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