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"?