My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

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.

Yes and no....say it lost steering....it can maneuver fwd and back but in
no way can it regulate it's course to avoid other vessels unlike most RAM
which do have that option though in some cases it may require they alter
the nature of their work. Every NUC that approaches land and water shallow
enough to anchor, SHOULD anchor...at which time they're no longer NUC.


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.

I'd call that NUC

Loss of one engine of two could cause the same.

NO.

Loss of reverse

NO.

(or
better yet, forward!) might be cause for NUC.

Single screw, yes.

The courts have been
rather strict in this, so that the disability must be severe, but it
does not have to be total.

True, but it's generally a cut above RAM which is just restricted.


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.

BG This is a big exception. However, most dredges of this type are set up
to easily pull themselves to one side or even out of a channel (may be the
reason they left them in this category), but remember, if a NUC is drifting
down on a dredge of this type then it could easily anchor....no more NUC.


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.

Each situation is going to govern how you react, but for the most part, if
you look at each of those vessels listed under RAM they are able to
maneuver (first.... but highly restricted in that ability) whereas The NUC
is unable to maneuver (the ability to go ahead or astern with no steering
control only makes you an unguided missile).
You are correct that you need to use rule 2, however, you also need to look
at these conditions as open ocean and coastal/harbor/channel.
In open ocean you will find no dredges and in coastal/harbors you should
see few NUC since they can anchor.
No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18, but as per usual
under rule 2 you need to be observent and aware that some condition may
exist not specifically written within the rules which may require you to
make a departure from these rules.



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.

In "most cases" it can not only plan, but is able to alter it's RAM status
and/or do something to avoid the NUC.
I have been NUC a number of times at sea, but never in coastal or harbor
waters where the hook becomes my friend.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

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.

We seem to differ on the abilities of a NUC. I say a NUC either can't steer
or can't use it's engine(s) or both.
No engine(s) no overtaking
No steering, odds of overtaking (i.e. holding a course long enough to be
considered overtaking...andG why would they want to?)slim to none.


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.

Rule 9, unlikely....narrow channel, NUC anchors
Rule 10, unlikely also.

When faced with a collision, no matter what your situation if you have any
abilities at all, you must try to use them to your advantage, if possible.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote

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

There you go again. Making up rules on the spot to suit you. It makes you look silly. But worse than
that it makes you wrong wrong wrong...
Please tell me something. The Rule says *The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means
a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these
Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel".
What you say contradicts this rule. You say it's able to maneuver but restricted. This is true. The rule says it.
But you just never let it sink into your thick skull that none of that matters. What matters is the rule also says
*and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
Two vessels both of them unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. So tell me why one must give way.
The rule says it can't do it. Explain how it can do it when the rule says it can't.

| 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.

Wrong again. The rule says and says it clearly. RAM is unable to keep out of the way.

| 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).

I'm afraid your confused......
If the aircraft carrier can maneuver to keep out of the way it's not RAM. One part of being RAM
is being unable to keep out of the way. Duh! How many times am I gonna have to say this. You keep
ignoring half the rule. STOP IT! I'm not letting you get away with it. I don't care how experienced
you are. The facts are the facts.

| 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.

Never mind that. First explain why your so uninformed about what RAM is. You say RAM can maneuver to
stay out of the way of a NUC. The rule says it can't maneuver to stay out of the way. Who should I believe?
Should I believe what the Colregs say? Should I believe some experienced captain posting on a news group?
Tell me where the rules say experienced captains are allowed to make up their own rules.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18,

But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC
is on top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it.
And it may be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule
18 says.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote in message . ..
| otnmbrd wrote:
| No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18,
|
| But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC
| is on top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it.
| And it may be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule
| 18 says.

I agree and you did a fine job teaching me why....

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

All you're doing is saying that in the cases you've seen, the NUC is
worse off than a RAM.

So then explain, why do the rules imply that it is not necessarily the
case?

otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:

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.

We seem to differ on the abilities of a NUC. I say a NUC either can't steer
or can't use it's engine(s) or both.
No engine(s) no overtaking
No steering, odds of overtaking (i.e. holding a course long enough to be
considered overtaking...andG why would they want to?)slim to none.

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.

Rule 9, unlikely....narrow channel, NUC anchors
Rule 10, unlikely also.

When faced with a collision, no matter what your situation if you have any
abilities at all, you must try to use them to your advantage, if possible.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message . ..

I agree and you did a fine job teaching me why....
Thank you.

So, Neal claimed that a sailboat is the giveway vessel with respect to
a CBD. Is this true?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote
| So, Neal claimed that a sailboat is the giveway vessel with respect to
| a CBD. Is this true?

It's true if you follow the regular pecking order. The one that's the accepted one.
The one that's on Capt. Neal's lesson page. But Rule 18 never says it. My new stand on/give way
rule post makes it clear. You said you didn't pay attention to it. You said there was too much info.
But what it does is summarize rule 18 and makes it easy to see in your mind just what the rule is
saying. It says CBD's only to stay out of the way of NUC and RAM.
You have to go to the narrow channel rule to come to the conclusion that sail gives
way to CBD. I think.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Sorry Jeff, but in my copy of the rules, NUC is listed above Ram which is
listed above fishing, etc....
If you follow the list down top to bottom as would a pecking order, NUC
would be first.
To me, that is what rule 18 says, and for the various reasons I have given.
To me, the most important words are "unable to maneuver" versus "restricted
in ability to maneuver"
For instance, a fishing vessel is considered a vessel with restricted
maneuverability but not as (normally) restricted as RAM, so it is listed
after RAM. A sailboat.................

otn

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
otnmbrd wrote:
No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18,

But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC is on
top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it. And it may
be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule 18 says.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

The NUC is broken down unable to maneuver in any reasonable way (steering or
engine(s)) The implications are within "unable to maneuver" versus
"restricted in ability to maneuver"....... in my book two totally different
animals.
Think open ocean and look at all six RAM examples..... not one has as few
options as a ship with no engine.

otn

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
All you're doing is saying that in the cases you've seen, the NUC is worse
off than a RAM.

So then explain, why do the rules imply that it is not necessarily the
case?

otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:
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.

We seem to differ on the abilities of a NUC. I say a NUC either can't
steer or can't use it's engine(s) or both.
No engine(s) no overtaking
No steering, odds of overtaking (i.e. holding a course long enough to be
considered overtaking...andG why would they want to?)slim to none.

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.

Rule 9, unlikely....narrow channel, NUC anchors
Rule 10, unlikely also.

When faced with a collision, no matter what your situation if you have
any abilities at all, you must try to use them to your advantage, if
possible.