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.



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.



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





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.


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.




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!

LOL I say it isn't and the ability to use "D" may be why....


and RAM doesn't work,

How could it? That niche is reserved for vessels limited by the nature
of their work.

Exactly



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.

BG Disagree...we know NUC is unable to maneuver...

Think of this like two RAM's or two NUC's meeting? Who has rights?

Two RAM's.....rule two....which one can more easily cease operation or
has the greater maneuverability.

Two NUC's..... How can they meet? Their both DIW (possibilities noted)


If this be the case, I disagree

I think we can agree on that.

Ahhhhh now I can relax....we've agree'd

otn