maneuver 'as required by the rules.'"

Here's the reason for my original statement above. Under NO circumstances
would I consider a vessel which had simply lost reverse to be NUC, "unable
to maneuver as required by these rules".

So you're saying that anything short of a total breakdown is not
worthy of a signal. You seem to be saying that there are two
categories of power boats (not counting RAM & CBD) - those that are
totally able to fulfill all of their responsibilities, and those that
are totally unable to do so. In the former case, no signal is needed;
in the latter case, the only viable option is to drop anchor
immediately (assuming you're not off soundings), otherwise you must
scuttle the vessel.

I find it very difficult to believe that the rules writers would have
gone out of their way to add a category of "totally disabled vessel"
without actually saying that's what they meant.



So I asked, "Captain Instructor, why then is there a difference
between a RAM and a NUC?" The answer was, "When you see a RAM, you
can guess by the nature of the vessel what the limitation is and how
much room it might need, but with a NUC you have to presume anything
is possible."

Your instructor and I disagree....when you see a NUC you have to presume
NOTHING is possible.

So why bother? If all a NUC can ever do is drop an anchor, why bother
with "red over red" when an anchor light is all you need?



"So," I asked, "what happens between a RAM and a NUC?" and the answer
was, "The same thing that happens between two RAM's or two NUC's or
two vessels in the fog or between a rowboat and a kayak or any of the
other infinite situations not fully described in the rules - you
figure it out."


Again it appears that the basic disagreement is what vessels you consider
NUC.

I can understand why you say that for large ships a NUC should never
enter the harbor. But does that apply to all vessels? Last week you
claimed that a tiny powerboat towing a somewhat larger vessel could be
considered a RAM. By the same token can't a small boat be a NUC?
Sometimes dropping an anchor and waiting for SeaTow is not a good
option. I've had a number of situations where I've returned to dock
with marginal control - several cases of broken rudders (one case of
missing rudder!). One time I brought a launch back in reverse!

I've had to drive my catamaran up the entrance channel to the Cape Cod
Canal with one engine to go to Onset Marine for repairs. Check out
the latest Cruising World for a chart. In my case, the cat handled
well in a straight line, but was essentially unable to turn to Port.
I had to do a 270 to starboard to make the turn. Couldn't I have been
considered a NUC?

The last time I took the ferry from the Vineyard to Woods Hole a group
of sailboats crossed in front of us, requiring the ferry to use
reverse to slow down. In this case its only a 30 minute ferry ride,
but what if were a 3 hours ferry - if it lost reverse should it drop
anchor and wait while 300 passengers are getting seasick? Perhaps
forging on is the best option. But then, how to you tell other
vessels that there is a limitation? Do the rules really say you're
not allowed to inform other that you have a limitation? I don't think so!

You're painting this as a black and white situation, when in fact
there is a large grey area in between.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:


OK - I see how one could stretch the words to mean something like
"ordinarily the rules require one to be able maneuver, but in this
case, they are completely unable to maneuver." I would claim two
things: first, if this is intended, adding the extra "as required ..."
adds nothing, and in fact changes the meaning. Thus, if they meant
totally unable to maneuver, they could have simply said that.

Secondly, if that's what was meant, punctuation should have been
added, as in "unable to maneuver, as required by these Rules."

I must admit I've never delved this deeply into the wording of this rule
since you are the first I've met who interprets it this way.



Here's the reason for my original statement above. Under NO
circumstances would I consider a vessel which had simply lost reverse
to be NUC, "unable to maneuver as required by these rules".

So you're saying that anything short of a total breakdown is not
worthy of a signal. You seem to be saying that there are two
categories of power boats (not counting RAM & CBD) - those that are
totally able to fulfill all of their responsibilities, and those that
are totally unable to do so. In the former case, no signal is needed;
in the latter case, the only viable option is to drop anchor
immediately (assuming you're not off soundings), otherwise you must
scuttle the vessel.

Not really. There's a third group. This group may be having some
mechanical difficulties, but if they obey the rules (8a.) they can easily
avoid a problem.
For instance, in the case you site with the powerboat and no reverse, he
could easily have slowed, altered course prior to the point where he now
needs reverse (kinda reminds me of the old seastory of the Greek Captain
who was about to have a collision that was his fault..... just before the
collision he stops his engine and hoist two black balls claiming NUC).


I find it very difficult to believe that the rules writers would have
gone out of their way to add a category of "totally disabled vessel"
without actually saying that's what they meant.

G I think they did.




So I asked, "Captain Instructor, why then is there a difference
between a RAM and a NUC?" The answer was, "When you see a RAM, you
can guess by the nature of the vessel what the limitation is and how
much room it might need, but with a NUC you have to presume anything
is possible."

Your instructor and I disagree....when you see a NUC you have to
presume NOTHING is possible.

So why bother? If all a NUC can ever do is drop an anchor, why bother
with "red over red" when an anchor light is all you need?

Because in open ocean conditions, you can't drop an anchor.




"So," I asked, "what happens between a RAM and a NUC?" and the
answer was, "The same thing that happens between two RAM's or two
NUC's or two vessels in the fog or between a rowboat and a kayak or
any of the
other infinite situations not fully described in the rules - you
figure it out."


Again it appears that the basic disagreement is what vessels you
consider NUC.

I can understand why you say that for large ships a NUC should never
enter the harbor. But does that apply to all vessels? Last week you
claimed that a tiny powerboat towing a somewhat larger vessel could be
considered a RAM. By the same token can't a small boat be a NUC?

Yes, if he's disabled and can't anchor.

Sometimes dropping an anchor and waiting for SeaTow is not a good
option. I've had a number of situations where I've returned to dock
with marginal control - several cases of broken rudders (one case of
missing rudder!). One time I brought a launch back in reverse!

So in each case you were able to maneuver as required by these rules...
i.e., you could control your vessel....obviously, you did....you got
there?


I've had to drive my catamaran up the entrance channel to the Cape Cod
Canal with one engine to go to Onset Marine for repairs. Check out
the latest Cruising World for a chart. In my case, the cat handled
well in a straight line, but was essentially unable to turn to Port.
I had to do a 270 to starboard to make the turn. Couldn't I have been
considered a NUC?

Nope.... if you encountered other boat traffic you could stop, speed up,
slow down, turn to stbd as long as you thought well ahead of the game
(I'm assuming your stbd engine was out.... a turn to port....back the
port engine).



The last time I took the ferry from the Vineyard to Woods Hole a group
of sailboats crossed in front of us, requiring the ferry to use
reverse to slow down. In this case its only a 30 minute ferry ride,
but what if were a 3 hours ferry - if it lost reverse should it drop
anchor and wait while 300 passengers are getting seasick? Perhaps
forging on is the best option. But then, how to you tell other
vessels that there is a limitation? Do the rules really say you're
not allowed to inform other that you have a limitation? I don't think
so!

You get on the radio, you think well ahead, when docking you use
anchors.....


You're painting this as a black and white situation, when in fact
there is a large grey area in between.

Yes and no. I'm saying NUC says one thing....I'M BROKE!!
If you look at most of the "grey areas" you mention, either the vessel
can still maneuver according to the rules, even though it may require
some additional planning or the occassional round turn, or it can anchor
and wait for Sea Tow, or stop until the danger/traffic passes.

NUC is only used for "exceptional circumstances" not for your run of the
mill "oh damn".

G This is all not to say that I think you may have a point in that
there could be a need to indicate a vessel which may be having some
problems, other than the radio or yelling, but I disagree that we should
lump this into NUC.
Mayhaps someone will suggest the sound signal or flag signal "D".....

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

OK, I'll offer a few more things:

Rule 27 (a) (iii) specifies that a NUC underway must display
sidelights, and the book actually shows a picture. If this was never
supposed to happen, why bother with a picture?


And just to show I'm not the only person to have noticed this, here's
Jim Austin's take on this. (He wrote the Rules column in Professional
Mariner.) scroll about halfway down to comment "b)"
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/rule18.html


I also found a few another sites that mentioned the equality of RAM's
and NUC's in the pecking order, one comment that there's never been a
case where a RAM and a NUC collided.


I found a number of items referring to the habit of declaring NUC
while drifting outside a harbor. It seems that this is definitely
frowned upon.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...%20Circ177.pdf


This is from a list of official test questions with answers.
http://www.uscg.mil/D13/units/gruast...es/DWO1102.pdf
Note that answer D would have agreed with you, but it is wrong.

524. BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND INLAND Which statement is true, according
to the rules?
A. a fishing vessel has the right of way over a vessel constrained by
her draft
B. a vessel not under command shall avoid impeding the safe passage of
a vessel constrained by her draft
C. A vessel engaged in fishing shall, so far as possible, keep out of
the way of a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver
D. A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall keep out of
the way of a vessel not under command

Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall,
so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not under command
and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.


plus a few other comments:
Sometimes dropping an anchor and waiting for SeaTow is not a good
option. I've had a number of situations where I've returned to dock
with marginal control - several cases of broken rudders (one case of
missing rudder!). One time I brought a launch back in reverse!

So in each case you were able to maneuver as required by these
rules...
i.e., you could control your vessel....obviously, you did....you got
there?

Only because others gave me room. Are you seriously claiming that
there's never been a situation where a partially disabled vessel
reasonably asked for and received a wide berth??? Why would this not
be considered a NUC?

Do the rules really say you're
not allowed to inform other that you have a limitation? I don't
think so!

You get on the radio, you think well ahead, when docking you use
anchors.....

And you pray that no one mistakes you for someone who could obey the
rules? I think you're really on shaky ground here.


otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:

OK - I see how one could stretch the words to mean something like
"ordinarily the rules require one to be able maneuver, but in this
case, they are completely unable to maneuver." I would claim two
things: first, if this is intended, adding the extra "as required ..."
adds nothing, and in fact changes the meaning. Thus, if they meant
totally unable to maneuver, they could have simply said that.

Secondly, if that's what was meant, punctuation should have been
added, as in "unable to maneuver, as required by these Rules."

I must admit I've never delved this deeply into the wording of this rule
since you are the first I've met who interprets it this way.

Here's the reason for my original statement above. Under NO
circumstances would I consider a vessel which had simply lost reverse
to be NUC, "unable to maneuver as required by these rules".
So you're saying that anything short of a total breakdown is not
worthy of a signal. You seem to be saying that there are two
categories of power boats (not counting RAM & CBD) - those that are
totally able to fulfill all of their responsibilities, and those that
are totally unable to do so. In the former case, no signal is needed;
in the latter case, the only viable option is to drop anchor
immediately (assuming you're not off soundings), otherwise you must
scuttle the vessel.

Not really. There's a third group. This group may be having some
mechanical difficulties, but if they obey the rules (8a.) they can easily
avoid a problem.
For instance, in the case you site with the powerboat and no reverse, he
could easily have slowed, altered course prior to the point where he now
needs reverse (kinda reminds me of the old seastory of the Greek Captain
who was about to have a collision that was his fault..... just before the
collision he stops his engine and hoist two black balls claiming NUC).

I find it very difficult to believe that the rules writers would have
gone out of their way to add a category of "totally disabled vessel"
without actually saying that's what they meant.

G I think they did.


So I asked, "Captain Instructor, why then is there a difference
between a RAM and a NUC?" The answer was, "When you see a RAM, you
can guess by the nature of the vessel what the limitation is and how
much room it might need, but with a NUC you have to presume anything
is possible."
Your instructor and I disagree....when you see a NUC you have to
presume NOTHING is possible.
So why bother? If all a NUC can ever do is drop an anchor, why bother
with "red over red" when an anchor light is all you need?

Because in open ocean conditions, you can't drop an anchor.


"So," I asked, "what happens between a RAM and a NUC?" and the
answer was, "The same thing that happens between two RAM's or two
NUC's or two vessels in the fog or between a rowboat and a kayak or
any of the
other infinite situations not fully described in the rules - you
figure it out."

Again it appears that the basic disagreement is what vessels you
consider NUC.
I can understand why you say that for large ships a NUC should never
enter the harbor. But does that apply to all vessels? Last week you
claimed that a tiny powerboat towing a somewhat larger vessel could be
considered a RAM. By the same token can't a small boat be a NUC?

Yes, if he's disabled and can't anchor.

Sometimes dropping an anchor and waiting for SeaTow is not a good
option. I've had a number of situations where I've returned to dock
with marginal control - several cases of broken rudders (one case of
missing rudder!). One time I brought a launch back in reverse!

So in each case you were able to maneuver as required by these rules...
i.e., you could control your vessel....obviously, you did....you got
there?

I've had to drive my catamaran up the entrance channel to the Cape Cod
Canal with one engine to go to Onset Marine for repairs. Check out
the latest Cruising World for a chart. In my case, the cat handled
well in a straight line, but was essentially unable to turn to Port.
I had to do a 270 to starboard to make the turn. Couldn't I have been
considered a NUC?

Nope.... if you encountered other boat traffic you could stop, speed up,
slow down, turn to stbd as long as you thought well ahead of the game
(I'm assuming your stbd engine was out.... a turn to port....back the
port engine).


The last time I took the ferry from the Vineyard to Woods Hole a group
of sailboats crossed in front of us, requiring the ferry to use
reverse to slow down. In this case its only a 30 minute ferry ride,
but what if were a 3 hours ferry - if it lost reverse should it drop
anchor and wait while 300 passengers are getting seasick? Perhaps
forging on is the best option. But then, how to you tell other
vessels that there is a limitation? Do the rules really say you're
not allowed to inform other that you have a limitation? I don't think
so!

You get on the radio, you think well ahead, when docking you use
anchors.....

You're painting this as a black and white situation, when in fact
there is a large grey area in between.

Yes and no. I'm saying NUC says one thing....I'M BROKE!!
If you look at most of the "grey areas" you mention, either the vessel
can still maneuver according to the rules, even though it may require
some additional planning or the occassional round turn, or it can anchor
and wait for Sea Tow, or stop until the danger/traffic passes.

NUC is only used for "exceptional circumstances" not for your run of the
mill "oh damn".

G This is all not to say that I think you may have a point in that
there could be a need to indicate a vessel which may be having some
problems, other than the radio or yelling, but I disagree that we should
lump this into NUC.
Mayhaps someone will suggest the sound signal or flag signal "D".....

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

OK, I'll offer a few more things:

Rule 27 (a) (iii) specifies that a NUC underway must display
sidelights, and the book actually shows a picture. If this was never
supposed to happen, why bother with a picture?

Correction: It states that when it is MAKING WAY..... when not doing so
it shuts them off.... i.e., you break down while underway and making way,
you shut off masthead and range, turn on NUC, then when you stop, secure
side and stern lights.




And just to show I'm not the only person to have noticed this, here's
Jim Austin's take on this. (He wrote the Rules column in Professional
Mariner.) scroll about halfway down to comment "b)"
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/rule18.html

Interesting



I also found a few another sites that mentioned the equality of RAM's
and NUC's in the pecking order, one comment that there's never been a
case where a RAM and a NUC collided.

EG that's because the RAM stopped working and moved or the NUC
anchored.



I found a number of items referring to the habit of declaring NUC
while drifting outside a harbor. It seems that this is definitely
frowned upon.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...ulars/SN%20Cir
c177.pdf

yup....but ships are known to do it. EG



This is from a list of official test questions with answers.
http://www.uscg.mil/D13/units/gruast...iles/DWO1102.p
df Note that answer D would have agreed with you, but it is wrong.

524. BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND INLAND Which statement is true, according
to the rules?
A. a fishing vessel has the right of way over a vessel constrained by
her draft
B. a vessel not under command shall avoid impeding the safe passage of
a vessel constrained by her draft
C. A vessel engaged in fishing shall, so far as possible, keep out of
the way of a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver
D. A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall keep out of
the way of a vessel not under command

Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall,
so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not under command
and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

Bet that ones been argued.



plus a few other comments:
Sometimes dropping an anchor and waiting for SeaTow is not a good
option. I've had a number of situations where I've returned to
dock with marginal control - several cases of broken rudders (one
case of missing rudder!). One time I brought a launch back in
reverse!

So in each case you were able to maneuver as required by these
rules...
i.e., you could control your vessel....obviously, you did....you got
there?

Only because others gave me room. Are you seriously claiming that
there's never been a situation where a partially disabled vessel
reasonably asked for and received a wide berth??? Why would this not
be considered a NUC?

Because NUC is one signal and what you are talking about is another.


Do the rules really say you're
not allowed to inform other that you have a limitation? I don't
think so!

You get on the radio, you think well ahead, when docking you use
anchors.....

And you pray that no one mistakes you for someone who could obey the
rules? I think you're really on shaky ground here.

Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International Code of
Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of me; I am
maneuvering with difficulty

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:

OK, I'll offer a few more things:

Rule 27 (a) (iii) specifies that a NUC underway must display
sidelights, and the book actually shows a picture. If this was never
supposed to happen, why bother with a picture?

Correction: It states that when it is MAKING WAY..... when not doing so
it shuts them off.... i.e., you break down while underway and making way,
you shut off masthead and range, turn on NUC, then when you stop, secure
side and stern lights.

Yes, I "meant" to say that, but my point holds.




And just to show I'm not the only person to have noticed this, here's
Jim Austin's take on this. (He wrote the Rules column in Professional
Mariner.) scroll about halfway down to comment "b)"
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/rule18.html

Interesting

indeed. As I've said, the definitions as well as your experience may
imply that NUC's are significant more impaired than RAM's. But still,
it doesn't say that in Rule 18.



I also found a few another sites that mentioned the equality of RAM's
and NUC's in the pecking order, one comment that there's never been a
case where a RAM and a NUC collided.

EG that's because the RAM stopped working and moved or the NUC
anchored.

I would think that "red over red" is a good signal as to how the judge
would rule!



I found a number of items referring to the habit of declaring NUC
while drifting outside a harbor. It seems that this is definitely
frowned upon.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/...ulars/SN%20Cir
c177.pdf

yup....but ships are known to do it. EG

I saw about a dozen references, including some that said it was
standard practice in some areas. And there was one official comment
to the effect that it would a very dangerous situation if a mess of
cruise ships were drifting around outside some Caribbean port, all
claiming to be NUC's.




This is from a list of official test questions with answers.
http://www.uscg.mil/D13/units/gruast...iles/DWO1102.p
df Note that answer D would have agreed with you, but it is wrong.

524. BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND INLAND Which statement is true, according
to the rules?
A. a fishing vessel has the right of way over a vessel constrained by
her draft
B. a vessel not under command shall avoid impeding the safe passage of
a vessel constrained by her draft
C. A vessel engaged in fishing shall, so far as possible, keep out of
the way of a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver
D. A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall keep out of
the way of a vessel not under command

Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall,
so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not under command
and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

Bet that ones been argued.

You can argue the practical side of this, but the words are quite clear.




plus a few other comments:
Sometimes dropping an anchor and waiting for SeaTow is not a good
option. I've had a number of situations where I've returned to
dock with marginal control - several cases of broken rudders (one
case of missing rudder!). One time I brought a launch back in
reverse!
So in each case you were able to maneuver as required by these
rules...
i.e., you could control your vessel....obviously, you did....you got
there?
Only because others gave me room. Are you seriously claiming that
there's never been a situation where a partially disabled vessel
reasonably asked for and received a wide berth??? Why would this not
be considered a NUC?

Because NUC is one signal and what you are talking about is another.

You "D" flag is picking nits - there's nothing in the rules about this.



Do the rules really say you're
not allowed to inform other that you have a limitation? I don't
think so!
You get on the radio, you think well ahead, when docking you use
anchors.....
And you pray that no one mistakes you for someone who could obey the
rules? I think you're really on shaky ground here.

Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International Code of
Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of me; I am
maneuvering with difficulty

So why not do that with your small boat RAM? You were willing to
use the Rules in that case, why not for NUC's?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

otnmbrd wrote:

Correction: It states that when it is MAKING WAY..... when not doing
so it shuts them off.... i.e., you break down while underway and
making way, you shut off masthead and range, turn on NUC, then when
you stop, secure side and stern lights.

Yes, I "meant" to say that, but my point holds.

G Seeing as how you're the "pedant" here I can see why, but I'd say
you're reading too much into a simple statement.


Interesting

indeed. As I've said, the definitions as well as your experience may
imply that NUC's are significant more impaired than RAM's. But still,
it doesn't say that in Rule 18.

Specifically no, implied yes.


EG that's because the RAM stopped working and moved or the NUC
anchored.

I would think that "red over red" is a good signal as to how the judge
would rule!

"Red over Red, the Captain is dead"


yup....but ships are known to do it. EG

I saw about a dozen references, including some that said it was
standard practice in some areas. And there was one official comment
to the effect that it would a very dangerous situation if a mess of
cruise ships were drifting around outside some Caribbean port, all
claiming to be NUC's.

G No arguments here.


Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway
shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not under
command and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

Bet that ones been argued.

You can argue the practical side of this, but the words are quite
clear.

Clear to you, clear to me.....just different interpretations.


Because NUC is one signal and what you are talking about is another.

You "D" flag is picking nits - there's nothing in the rules about
this.

Rule 35(c) he said, opening up another can of worms......
And in truth, there is nothing nitpicking about it. I was required to
learn these signals and the methods of transmitting them. The fact they
weren't written in the Rules, is immaterial....they are in the Code of
Signals.... the fact that most recreational boaters are not aware of
them/it is...... well, you get the idea.



Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International Code
of Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of me; I am
maneuvering with difficulty

So why not do that with your small boat RAM?

Not sure I can see a reason not to. After all, it's not saying I'm
"unable to maneuver", just having difficulty or restricted in ability,
to.

You were willing to
use the Rules in that case, why not for NUC's?

My sense is that you are looking for a "niche" to place this group of
vessels into (ones having a problem but not fully disabled) and RAM
doesn't work, so the assumption is that the "writers" must have been
aware of them so that if they didn't fit into RAM, then they must have
meant for them to be NUC, in which case RAM would not give way to
NUC..... If this be the case, I disagree

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:

otnmbrd wrote:
Correction: It states that when it is MAKING WAY..... when not doing
so it shuts them off.... i.e., you break down while underway and
making way, you shut off masthead and range, turn on NUC, then when
you stop, secure side and stern lights.
Yes, I "meant" to say that, but my point holds.

G Seeing as how you're the "pedant" here I can see why, but I'd say
you're reading too much into a simple statement.

Most of the rules are a "simple statements." The point here is that
you claimed that NUC's should never be making way, they should always
be anchored. But the writers of the rules went out of their way to
specify the lights for a NUC making way, and the publisher's of the
government issue book felt it was important enough to devout a picture
to it. Obviously, if they specified the lights for this situation,
they must have assumed that sometimes it happens.


Interesting
indeed. As I've said, the definitions as well as your experience may
imply that NUC's are significant more impaired than RAM's. But still,
it doesn't say that in Rule 18.

Specifically no, implied yes.

It isn't even implied! There is not a single word anywhere in the
rule 18 to the affect that a RAM shall keep out of the way of
anything. In fact is that this "implied rule" is so conspicuous by
its absence that it very clear they did not intend that at all.

Your claim is that the wording of the rule about what a powerboat
should do (and similar rules for sail and fishing boats) somehow imply
what a RAM must do, but there is nothing to that effect.


Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway
shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not under
command and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
Bet that ones been argued.
You can argue the practical side of this, but the words are quite
clear.

Clear to you, clear to me.....just different interpretations.

No, even you've said it isn't in the rules - you've claimed its
implied by the definition of NUC and your experience.


Because NUC is one signal and what you are talking about is another.
You "D" flag is picking nits - there's nothing in the rules about
this.

Rule 35(c) he said, opening up another can of worms......
And in truth, there is nothing nitpicking about it. I was required to
learn these signals and the methods of transmitting them. The fact they
weren't written in the Rules, is immaterial....they are in the Code of
Signals.... the fact that most recreational boaters are not aware of
them/it is...... well, you get the idea.

They aren't required now for receiving a Master's license. Showing a
signal that isn't likely to be understood by many observers is not
very useful.




Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International Code
of Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of me; I am
maneuvering with difficulty
So why not do that with your small boat RAM?

Not sure I can see a reason not to. After all, it's not saying I'm
"unable to maneuver", just having difficulty or restricted in ability,
to.

I'm not following your logic here - why wouldn't "delta" be just as
appropriate in a NUC-like situation as a RAM-like situation?

Of course, I've never used flag signals except in very specific
situations (race signals, diver down, etc) so what do I know?



You were willing to
use the Rules in that case, why not for NUC's?

My sense is that you are looking for a "niche" to place this group of
vessels into (ones having a problem but not fully disabled)

I might think that's at least as large as those totally disabled. And
remember, the niche is there in the rules, you just don't see it!

and RAM doesn't work,

How could it? That niche is reserved for vessels limited by the nature
of their work.


so the assumption is that the "writers" must have been
aware of them so that if they didn't fit into RAM, then they must have
meant for them to be NUC, in which case RAM would not give way to
NUC.....

Yup. Since the nature and degree of the "in-ability" is left
unspecified, all we know about the NUC is that it is unable to fulfill
its responsibilities. And, in fact that where the rules leave the
RAM. So its not surprising that there is nothing specifying which
should give way to the other.

Think of this like two RAM's or two NUC's meeting? Who has rights?


If this be the case, I disagree

I think we can agree on that.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote
(deleted it all I don't want to further embarrass otn by repeating how silly
he looks here)

I'm still reading this thread. Don't you agree with me that otn is pig headed?
It doesn't matter how many times you tell him something. You can repeat the
same rule fifty times. He won't listen. His head got so big it's permanently
stuck where the sun don't shine. He can't get it out any more.
Your arguments make sense. You quote stuff that makes sense to back them
up. Anybody with half a brain can see it. What's he do? Nothing but sidestep the
issue. Nothing but REFUSE to see what's going on. Stuck on stupid with his old
obsolete beliefs. I still say his attitude makes him dangerous as a captain of
any big ship. The more I hear him go on the more I realize he's got an ego problem.
I appreciate your posts. Thank you for being such a good teacher of the Rules.
You've got a right to be proud of your knowledge of them and how you can explain
and support your position. If otn wasn't so pig headed he'd be saying thank you, too.
But, instead, it's not about the Rules. It's about HIM. He thinks he's the ultimate
authority. He won't listen to common sense. He doesn't want to credit any authority
for knowing anything even when you give references and links. Duh.
But, I guess he knows your making him look pretty silly. Maybe that's why he acts
like a stubborn little kid. If he's got as much experience as he claims to have he'd
get off his high horse. I think he's a fraud. Probably's a Capt. Rob sock puppet.....

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote
| Is it? Why would the rules have two different ways of saying the same
| thing? Where does it use "impede" and where does it use "giveway"?

Your right. Impede is for narrow channels and give way is for open waters or
where there's room to maneuver.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
(deleted it all I don't want to further embarrass otn by repeating how silly
he looks here)

I'm still reading this thread. Don't you agree with me that otn is pig headed?

Nope, I value his opinion more than anyone else's on this group.

The rule in question concerns an obscure situation which would
virtually never happen, and if it did, it would very likely fall out
just Otn predicts. If, by some bizarre chance it didn't, Otn would
recognize that before you or I.

You, however, have still failed to come up with the other flaw in
Neal's pecking order, even after I pretty much handed it to you. It
last went like this:

And does the Narrow Channel Rule really say the sailboats are
giveway with respect to "channel bound" vessels?

No. It says shall not impede. But shall not impede is another way
of saying give way, isn't it?

Is it? Why would the rules have two different ways of saying the
same thing? Where does it use "impede" and where does it use
"giveway"?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote
| You, however, have still failed to come up with the other flaw in
| Neal's pecking order, even after I pretty much handed it to you. It
| last went like this:
|
| And does the Narrow Channel Rule really say the sailboats are
| giveway with respect to "channel bound" vessels?
|
| No. It says shall not impede. But shall not impede is another way
| of saying give way, isn't it?
|
| Is it? Why would the rules have two different ways of saying the
| same thing? Where does it use "impede" and where does it use
| "giveway"?

You musta read my mind. I just answered that way up in this thread where it branched off.
I said shall not impede was for narrow channels and give way was for open waters where
there was room to maneuver...

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:


Most of the rules are a "simple statements." The point here is that
you claimed that NUC's should never be making way, they should always
be anchored. But the writers of the rules went out of their way to
specify the lights for a NUC making way, and the publisher's of the
government issue book felt it was important enough to devout a picture
to it. Obviously, if they specified the lights for this situation,
they must have assumed that sometimes it happens.

Misread. When I was talking about a NUC being anchored, I was referring
to one in coastal/inland waters which was on soundings and able to anchor
(one reason you probably won't see one). Since they could anchor, once
anchored they were no longer NUC....simply a vessel at anchor. In open
ocean, naturally they would continue to drift, however when the breakdown
occurred they would naturally continue on for a period (hence side
lights, etc so other vessels could visually monitor) until they lost way.
The rule is simply saying keep those lights on until you stop.



Interesting
indeed. As I've said, the definitions as well as your experience
may imply that NUC's are significant more impaired than RAM's. But
still,
it doesn't say that in Rule 18.

Specifically no, implied yes.

It isn't even implied! There is not a single word anywhere in the
rule 18 to the affect that a RAM shall keep out of the way of
anything. In fact is that this "implied rule" is so conspicuous by
its absence that it very clear they did not intend that at all.

Your claim is that the wording of the rule about what a powerboat
should do (and similar rules for sail and fishing boats) somehow imply
what a RAM must do, but there is nothing to that effect.

For me the implication is in the order (you're right, not a word is said)
Look at the sequence... NUC is always first.



Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway
shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not
under command and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
Bet that ones been argued.
You can argue the practical side of this, but the words are quite
clear.

Clear to you, clear to me.....just different interpretations.

No, even you've said it isn't in the rules - you've claimed its
implied by the definition of NUC and your experience.

G we can go around like this for months....I'm a stubborn Scot and
stick to my guns on this.



Because NUC is one signal and what you are talking about is
another.
You "D" flag is picking nits - there's nothing in the rules about
this.

Rule 35(c) he said, opening up another can of worms......
And in truth, there is nothing nitpicking about it. I was required to
learn these signals and the methods of transmitting them. The fact
they weren't written in the Rules, is immaterial....they are in the
Code of Signals.... the fact that most recreational boaters are not
aware of them/it is...... well, you get the idea.

They aren't required now for receiving a Master's license. Showing a
signal that isn't likely to be understood by many observers is not
very useful.

Been awhile since I took the test. However since single signal signals
(Flags) are still used I find that hard to believe.
The fact that so many of those observers are not aware of this signal or
of those signals in general tells me that the various teaching groups are
not doing their job. These signals are just as important and should as
easily recognized and used by the recreational boater as are black balls,
cones, etc.
BG sore subject....off my soap box
BTW you will note that theses signals may be sent by ANY method of
signalling.





Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International
Code of Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of
me; I am maneuvering with difficulty
So why not do that with your small boat RAM?

Not sure I can see a reason not to. After all, it's not saying I'm
"unable to maneuver", just having difficulty or restricted in
ability, to.

I'm not following your logic here - why wouldn't "delta" be just as
appropriate in a NUC-like situation as a RAM-like situation?

Because as you know, I say a NUC is unable to maneuver.


Of course, I've never used flag signals except in very specific
situations (race signals, diver down, etc) so what do I know?

EG Shame on you..... course I doubt many in this group
have....knowingly.




You were willing to
use the Rules in that case, why not for NUC's?

My sense is that you are looking for a "niche" to place this group of
vessels into (ones having a problem but not fully disabled)

I might think that's at least as large as those totally disabled. And
remember, the niche is there in the rules, you just don't see it!

LOL I say it isn't and the ability to use "D" may be why....


and RAM doesn't work,

How could it? That niche is reserved for vessels limited by the nature
of their work.

Exactly



so the assumption is that the "writers" must have been
aware of them so that if they didn't fit into RAM, then they must
have meant for them to be NUC, in which case RAM would not give way
to NUC.....

Yup. Since the nature and degree of the "in-ability" is left
unspecified, all we know about the NUC is that it is unable to fulfill
its responsibilities. And, in fact that where the rules leave the
RAM. So its not surprising that there is nothing specifying which
should give way to the other.

BG Disagree...we know NUC is unable to maneuver...

Think of this like two RAM's or two NUC's meeting? Who has rights?

Two RAM's.....rule two....which one can more easily cease operation or
has the greater maneuverability.

Two NUC's..... How can they meet? Their both DIW (possibilities noted)


If this be the case, I disagree

I think we can agree on that.

Ahhhhh now I can relax....we've agree'd

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Is it? Why would the rules have two different ways of saying the same
| thing? Where does it use "impede" and where does it use "giveway"?

Your right. Impede is for narrow channels and give way is for open waters or
where there's room to maneuver.

Do they have different meanings? Can both be in affect? Which would
take priority? What does this really mean in practice?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

An EGO problem......ROFLMAO.........I don't call it a "problem" ..... I just
know that "I" and most of those like me have the biggest screaming ego's in
existence!! Hell, if we didn't we wouldn't be any good at what we do !! When
I was "sailing" I always said that the biggest primadonna's I 'd ever met,
were Pilots.........now that I am one, I can confirm that statement as true
and accurate!

otn

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

"Jeff" wrote
(deleted it all I don't want to further embarrass otn by repeating how
silly
he looks here)

I'm still reading this thread. Don't you agree with me that otn is pig
headed?
It doesn't matter how many times you tell him something. You can repeat
the
same rule fifty times. He won't listen. His head got so big it's
permanently
stuck where the sun don't shine. He can't get it out any more.
Your arguments make sense. You quote stuff that makes sense to back
them
up. Anybody with half a brain can see it. What's he do? Nothing but
sidestep the
issue. Nothing but REFUSE to see what's going on. Stuck on stupid with his
old
obsolete beliefs. I still say his attitude makes him dangerous as a
captain of
any big ship. The more I hear him go on the more I realize he's got an ego
problem.
I appreciate your posts. Thank you for being such a good teacher of the
Rules.
You've got a right to be proud of your knowledge of them and how you can
explain
and support your position. If otn wasn't so pig headed he'd be saying
thank you, too.
But, instead, it's not about the Rules. It's about HIM. He thinks he's
the ultimate
authority. He won't listen to common sense. He doesn't want to credit any
authority
for knowing anything even when you give references and links. Duh.
But, I guess he knows your making him look pretty silly. Maybe that's
why he acts
like a stubborn little kid. If he's got as much experience as he claims to
have he'd
get off his high horse. I think he's a fraud. Probably's a Capt. Rob sock
puppet.....

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to maneuver) don't you
think the "writers" would have simply described NUC as restricted in it's
ability to maneuver (like RAM) rather than uable to maneuver as required by
these rules, so that we wouldn't be having this discussion?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote
| Do they have different meanings?

Yes! One is wide for wide water (give way) and one is narrow for narrow channels (shall not impede).


| Can both be in affect?

Yes. If you do the *shall not impede* you do it by giving way.


|Which would take priority? What does this really mean in practice?

Shall not impede takes priority because it's narrow for narrow channels.
In practice it means the same thing. It means give way.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote:
An EGO problem......ROFLMAO.........I don't call it a "problem" ..... I
just know that "I" and most of those like me have the biggest screaming
ego's in existence!! Hell, if we didn't we wouldn't be any good at what we
do !! When I was "sailing" I always said that the biggest primadonna's I
'd ever met, were Pilots.........now that I am one, I can confirm that
statement as true and accurate!

Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?

LP

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Lady Pilot" wrote
| Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?


It looks something like this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...lr%3D%26sa%3DG


:-)))))))

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote:

"Lady Pilot" wrote
| Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?


It looks something like this:

http://www.almaz.spb.ru/home/pictures/lozman-2.jpg

:-)))))))

Very cute, Ellen. You should hook up with Capt. Neal, he seems like your
type. hehee

LP

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Do they have different meanings?

Yes! One is wide for wide water (give way) and one is narrow for narrow channels (shall not impede).


| Can both be in affect?

Yes. If you do the *shall not impede* you do it by giving way.

not quite what the rules say



|Which would take priority? What does this really mean in practice?

Shall not impede takes priority because it's narrow for narrow channels.
In practice it means the same thing. It means give way.

not what the rules say


keep reading, it really is there. However, along the way you'll find
the most obscure little section in the ColRegs.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to maneuver) don't you
think the "writers" would have simply described NUC as restricted in it's
ability to maneuver (like RAM) rather than uable to maneuver as required by
these rules, so that we wouldn't be having this discussion?


I never said they were completely equal (actually I did, but on
careful consideration, i.e. rereading, retracted that), only that they
could overlap. Both NUC and RAM cover situations that can't really be
predicted and/or anticipated, so the rules don't want to say which
might be less maneuverable and thus "privileged." In the case of NUC,
they really wanted to emphasize that minor problems did not qualify.
But still, it falls a bit short of saying totally disabled. Its only
"unable to maneuver as required ..."

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Lady Pilot" wrote in
:


"otnmbrd" wrote:
An EGO problem......ROFLMAO.........I don't call it a "problem" .....
I just know that "I" and most of those like me have the biggest
screaming ego's in existence!! Hell, if we didn't we wouldn't be any
good at what we do !! When I was "sailing" I always said that the
biggest primadonna's I 'd ever met, were Pilots.........now that I am
one, I can confirm that statement as true and accurate!

Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?

LP

BG FLY? I'm still tryin to figure out how you get them overweight SOB's
off the ground. What I "pilot", floats on water not air.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Scotty

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Lady Pilot" _ ( )+( ) _.___...stupidly
asked.....

"otnmbrd" wrote:
An EGO problem......ROFLMAO.........I don't call it a
"problem" ..... I
just know that "I" and most of those like me have the
biggest screaming
ego's in existence!! Hell, if we didn't we wouldn't be
any good at what we
do !! When I was "sailing" I always said that the
biggest primadonna's I
'd ever met, were Pilots.........now that I am one, I
can confirm that
statement as true and accurate!

Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?


BWaHaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:

Most of the rules are a "simple statements." The point here is that
you claimed that NUC's should never be making way, they should always
be anchored. But the writers of the rules went out of their way to
specify the lights for a NUC making way, and the publisher's of the
government issue book felt it was important enough to devout a picture
to it. Obviously, if they specified the lights for this situation,
they must have assumed that sometimes it happens.

Misread. When I was talking about a NUC being anchored, I was referring
to one in coastal/inland waters which was on soundings and able to anchor
(one reason you probably won't see one). Since they could anchor, once
anchored they were no longer NUC....simply a vessel at anchor. In open
ocean, naturally they would continue to drift, however when the breakdown
occurred they would naturally continue on for a period (hence side
lights, etc so other vessels could visually monitor) until they lost way.
The rule is simply saying keep those lights on until you stop.

Hmmm. Does drifting count as "making way through the water"? How
about dragging anchor?


Interesting
indeed. As I've said, the definitions as well as your experience
may imply that NUC's are significant more impaired than RAM's. But
still,
it doesn't say that in Rule 18.
Specifically no, implied yes.
It isn't even implied! There is not a single word anywhere in the
rule 18 to the affect that a RAM shall keep out of the way of
anything. In fact is that this "implied rule" is so conspicuous by
its absence that it very clear they did not intend that at all.

Your claim is that the wording of the rule about what a powerboat
should do (and similar rules for sail and fishing boats) somehow imply
what a RAM must do, but there is nothing to that effect.

For me the implication is in the order (you're right, not a word is said)
Look at the sequence... NUC is always first.

So? Something has to be first in a list. This is a list of vessels a
powerboat must stay clear of, not is said about what a RAM must stay
clear of.



Answer: C, Rule 18.c. A vessel engaged in fishing when underway
shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of a vessel not
under command and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
Bet that ones been argued.
You can argue the practical side of this, but the words are quite
clear.
Clear to you, clear to me.....just different interpretations.
No, even you've said it isn't in the rules - you've claimed its
implied by the definition of NUC and your experience.

G we can go around like this for months....I'm a stubborn Scot and
stick to my guns on this.

Because NUC is one signal and what you are talking about is
another.
You "D" flag is picking nits - there's nothing in the rules about
this.
Rule 35(c) he said, opening up another can of worms......
And in truth, there is nothing nitpicking about it. I was required to
learn these signals and the methods of transmitting them. The fact
they weren't written in the Rules, is immaterial....they are in the
Code of Signals.... the fact that most recreational boaters are not
aware of them/it is...... well, you get the idea.
They aren't required now for receiving a Master's license. Showing a
signal that isn't likely to be understood by many observers is not
very useful.

Been awhile since I took the test. However since single signal signals
(Flags) are still used I find that hard to believe.
The fact that so many of those observers are not aware of this signal or
of those signals in general tells me that the various teaching groups are
not doing their job. These signals are just as important and should as
easily recognized and used by the recreational boater as are black balls,
cones, etc.

Truly, signal flags are not part of the test. I think there might be
some mention somewhere that a book exist that explains these things,
but it certainly would be part of the "closed book, 90% to pass" part
which specifically covers the rules and is in fact where the question
I posted came from.


BG sore subject....off my soap box
BTW you will note that theses signals may be sent by ANY method of
signalling.

You mean like two vertical balls?





Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International
Code of Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of
me; I am maneuvering with difficulty
So why not do that with your small boat RAM?
Not sure I can see a reason not to. After all, it's not saying I'm
"unable to maneuver", just having difficulty or restricted in
ability, to.
I'm not following your logic here - why wouldn't "delta" be just as
appropriate in a NUC-like situation as a RAM-like situation?

Because as you know, I say a NUC is unable to maneuver.

Yes, but that's begging the question. (I mean that in the true sense
of defining you terms so as to make an real discussion of the issue
irrelevant.)



Of course, I've never used flag signals except in very specific
situations (race signals, diver down, etc) so what do I know?

EG Shame on you..... course I doubt many in this group
have....knowingly.

Yes, there was a time when owning a complete set of signal flags was
actually on my list. But now they've fallen into that dark zone of
having no antique or nostalgia value, but not being really useful.
Kind of like an RDF, which I did own and use, but didn't keep.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Scotty wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Yes, that would be Otn's contention.

However, how about this situation:

Otn says that a NUC is, by definition "dead in the water" and, if in a
harbor would definitely be anchored. But what if it chooses not to
anchor? In fact, We've all seen numerous cases of small boats broken
down and drifting free. They might reasonable expect small sail and
powerboats to stay clear, but do they have the right tell a dredge or
salvage vessel to move? Wouldn't they be expected to drop anchor?

Similarly, dragging anchor is one of the classic NUC situations.
Doesn't the vessel have the responsibility to act to reduce the
dragging?

Clearly, this is not "maneuvering" in the normal sense, but it is
altering speed and perhaps direction and thus shows that they do not
have to be considered absolutely at the top of the pecking order. In
fact, Otn's very claim that the NUC should anchor is acknowledging
that the NUC *is* expected to maneuver, since anchoring would alter
its speed.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

otnmbrd wrote:
The rule is simply
saying keep those lights on until you stop.

Hmmm. Does drifting count as "making way through the water"?

That's a judgement call..... normally I'd say no, since not having them
on might give more information.

How
about dragging anchor?

Again, a judgement call....since you are now at anchor and showing anchor
lights not NUC...



For me the implication is in the order (you're right, not a word is
said) Look at the sequence... NUC is always first.

So? Something has to be first in a list. This is a list of vessels a
powerboat must stay clear of, not is said about what a RAM must stay
clear of.

It basically boils down to how you read/perceive/interpret.
To me the Rules are some basic guidelines that follow a common sense
progression, so I interpret Rule 18, as I do.



Truly, signal flags are not part of the test. I think there might be
some mention somewhere that a book exist that explains these things,
but it certainly would be part of the "closed book, 90% to pass" part
which specifically covers the rules and is in fact where the question
I posted came from.
\
I will have to look. However, whether you consciously see them or not,
these signals are used (some of them) daily by ships and others,
especially in coastal waters... "A","B","G","H","Q","S","D"(in fog),
"E","I" to name a few.



BG sore subject....off my soap box
BTW you will note that theses signals may be sent by ANY method of
signalling.

You mean like two vertical balls?

No I mean flag, flashing light (morse), whistle (morse), semaphor (G).






Either you missed it or you ignored it..... go to International
Code of Signals..... Single letter signals.... "D" Keep clear of
me; I am maneuvering with difficulty
So why not do that with your small boat RAM?
Not sure I can see a reason not to. After all, it's not saying I'm
"unable to maneuver", just having difficulty or restricted in
ability, to.
I'm not following your logic here - why wouldn't "delta" be just as
appropriate in a NUC-like situation as a RAM-like situation?

Because as you know, I say a NUC is unable to maneuver.

Yes, but that's begging the question. (I mean that in the true sense
of defining you terms so as to make an real discussion of the issue
irrelevant.)



Of course, I've never used flag signals except in very specific
situations (race signals, diver down, etc) so what do I know?

EG Shame on you..... course I doubt many in this group
have....knowingly.

Yes, there was a time when owning a complete set of signal flags was
actually on my list. But now they've fallen into that dark zone of
having no antique or nostalgia value, but not being really useful.
Kind of like an RDF, which I did own and use, but didn't keep.

You may have dumped the flags/morse too soon. Once again, you do use them
you just may not be conscious of it.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

G That is my interpretation

otn

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Scotty

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Yes, that would be Otn's contention.

However, how about this situation:

Otn says that a NUC is, by definition "dead in the water" and, if in a
harbor would definitely be anchored. But what if it chooses not to
anchor? In fact, We've all seen numerous cases of small boats broken down
and drifting free. They might reasonable expect small sail and powerboats
to stay clear, but do they have the right tell a dredge or salvage vessel
to move?

They would have the right to expect them not to run them over and in the
case of the suction dredge connected to a pipeline, "they" could conceivably
pull themselves aside.


Wouldn't they be expected to drop anchor?

If possible and under the above conditions, yes.


Similarly, dragging anchor is one of the classic NUC situations.

It is?

Doesn't the vessel have the responsibility to act to reduce the dragging?

yup


Clearly, this is not "maneuvering" in the normal sense, but it is altering
speed and perhaps direction and thus shows that they do not have to be
considered absolutely at the top of the pecking order. In fact, Otn's
very claim that the NUC should anchor is acknowledging that the NUC *is*
expected to maneuver, since anchoring would alter its speed.

HUH?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message

Clearly, this is not "maneuvering" in the normal sense, but it is altering
speed and perhaps direction and thus shows that they do not have to be
considered absolutely at the top of the pecking order. In fact, Otn's
very claim that the NUC should anchor is acknowledging that the NUC *is*
expected to maneuver, since anchoring would alter its speed.

HUH?

You heard me.

Why wouldn't dropping anchor be considered maneuvering? Its altering
speed. Once you admit that the NUC has that responsibility, your
story unravels like a cheap sweater!