"Jeff" wrote
| Do I have to spell this out for you? For Neal's pecking order to be
| correct, there would have to be a clause that isn't there.


This is my pecking order list. I'm Captain Neal and I'm always right. I happened to notice that
my pecking order is missing something, It is missing a clause. The clause that isn't there makes it
look like this.

NUC RAM
------------
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE
WIG

Everybody else is not intelligent enough to figure this out. I can do it with half my brain tied behind
my back.

How's that for a Captain Neal imitation?

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| You keep looking at the definition of NUC and RAM. Why don't you tell
| us what their responsibility is with respect to each other?


I thought I did that.
I said that Rule 18 says: ( -: nothing about it :- )

Yes!

Did you see in any of my new diagrams it listed?

No - you gave too much information to be useful.

No you didn't because it says nothing
about it in the rule. It never says NUC keep clear of RAM or vice versa. Another reason I say
they're equal.

All you did before was give rule 18 in list form - you didn't actually
say how it differed from the pecking order. Also, saying that they
appear very similar in Rule 3 is not the same as saying they are
handled the same in Rule 18. Now you have, congratulations.

So, if you insist on having a complete list it should look like this:

NUC RAM
________
CBD
FISH
SAIL
POWER
SEAPLANE
WIG

Yes, that would be a better representation of the pecking order. You
may note the Neal actually said, "A NUC is the stand-on vessel above
all the rest" which is patently false. This is my first "flaw," now
you may be ready to find the next.


But rule 18 never says that. It says what I said in my new stand on/give way list. It doesn't give a
complete list.

Why do you call this a "stand on/give way" list?

Yes, you'll have to point it out to him...

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote | Maybe the reason my point here is so hard
to see is because it's | represented by a clause that isn't there!


Who's the one sounding like a blonde now? :-) *Maybe the reason
nobody adored my new diamond necklace is because
I'm wearing pearls....*

Do I have to spell this out for you? For Neal's pecking order to be
correct, there would have to be a clause that isn't there.

"Jeff" wrote
| Yes, that would be a better representation of the pecking order. You
| may note the Neal actually said, "A NUC is the stand-on vessel above
| all the rest" which is patently false. This is my first "flaw," now
| you may be ready to find the next.

Where did he say that?
..
| Why do you call this a "stand on/give way" list?

Because that's what pecking order lists are for. They show which boat gives way and which one
stands on.

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Yes, that would be a better representation of the pecking order. You
| may note the Neal actually said, "A NUC is the stand-on vessel above
| all the rest" which is patently false. This is my first "flaw," now
| you may be ready to find the next.

Where did he say that?

Gee, it said that until a few minutes ago. Neal must be reading this
thread. It must be horribly embarrassing for him that you have been
able to best him!


| Why do you call this a "stand on/give way" list?

Because that's what pecking order lists are for. They show which boat gives way and which one
stands on.

Hmmm. Is that what the rule says?

"Jeff" wrote
| Gee, it said that until a few minutes ago. Neal must be reading this
| thread. It must be horribly embarrassing for him that you have been
| able to best him!

Nobody can best Captain Neal. I bet he *is* lurking. I bet what you said made sense to him.
I bet he decided his lessons should be accurate. He's perfect so his lessons need to be perfect
too.


| Hmmm. Is that what the rule says?

Not exactly but they do say *keep out of the way of*. That's the same as *give way*.
But, the rule doesn't say anything about stand on. So maybe that's your point. It should
just be a give way list. Happy now, Mr. Pedantic? :-)

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
| Gee, it said that until a few minutes ago. Neal must be reading this
| thread. It must be horribly embarrassing for him that you have been
| able to best him!

Nobody can best Captain Neal. I bet he *is* lurking. I bet what you said made sense to him.
I bet he decided his lessons should be accurate. He's perfect so his lessons need to be perfect
too.


| Hmmm. Is that what the rule says?

Not exactly but they do say *keep out of the way of*. That's the same as *give way*.
But, the rule doesn't say anything about stand on. So maybe that's your point. It should
just be a give way list. Happy now, Mr. Pedantic? :-)

Nope. You see the words but you're not reading them.

What are the definitions of "standon" and "giveway"? Are all
relationships in the pecking order specified in this way?

Comments interspersed:

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
reenews.net:


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...
| You fail to note the potential difference between NUC and
| RAM.....probably because you don't understand the potential
| difference since you are just reading words..

I understand the difference. The rule tells me the difference.
Rule 3 tells me NUC is
unable to maneuver to comply with the Rules and unable to keep out of
the way of other vessels. The Rule tells me RAM has restricted ability
to maneuver to comply with the other Rules and is also unable to keep
out of the way of other vessels. Like I said before....

NUC = unable/unable
RAM + restricted/unable

So it makes it look like NUC is really more handicapped. But it's
looks only.

Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD"
RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion
(generally).
For this reason you will see most pecking orders keep NUC above RAM.
For example: A ship, broken down with no possible way to use it's
engine.....this vessel is NUC. Approaching it is an aircraft carrier,
launching aircraft....this vessel is RAM.

Now, by your account, these two vessels are equal..... not so.
The broken down ship has no options, while the carrier does. The carrier
may be able to slow/speed-up or alter course slightly to avoid....it may
have to cease operations until clear of the NUC (remember, the carrier
CAN maneuver).

The remainder of what you say is more of your uninformed nonsense not
worth commenting on other than to restate your lack of understanding of
Rule 2 and the various possibilities of conditions and circumstances not
specifically written within the rules.


otn



What matters is the
unable part when it comes to keeping out of the way of other vessels.
Both NUC and RAM are unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
So what if it's for different reasons!
Your trying to say RAM has to be kept out of the way of NUC . But
that's impossible because
RAM is unable to keep out of the way. Rule 3 says so.... You can't
have it both ways.
You talk about *potential difference*. Funny but Rule 3 doesn't
say a thing about it. You just can't go
around saying *I've tons of experience. I can see a potential
difference. I don't care what the Rule says. I know better than the
Rule. I can use my judgment and I can use Rule 2 to ignore all the
other Rules. Those dummies should have put something in there about
potential differences. They didn't but I'll just act like they did
because I have loads of experience. And because Rule 2 says I can.*
They just put Rule 2 in there to cover their butts. In case they
forget to put something in the other
Rules they have an out. Instead of saying they wrote crummy rules
they can say people didn't use good judgment in applying their crummy
Rules. Why not just have one Rule to cover it all? Duh!
So here it is. My new 06Colregs... Let's get all the countries
to sign on. Rule (1) Use good judgment!
Rule (2) the end

Cheers,
Ellen

I would beg to differ with you on this one. There is nothing in the
rules that require that a ship be totally unable to maneuver, only
that it may be unable to maneuver as require required by the rules in
some situation. Otherwise, you'd have to say the every NUC near land
should immediately drop an anchor as a last ditch effort to prevent
disaster.

My instructor went to pains to come up with examples such as rudder
control lost where there is only limited control to turn one way.
Loss of one engine of two could cause the same. Loss of reverse (or
better yet, forward!) might be cause for NUC. The courts have been
rather strict in this, so that the disability must be severe, but it
does not have to be total.

For a vessel to be a RAM, there may be a wide spectrum of lack of
maneuverability, but it includes situations such as a dredging barge
which may be totally incapable of maneuvering without a *lot* of notice.

So how to you say that a severely crippled NUC has rights over an
essentially immobile RAM? There is no obvious solution, and the rules
have rightfully said that neither has "rights" over the other. In
practice, guidance must be found in Rule 2 to resolve this.

I will admit that in in my experience, NUC's are pretty rare. I've
only seen one formally declared, and it was a total breakdown that was
adrift until brought under control by tugs. But I've seen a large
number of RAM's that essentially had no ability to react. The one
difference, and you might see this as significant, is that the RAM can
generally plan in advance how it might handle various situations,
while a NUC probably has little advance notice of its problems.



otnmbrd wrote:

Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD"
RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion
(generally).
For this reason you will see most pecking orders keep NUC above RAM.
For example: A ship, broken down with no possible way to use it's
engine.....this vessel is NUC. Approaching it is an aircraft carrier,
launching aircraft....this vessel is RAM.

Now, by your account, these two vessels are equal..... not so.
The broken down ship has no options, while the carrier does. The carrier
may be able to slow/speed-up or alter course slightly to avoid....it may
have to cease operations until clear of the NUC (remember, the carrier
CAN maneuver).

The remainder of what you say is more of your uninformed nonsense not
worth commenting on other than to restate your lack of understanding of
Rule 2 and the various possibilities of conditions and circumstances not
specifically written within the rules.


otn

otnmbrd wrote:

Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD"
RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion

One more thing: Rule 13 (Overtaking) specifically takes priority over
rule 18. This is affirmed in both Rules 13 and 18. Thus, a NUC is
required to, if possible, keep out of the way of a vessel it may be
overtaking. If it was presumed that a NUC is totally incapable of
maneuvering, it would not have this responsibility. The authors, in
their wisdom, must have foreseen a situation where a vessel might be a
NUC, but still able to fulfill its Rule 13 responsibilities.

In addition, a NUC may have Rule 9 and 10 responsibilities.

Clearly, a NUC may be unable to fulfill any of these responsibilities,
but the rules do not consider it an absolute, and to the extent
possible, it must try.