My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to maneuver) don't you
think the "writers" would have simply described NUC as restricted in it's
ability to maneuver (like RAM) rather than uable to maneuver as required by
these rules, so that we wouldn't be having this discussion?


I never said they were completely equal (actually I did, but on
careful consideration, i.e. rereading, retracted that), only that they
could overlap. Both NUC and RAM cover situations that can't really be
predicted and/or anticipated, so the rules don't want to say which
might be less maneuverable and thus "privileged." In the case of NUC,
they really wanted to emphasize that minor problems did not qualify.
But still, it falls a bit short of saying totally disabled. Its only
"unable to maneuver as required ..."

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Lady Pilot" wrote in
:


"otnmbrd" wrote:
An EGO problem......ROFLMAO.........I don't call it a "problem" .....
I just know that "I" and most of those like me have the biggest
screaming ego's in existence!! Hell, if we didn't we wouldn't be any
good at what we do !! When I was "sailing" I always said that the
biggest primadonna's I 'd ever met, were Pilots.........now that I am
one, I can confirm that statement as true and accurate!

Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?

LP

BG FLY? I'm still tryin to figure out how you get them overweight SOB's
off the ground. What I "pilot", floats on water not air.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Scotty

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Lady Pilot" _ ( )+( ) _.___...stupidly
asked.....

"otnmbrd" wrote:
An EGO problem......ROFLMAO.........I don't call it a
"problem" ..... I
just know that "I" and most of those like me have the
biggest screaming
ego's in existence!! Hell, if we didn't we wouldn't be
any good at what we
do !! When I was "sailing" I always said that the
biggest primadonna's I
'd ever met, were Pilots.........now that I am one, I
can confirm that
statement as true and accurate!

Now you have my attention, otn. What do you fly?


BWaHaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
Jeff wrote in
:

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.

Misread. When I was talking about a NUC being anchored, I was referring
to one in coastal/inland waters which was on soundings and able to anchor
(one reason you probably won't see one). Since they could anchor, once
anchored they were no longer NUC....simply a vessel at anchor. In open
ocean, naturally they would continue to drift, however when the breakdown
occurred they would naturally continue on for a period (hence side
lights, etc so other vessels could visually monitor) until they lost way.
The rule is simply saying keep those lights on until you stop.

Hmmm. Does drifting count as "making way through the water"? How
about dragging anchor?


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.

For me the implication is in the order (you're right, not a word is said)
Look at the sequence... NUC is always first.

So? Something has to be first in a list. This is a list of vessels a
powerboat must stay clear of, not is said about what a RAM must stay
clear of.



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.

G we can go around like this for months....I'm a stubborn Scot and
stick to my guns on this.

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.

Been awhile since I took the test. However since single signal signals
(Flags) are still used I find that hard to believe.
The fact that so many of those observers are not aware of this signal or
of those signals in general tells me that the various teaching groups are
not doing their job. These signals are just as important and should as
easily recognized and used by the recreational boater as are black balls,
cones, etc.

Truly, signal flags are not part of the test. I think there might be
some mention somewhere that a book exist that explains these things,
but it certainly would be part of the "closed book, 90% to pass" part
which specifically covers the rules and is in fact where the question
I posted came from.


BG sore subject....off my soap box
BTW you will note that theses signals may be sent by ANY method of
signalling.

You mean like two vertical balls?





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?

Because as you know, I say a NUC is unable to maneuver.

Yes, but that's begging the question. (I mean that in the true sense
of defining you terms so as to make an real discussion of the issue
irrelevant.)



Of course, I've never used flag signals except in very specific
situations (race signals, diver down, etc) so what do I know?

EG Shame on you..... course I doubt many in this group
have....knowingly.

Yes, there was a time when owning a complete set of signal flags was
actually on my list. But now they've fallen into that dark zone of
having no antique or nostalgia value, but not being really useful.
Kind of like an RDF, which I did own and use, but didn't keep.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Scotty wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Yes, that would be Otn's contention.

However, how about this situation:

Otn says that a NUC is, by definition "dead in the water" and, if in a
harbor would definitely be anchored. But what if it chooses not to
anchor? In fact, We've all seen numerous cases of small boats broken
down and drifting free. They might reasonable expect small sail and
powerboats to stay clear, but do they have the right tell a dredge or
salvage vessel to move? Wouldn't they be expected to drop anchor?

Similarly, dragging anchor is one of the classic NUC situations.
Doesn't the vessel have the responsibility to act to reduce the
dragging?

Clearly, this is not "maneuvering" in the normal sense, but it is
altering speed and perhaps direction and thus shows that they do not
have to be considered absolutely at the top of the pecking order. In
fact, Otn's very claim that the NUC should anchor is acknowledging
that the NUC *is* expected to maneuver, since anchoring would alter
its speed.

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

Jeff wrote in
:

otnmbrd wrote:
The rule is simply
saying keep those lights on until you stop.

Hmmm. Does drifting count as "making way through the water"?

That's a judgement call..... normally I'd say no, since not having them
on might give more information.

How
about dragging anchor?

Again, a judgement call....since you are now at anchor and showing anchor
lights not NUC...



For me the implication is in the order (you're right, not a word is
said) Look at the sequence... NUC is always first.

So? Something has to be first in a list. This is a list of vessels a
powerboat must stay clear of, not is said about what a RAM must stay
clear of.

It basically boils down to how you read/perceive/interpret.
To me the Rules are some basic guidelines that follow a common sense
progression, so I interpret Rule 18, as I do.



Truly, signal flags are not part of the test. I think there might be
some mention somewhere that a book exist that explains these things,
but it certainly would be part of the "closed book, 90% to pass" part
which specifically covers the rules and is in fact where the question
I posted came from.
\
I will have to look. However, whether you consciously see them or not,
these signals are used (some of them) daily by ships and others,
especially in coastal waters... "A","B","G","H","Q","S","D"(in fog),
"E","I" to name a few.



BG sore subject....off my soap box
BTW you will note that theses signals may be sent by ANY method of
signalling.

You mean like two vertical balls?

No I mean flag, flashing light (morse), whistle (morse), semaphor (G).






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?

Because as you know, I say a NUC is unable to maneuver.

Yes, but that's begging the question. (I mean that in the true sense
of defining you terms so as to make an real discussion of the issue
irrelevant.)



Of course, I've never used flag signals except in very specific
situations (race signals, diver down, etc) so what do I know?

EG Shame on you..... course I doubt many in this group
have....knowingly.

Yes, there was a time when owning a complete set of signal flags was
actually on my list. But now they've fallen into that dark zone of
having no antique or nostalgia value, but not being really useful.
Kind of like an RDF, which I did own and use, but didn't keep.

You may have dumped the flags/morse too soon. Once again, you do use them
you just may not be conscious of it.

otn

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

G That is my interpretation

otn

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Scotty

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
nk.net...
I've never asked the question:

If NUC and RAM were equal (i.e.,NUC had some ability to
maneuver)

Then it's not NUC anymore, right?

Yes, that would be Otn's contention.

However, how about this situation:

Otn says that a NUC is, by definition "dead in the water" and, if in a
harbor would definitely be anchored. But what if it chooses not to
anchor? In fact, We've all seen numerous cases of small boats broken down
and drifting free. They might reasonable expect small sail and powerboats
to stay clear, but do they have the right tell a dredge or salvage vessel
to move?

They would have the right to expect them not to run them over and in the
case of the suction dredge connected to a pipeline, "they" could conceivably
pull themselves aside.


Wouldn't they be expected to drop anchor?

If possible and under the above conditions, yes.


Similarly, dragging anchor is one of the classic NUC situations.

It is?

Doesn't the vessel have the responsibility to act to reduce the dragging?

yup


Clearly, this is not "maneuvering" in the normal sense, but it is altering
speed and perhaps direction and thus shows that they do not have to be
considered absolutely at the top of the pecking order. In fact, Otn's
very claim that the NUC should anchor is acknowledging that the NUC *is*
expected to maneuver, since anchoring would alter its speed.

HUH?

My new stand-on/give way list.
 

otnmbrd wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message

Clearly, this is not "maneuvering" in the normal sense, but it is altering
speed and perhaps direction and thus shows that they do not have to be
considered absolutely at the top of the pecking order. In fact, Otn's
very claim that the NUC should anchor is acknowledging that the NUC *is*
expected to maneuver, since anchoring would alter its speed.

HUH?

You heard me.

Why wouldn't dropping anchor be considered maneuvering? Its altering
speed. Once you admit that the NUC has that responsibility, your
story unravels like a cheap sweater!