"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?