My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18
simply does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It
truly isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been
taught, and that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what
the words say.

Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself,
it is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat
should keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that
sailing vessels should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not
one single mention of any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must
give way to.

And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly
the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is
therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." You may
even be right that in the history of Admiralty Law there has never
been a case where a RAM was less maneuverable than a NUC, but the
rules allow for it. (Actually, the concept of a NUC is new,
introduced in 1972, so there are few precedents for this.)

An one more point: This was introduced as a "Pedantic Rules Quiz,"
where I implied that I was being overly picky about the precise words
in the rules. As such, it has little to do with general experience,
or even common sense.



otnmbrd wrote:
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.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"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.

Rule 18 does have a lot say about the relationship between CBD's and
sail and power boats. What is the nature of this relationship?

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

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote
| 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.


Please stop being so dense! I've put it in writing and Jeff's put it in writing. If you can
read you've read it at least a dozen times now. I'm talking about what the rules say about
NUC and RAM. What you say doesn't matter. What the rule says does matter. We're learning
what the rules actually say. We're not learning what people *think* they say.
You keep taking one part of a rule and you use it to make your claims. That's crazy. The
rules can't be taken piecemeal. You have to use the entire rule if you want anybody to side
with you. You STILL refuse to accept the fact that what Jeff said can't be denied.... Worse
you keep totally ignoring it when both of us say exactly what the rules say.
Jeff said: "And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly
the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel." You argue that since you know cases where RAM can maneuver
to keep out of the way then they are lower in the pecking order than NUC. But, that's not the case.
IF A VESSEL **IS ABLE** TO MANEUVER TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY THEN BY
DEFINITION IT ISN'T A RAM. You list examples of RAM that aren't RAM. You just think
they are but your thinking is based on your ignoring what the rules actually say.
I admit it. I used to think the same as you about the pecking order. Jeff changed my mind
by proving I was wrong. I guess it's easier for women to admit a mistake. We don't have all
that macho nonsense to worry about...
You really do need to have a woman slap you senseless. Your that pig-headed! Pig-headed is
dangerous. A real captain admits he's wrong when somebody proves he's wrong. Even Captain
Neal admits a mistake once in a while That makes him a better man than you and at least an
equal captain. Have you thought about retiring? Your thinking has become too inflexible.
You could be endangering fellow seamen.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote
| 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.


Please stop being so dense! I've put it in writing and Jeff's put it in writing. If you can
read you've read it at least a dozen times now. I'm talking about what the rules say about
NUC and RAM. What you say doesn't matter. What the rule says does matter. We're learning
what the rules actually say. We're not learning what people *think* they say.
You keep taking one part of a rule and you use it to make your claims. That's crazy. The
rules can't be taken piecemeal. You have to use the entire rule if you want anybody to side
with you. You STILL refuse to accept the fact that what Jeff said can't be denied.... Worse
you keep totally ignoring it when both of us say exactly what the rules say.
Jeff said: "And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly
the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel." You argue that since you know cases where RAM can maneuver
to keep out of the way then they are lower in the pecking order than NUC. But, that's not the case.
IF A VESSEL **IS ABLE** TO MANEUVER TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY THEN BY
DEFINITION IT ISN'T A RAM. You list examples of RAM that aren't RAM. You just think
they are but your thinking is based on your ignoring what the rules actually say.

You're wrong in this. The categories of RAM and NUC encompass broad
spectrums. There is nothing that says that a RAM or a NUC is totally
disabled, only that they may be unable to fulfill its responsibilities
in some circumstances. Otn's point is that there is little or no
overlap (which may be true in practice), while I say that the rules
permit some degree of overlap.

Actually, the rules say little about the degree of limitation, my
point is simply that nowhere do they say that RAM's must stay clear of
NUC's.


I admit it. I used to think the same as you about the pecking order. Jeff changed my mind
by proving I was wrong. I guess it's easier for women to admit a mistake. We don't have all
that macho nonsense to worry about...

Otn will change his mind too, when he forgets what he "knows" is true
and re-reads the rules.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote...
| Rule 18 does have a lot say about the relationship between CBD's and
| sail and power boats. What is the nature of this relationship?

I don't see where it talks about them by name. But it does say any vessel other than NUC and RAM
shall not impede the safe passage of CBD. Any vessel other than NUC and RAM includes sail and power.

| 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's another way of saying give way, isn't it?

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote...
| Rule 18 does have a lot say about the relationship between CBD's and
| sail and power boats. What is the nature of this relationship?

I don't see where it talks about them by name. But it does say any vessel other than NUC and RAM
shall not impede the safe passage of CBD. Any vessel other than NUC and RAM includes sail and power.

Yup. That's what it says.


| 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's 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.
 

BG

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18 simply
does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It truly
isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been taught, and
that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what the words say.

OK, now I see the point you are trying to make........ yes and no........
no, it doesn't specifically say it......yes, it implies it due to the way
the list is incorporated within the rules.


Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself, it
is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat should
keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that sailing vessels
should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not one single mention of
any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must give way to.

We disagree. To me, the way the list is set up and considering the degree of
unable to maneuver/restricted ability to maneuver, for each of the groups
listed, there is a natural progression downwards in that degree of
"disability"..,... NUC/RAM/fishing..... so that there is a strong
implication of a pecking order, even though you are correct in that it is
not stated.
We can fully agree that the rules frequently do not specifically state a
particular type, condition, possibility. Much is left to implication,
experience, common sense (rule 2) as to how you apply the basic wording/rule
to your specific situation.
In the case of NUC/RAM..... the fact that there is no specific mention of
who RAM or NUC must give way to, there is ample reason within the words
"unable to maneuver"/ "restricted in ability to maneuver" to say that RAM
must give way to NUC.



And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the
same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

Incorrect. One is described as "unable to maneuver" the other as "restricted
in it's ability to maneuver". This is an important difference.

You may
even be right that in the history of Admiralty Law there has never been a
case where a RAM was less maneuverable than a NUC, but the rules allow for
it. (Actually, the concept of a NUC is new, introduced in 1972, so there
are few precedents for this.)

Actually, NUC has been around long before 1972. It is just that in 72 they
tried to explain the signifcance of NUC/RAM and note the difference between
the two.


An one more point: This was introduced as a "Pedantic Rules Quiz," where I
implied that I was being overly picky about the precise words in the
rules. As such, it has little to do with general experience, or even
common sense.

BG reason for my beginning BG.....finally got the message.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Interesting........"unable to maneuver" and "restricted in ability to
maneuver" mean the same thing.......NOT in my book.
An aircraft carrier launching or recovering aircraft is considered RAM.

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


Please stop being so dense! I've put it in writing and Jeff's put it
in writing. If you can
read you've read it at least a dozen times now. I'm talking about what the
rules say about
NUC and RAM. What you say doesn't matter. What the rule says does matter.
We're learning
what the rules actually say. We're not learning what people *think* they
say.
You keep taking one part of a rule and you use it to make your claims.
That's crazy. The
rules can't be taken piecemeal. You have to use the entire rule if you
want anybody to side
with you. You STILL refuse to accept the fact that what Jeff said can't be
denied.... Worse
you keep totally ignoring it when both of us say exactly what the rules
say.
Jeff said: "And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are
described exactly
the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore
unable to keep
out of the way of another vessel." You argue that since you know cases
where RAM can maneuver
to keep out of the way then they are lower in the pecking order than NUC.
But, that's not the case.
IF A VESSEL **IS ABLE** TO MANEUVER TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY THEN BY
DEFINITION IT ISN'T A RAM. You list examples of RAM that aren't RAM. You
just think
they are but your thinking is based on your ignoring what the rules
actually say.
I admit it. I used to think the same as you about the pecking order.
Jeff changed my mind
by proving I was wrong. I guess it's easier for women to admit a mistake.
We don't have all
that macho nonsense to worry about...
You really do need to have a woman slap you senseless. Your that
pig-headed! Pig-headed is
dangerous. A real captain admits he's wrong when somebody proves he's
wrong. Even Captain
Neal admits a mistake once in a while That makes him a better man than you
and at least an
equal captain. Have you thought about retiring? Your thinking has become
too inflexible.
You could be endangering fellow seamen.

Cheers,
Ellen

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
BG

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18 simply
does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It truly
isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been taught, and
that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what the words say.

OK, now I see the point you are trying to make........ yes and no........
no, it doesn't specifically say it......yes, it implies it due to the way
the list is incorporated within the rules.

The implication is in your imagination. Taking away the list bullets
it reads: "A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way
of: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to
maneuver; a vessel engaged in fishing; [and] a sailing vessel." There
is no way to twist that to mean that a RAM should keep out of the way
of a NUC.

You've heard the pecking order so many times that you see that list
and think that's what it is.



Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself, it
is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat should
keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that sailing vessels
should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not one single mention of
any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must give way to.

We disagree. To me, the way the list is set up and considering the degree of
unable to maneuver/restricted ability to maneuver, for each of the groups
listed, there is a natural progression downwards in that degree of
"disability"..,... NUC/RAM/fishing..... so that there is a strong
implication of a pecking order, even though you are correct in that it is
not stated.

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.

We can fully agree that the rules frequently do not specifically state a
particular type, condition, possibility. Much is left to implication,
experience, common sense (rule 2) as to how you apply the basic wording/rule
to your specific situation.
In the case of NUC/RAM..... the fact that there is no specific mention of
who RAM or NUC must give way to, there is ample reason within the words
"unable to maneuver"/ "restricted in ability to maneuver" to say that RAM
must give way to NUC.

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.



And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the
same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

Incorrect. One is described as "unable to maneuver" the other as "restricted
in it's ability to maneuver". This is an important difference.

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."



You may
even be right that in the history of Admiralty Law there has never been a
case where a RAM was less maneuverable than a NUC, but the rules allow for
it. (Actually, the concept of a NUC is new, introduced in 1972, so there
are few precedents for this.)

Actually, NUC has been around long before 1972. It is just that in 72 they
tried to explain the signifcance of NUC/RAM and note the difference between
the two.

An one more point: This was introduced as a "Pedantic Rules Quiz," where I
implied that I was being overly picky about the precise words in the
rules. As such, it has little to do with general experience, or even
common sense.

BG reason for my beginning BG.....finally got the message.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

otnmbrd wrote:
BG

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18
simply does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC.
It truly isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've
been taught, and that's what your experience is, but that simply
isn't what the words say.

OK, now I see the point you are trying to make........ yes and
no........ no, it doesn't specifically say it......yes, it implies it
due to the way the list is incorporated within the rules.

The implication is in your imagination. Taking away the list bullets
it reads: "A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way
of: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to
maneuver; a vessel engaged in fishing; [and] a sailing vessel." There
is no way to twist that to mean that a RAM should keep out of the way
of a NUC.

You've heard the pecking order so many times that you see that list
and think that's what it is.

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.




Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by
itself, it is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a
power boat should keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a
list that sailing vessels should keep out of the way of, so on.
There is not one single mention of any vessels that either a NUC
*or* a RAM must give way to.

We disagree. To me, the way the list is set up and considering the
degree of unable to maneuver/restricted ability to maneuver, for each
of the groups listed, there is a natural progression downwards in
that degree of "disability"..,... NUC/RAM/fishing..... so that there
is a strong implication of a pecking order, even though you are
correct in that it is not stated.

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.....

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

We can fully agree that the rules frequently do not specifically
state a particular type, condition, possibility. Much is left to
implication, experience, common sense (rule 2) as to how you apply
the basic wording/rule to your specific situation.
In the case of NUC/RAM..... the fact that there is no specific
mention of who RAM or NUC must give way to, there is ample reason
within the words "unable to maneuver"/ "restricted in ability to
maneuver" to say that RAM must give way to NUC.

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 in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly
the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is
therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

Incorrect. One is described as "unable to maneuver" the other as
"restricted in it's ability to maneuver". This is an important
difference.

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. 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).

otn