|
My new stand-on/give way list.
Jeff pointed out that the regular pecking order list that Captain Neal gives in his lessons isn't right.
So is every other pecking order list not right. Pedantic fer sure! But he has a good point. I think I agree with him. So I made a new list like it should be. Here it is. It summarizes rule 18. The classification below the line must avoid the ones above the line. NUC RAM FISH SAIL __________________ POWER NUC RAM FISH ___________________ SAIL NUC RAM ___________________ FISH NUC RAM _____________________ CBD NUC RAM CBD FISH SAIL POWER ________________________________ SEAPLANE NUC RAM CBD FISH SAIL POWER SEAPLANE ___________________________________________ WIG Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote: What .......no new pictures? Joe Jeff pointed out that the regular pecking order list that Captain Neal gives in his lessons isn't right. So is every other pecking order list not right. Pedantic fer sure! But he has a good point. I think I agree with him. So I made a new list like it should be. Here it is. It summarizes rule 18. The classification below the line must avoid the ones above the line. NUC RAM FISH SAIL __________________ POWER NUC RAM FISH ___________________ SAIL NUC RAM ___________________ FISH NUC RAM _____________________ CBD NUC RAM CBD FISH SAIL POWER ________________________________ SEAPLANE NUC RAM CBD FISH SAIL POWER SEAPLANE ___________________________________________ WIG Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Joe" wrote | | What .......no new pictures? Just for you and Scotty..... http://www.badongo.com/pic/337352 Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
You fail to note the potential difference between NUC and RAM.....probably
because you don't understand the potential difference since you are just reading words.. otn "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... Jeff pointed out that the regular pecking order list that Captain Neal gives in his lessons isn't right. So is every other pecking order list not right. Pedantic fer sure! But he has a good point. I think I agree with him. So I made a new list like it should be. Here it is. It summarizes rule 18. The classification below the line must avoid the ones above the line. NUC RAM FISH SAIL __________________ POWER NUC RAM FISH ___________________ SAIL NUC RAM ___________________ FISH NUC RAM _____________________ CBD NUC RAM CBD FISH SAIL POWER ________________________________ SEAPLANE NUC RAM CBD FISH SAIL POWER SEAPLANE ___________________________________________ WIG Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
So close, and yet ...
Maybe the reason my point here is so hard to see is because it's represented by a clause that isn't there! otnmbrd wrote: You fail to note the potential difference between NUC and RAM.....probably because you don't understand the potential difference since you are just reading words.. otn "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... Jeff pointed out that the regular pecking order list that Captain Neal gives in his lessons isn't right. So is every other pecking order list not right. Pedantic fer sure! But he has a good point. I think I agree with him. So I made a new list like it should be. Here it is. It summarizes rule 18. The classification below the line must avoid the ones above the line. NUC RAM FISH SAIL __________________ POWER .... |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... | You fail to note the potential difference between NUC and RAM.....probably | because you don't understand the potential difference since you are just | reading words.. I understand the difference. The rule tells me the difference. Rule 3 tells me NUC is unable to maneuver to comply with the Rules and unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. The Rule tells me RAM has restricted ability to maneuver to comply with the other Rules and is also unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. Like I said before.... NUC = unable/unable RAM + restricted/unable So it makes it look like NUC is really more handicapped. But it's looks only. What matters is the unable part when it comes to keeping out of the way of other vessels. Both NUC and RAM are unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. So what if it's for different reasons! Your trying to say RAM has to be kept out of the way of NUC . But that's impossible because RAM is unable to keep out of the way. Rule 3 says so.... You can't have it both ways. You talk about *potential difference*. Funny but Rule 3 doesn't say a thing about it. You just can't go around saying *I've tons of experience. I can see a potential difference. I don't care what the Rule says. I know better than the Rule. I can use my judgment and I can use Rule 2 to ignore all the other Rules. Those dummies should have put something in there about potential differences. They didn't but I'll just act like they did because I have loads of experience. And because Rule 2 says I can.* They just put Rule 2 in there to cover their butts. In case they forget to put something in the other Rules they have an out. Instead of saying they wrote crummy rules they can say people didn't use good judgment in applying their crummy Rules. Why not just have one Rule to cover it all? Duh! So here it is. My new 06Colregs... Let's get all the countries to sign on. Rule (1) Use good judgment! Rule (2) the end Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote | Maybe the reason my point here is so hard to see is because it's | represented by a clause that isn't there! Who's the one sounding like a blonde now? :-) *Maybe the reason nobody adored my new diamond necklace is because I'm wearing pearls....* Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
You keep looking at the definition of NUC and RAM. Why don't you tell
us what their responsibility is with respect to each other? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote | Maybe the reason my point here is so hard to see is because it's | represented by a clause that isn't there! Who's the one sounding like a blonde now? :-) *Maybe the reason nobody adored my new diamond necklace is because I'm wearing pearls....* Do I have to spell this out for you? For Neal's pecking order to be correct, there would have to be a clause that isn't there. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote | You keep looking at the definition of NUC and RAM. Why don't you tell | us what their responsibility is with respect to each other? I thought I did that. I said that Rule 18 says: ( -: nothing about it :- ) Did you see in any of my new diagrams it listed? No you didn't because it says nothing about it in the rule. It never says NUC keep clear of RAM or vice versa. Another reason I say they're equal. So, if you insist on having a complete list it should look like this: NUC RAM ________ CBD FISH SAIL POWER SEAPLANE WIG But rule 18 never says that. It says what I said in my new stand on/give way list. It doesn't give a complete list. Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote | Do I have to spell this out for you? For Neal's pecking order to be | correct, there would have to be a clause that isn't there. This is my pecking order list. I'm Captain Neal and I'm always right. I happened to notice that my pecking order is missing something, It is missing a clause. The clause that isn't there makes it look like this. NUC RAM ------------ CBD FISH SAIL POWER SEAPLANE WIG Everybody else is not intelligent enough to figure this out. I can do it with half my brain tied behind my back. How's that for a Captain Neal imitation? Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote | You keep looking at the definition of NUC and RAM. Why don't you tell | us what their responsibility is with respect to each other? I thought I did that. I said that Rule 18 says: ( -: nothing about it :- ) Yes! Did you see in any of my new diagrams it listed? No - you gave too much information to be useful. No you didn't because it says nothing about it in the rule. It never says NUC keep clear of RAM or vice versa. Another reason I say they're equal. All you did before was give rule 18 in list form - you didn't actually say how it differed from the pecking order. Also, saying that they appear very similar in Rule 3 is not the same as saying they are handled the same in Rule 18. Now you have, congratulations. So, if you insist on having a complete list it should look like this: NUC RAM ________ CBD FISH SAIL POWER SEAPLANE WIG Yes, that would be a better representation of the pecking order. You may note the Neal actually said, "A NUC is the stand-on vessel above all the rest" which is patently false. This is my first "flaw," now you may be ready to find the next. But rule 18 never says that. It says what I said in my new stand on/give way list. It doesn't give a complete list. Why do you call this a "stand on/give way" list? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Yes, you'll have to point it out to him...
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff" wrote in message . .. Ellen MacArthur wrote: "Jeff" wrote | Maybe the reason my point here is so hard to see is because it's | represented by a clause that isn't there! Who's the one sounding like a blonde now? :-) *Maybe the reason nobody adored my new diamond necklace is because I'm wearing pearls....* Do I have to spell this out for you? For Neal's pecking order to be correct, there would have to be a clause that isn't there. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote | Yes, that would be a better representation of the pecking order. You | may note the Neal actually said, "A NUC is the stand-on vessel above | all the rest" which is patently false. This is my first "flaw," now | you may be ready to find the next. Where did he say that? .. | Why do you call this a "stand on/give way" list? Because that's what pecking order lists are for. They show which boat gives way and which one stands on. Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote | Yes, that would be a better representation of the pecking order. You | may note the Neal actually said, "A NUC is the stand-on vessel above | all the rest" which is patently false. This is my first "flaw," now | you may be ready to find the next. Where did he say that? Gee, it said that until a few minutes ago. Neal must be reading this thread. It must be horribly embarrassing for him that you have been able to best him! | Why do you call this a "stand on/give way" list? Because that's what pecking order lists are for. They show which boat gives way and which one stands on. Hmmm. Is that what the rule says? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote | Gee, it said that until a few minutes ago. Neal must be reading this | thread. It must be horribly embarrassing for him that you have been | able to best him! Nobody can best Captain Neal. I bet he *is* lurking. I bet what you said made sense to him. I bet he decided his lessons should be accurate. He's perfect so his lessons need to be perfect too. | Hmmm. Is that what the rule says? Not exactly but they do say *keep out of the way of*. That's the same as *give way*. But, the rule doesn't say anything about stand on. So maybe that's your point. It should just be a give way list. Happy now, Mr. Pedantic? :-) Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote | Gee, it said that until a few minutes ago. Neal must be reading this | thread. It must be horribly embarrassing for him that you have been | able to best him! Nobody can best Captain Neal. I bet he *is* lurking. I bet what you said made sense to him. I bet he decided his lessons should be accurate. He's perfect so his lessons need to be perfect too. | Hmmm. Is that what the rule says? Not exactly but they do say *keep out of the way of*. That's the same as *give way*. But, the rule doesn't say anything about stand on. So maybe that's your point. It should just be a give way list. Happy now, Mr. Pedantic? :-) Nope. You see the words but you're not reading them. What are the definitions of "standon" and "giveway"? Are all relationships in the pecking order specified in this way? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Comments interspersed: "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in reenews.net: "otnmbrd" wrote in message k.net... | You fail to note the potential difference between NUC and | RAM.....probably because you don't understand the potential | difference since you are just reading words.. I understand the difference. The rule tells me the difference. Rule 3 tells me NUC is unable to maneuver to comply with the Rules and unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. The Rule tells me RAM has restricted ability to maneuver to comply with the other Rules and is also unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. Like I said before.... NUC = unable/unable RAM + restricted/unable So it makes it look like NUC is really more handicapped. But it's looks only. Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion (generally). For this reason you will see most pecking orders keep NUC above RAM. For example: A ship, broken down with no possible way to use it's engine.....this vessel is NUC. Approaching it is an aircraft carrier, launching aircraft....this vessel is RAM. Now, by your account, these two vessels are equal..... not so. The broken down ship has no options, while the carrier does. The carrier may be able to slow/speed-up or alter course slightly to avoid....it may have to cease operations until clear of the NUC (remember, the carrier CAN maneuver). The remainder of what you say is more of your uninformed nonsense not worth commenting on other than to restate your lack of understanding of Rule 2 and the various possibilities of conditions and circumstances not specifically written within the rules. otn What matters is the unable part when it comes to keeping out of the way of other vessels. Both NUC and RAM are unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. So what if it's for different reasons! Your trying to say RAM has to be kept out of the way of NUC . But that's impossible because RAM is unable to keep out of the way. Rule 3 says so.... You can't have it both ways. You talk about *potential difference*. Funny but Rule 3 doesn't say a thing about it. You just can't go around saying *I've tons of experience. I can see a potential difference. I don't care what the Rule says. I know better than the Rule. I can use my judgment and I can use Rule 2 to ignore all the other Rules. Those dummies should have put something in there about potential differences. They didn't but I'll just act like they did because I have loads of experience. And because Rule 2 says I can.* They just put Rule 2 in there to cover their butts. In case they forget to put something in the other Rules they have an out. Instead of saying they wrote crummy rules they can say people didn't use good judgment in applying their crummy Rules. Why not just have one Rule to cover it all? Duh! So here it is. My new 06Colregs... Let's get all the countries to sign on. Rule (1) Use good judgment! Rule (2) the end Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
I would beg to differ with you on this one. There is nothing in the
rules that require that a ship be totally unable to maneuver, only that it may be unable to maneuver as require required by the rules in some situation. Otherwise, you'd have to say the every NUC near land should immediately drop an anchor as a last ditch effort to prevent disaster. My instructor went to pains to come up with examples such as rudder control lost where there is only limited control to turn one way. Loss of one engine of two could cause the same. Loss of reverse (or better yet, forward!) might be cause for NUC. The courts have been rather strict in this, so that the disability must be severe, but it does not have to be total. For a vessel to be a RAM, there may be a wide spectrum of lack of maneuverability, but it includes situations such as a dredging barge which may be totally incapable of maneuvering without a *lot* of notice. So how to you say that a severely crippled NUC has rights over an essentially immobile RAM? There is no obvious solution, and the rules have rightfully said that neither has "rights" over the other. In practice, guidance must be found in Rule 2 to resolve this. I will admit that in in my experience, NUC's are pretty rare. I've only seen one formally declared, and it was a total breakdown that was adrift until brought under control by tugs. But I've seen a large number of RAM's that essentially had no ability to react. The one difference, and you might see this as significant, is that the RAM can generally plan in advance how it might handle various situations, while a NUC probably has little advance notice of its problems. otnmbrd wrote: Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion (generally). For this reason you will see most pecking orders keep NUC above RAM. For example: A ship, broken down with no possible way to use it's engine.....this vessel is NUC. Approaching it is an aircraft carrier, launching aircraft....this vessel is RAM. Now, by your account, these two vessels are equal..... not so. The broken down ship has no options, while the carrier does. The carrier may be able to slow/speed-up or alter course slightly to avoid....it may have to cease operations until clear of the NUC (remember, the carrier CAN maneuver). The remainder of what you say is more of your uninformed nonsense not worth commenting on other than to restate your lack of understanding of Rule 2 and the various possibilities of conditions and circumstances not specifically written within the rules. otn |
My new stand-on/give way list.
otnmbrd wrote:
Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion One more thing: Rule 13 (Overtaking) specifically takes priority over rule 18. This is affirmed in both Rules 13 and 18. Thus, a NUC is required to, if possible, keep out of the way of a vessel it may be overtaking. If it was presumed that a NUC is totally incapable of maneuvering, it would not have this responsibility. The authors, in their wisdom, must have foreseen a situation where a vessel might be a NUC, but still able to fulfill its Rule 13 responsibilities. In addition, a NUC may have Rule 9 and 10 responsibilities. Clearly, a NUC may be unable to fulfill any of these responsibilities, but the rules do not consider it an absolute, and to the extent possible, it must try. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Jeff wrote in
: I would beg to differ with you on this one. There is nothing in the rules that require that a ship be totally unable to maneuver, only that it may be unable to maneuver as require required by the rules in some situation. Otherwise, you'd have to say the every NUC near land should immediately drop an anchor as a last ditch effort to prevent disaster. Yes and no....say it lost steering....it can maneuver fwd and back but in no way can it regulate it's course to avoid other vessels unlike most RAM which do have that option though in some cases it may require they alter the nature of their work. Every NUC that approaches land and water shallow enough to anchor, SHOULD anchor...at which time they're no longer NUC. My instructor went to pains to come up with examples such as rudder control lost where there is only limited control to turn one way. I'd call that NUC Loss of one engine of two could cause the same. NO. Loss of reverse NO. (or better yet, forward!) might be cause for NUC. Single screw, yes. The courts have been rather strict in this, so that the disability must be severe, but it does not have to be total. True, but it's generally a cut above RAM which is just restricted. For a vessel to be a RAM, there may be a wide spectrum of lack of maneuverability, but it includes situations such as a dredging barge which may be totally incapable of maneuvering without a *lot* of notice. BG This is a big exception. However, most dredges of this type are set up to easily pull themselves to one side or even out of a channel (may be the reason they left them in this category), but remember, if a NUC is drifting down on a dredge of this type then it could easily anchor....no more NUC. So how to you say that a severely crippled NUC has rights over an essentially immobile RAM? There is no obvious solution, and the rules have rightfully said that neither has "rights" over the other. In practice, guidance must be found in Rule 2 to resolve this. Each situation is going to govern how you react, but for the most part, if you look at each of those vessels listed under RAM they are able to maneuver (first.... but highly restricted in that ability) whereas The NUC is unable to maneuver (the ability to go ahead or astern with no steering control only makes you an unguided missile). You are correct that you need to use rule 2, however, you also need to look at these conditions as open ocean and coastal/harbor/channel. In open ocean you will find no dredges and in coastal/harbors you should see few NUC since they can anchor. No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18, but as per usual under rule 2 you need to be observent and aware that some condition may exist not specifically written within the rules which may require you to make a departure from these rules. I will admit that in in my experience, NUC's are pretty rare. I've only seen one formally declared, and it was a total breakdown that was adrift until brought under control by tugs. But I've seen a large number of RAM's that essentially had no ability to react. The one difference, and you might see this as significant, is that the RAM can generally plan in advance how it might handle various situations, while a NUC probably has little advance notice of its problems. In "most cases" it can not only plan, but is able to alter it's RAM status and/or do something to avoid the NUC. I have been NUC a number of times at sea, but never in coastal or harbor waters where the hook becomes my friend. otn |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Jeff wrote in
: otnmbrd wrote: Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion One more thing: Rule 13 (Overtaking) specifically takes priority over rule 18. This is affirmed in both Rules 13 and 18. Thus, a NUC is required to, if possible, keep out of the way of a vessel it may be overtaking. If it was presumed that a NUC is totally incapable of maneuvering, it would not have this responsibility. The authors, in their wisdom, must have foreseen a situation where a vessel might be a NUC, but still able to fulfill its Rule 13 responsibilities. We seem to differ on the abilities of a NUC. I say a NUC either can't steer or can't use it's engine(s) or both. No engine(s) no overtaking No steering, odds of overtaking (i.e. holding a course long enough to be considered overtaking...andG why would they want to?)slim to none. In addition, a NUC may have Rule 9 and 10 responsibilities. Clearly, a NUC may be unable to fulfill any of these responsibilities, but the rules do not consider it an absolute, and to the extent possible, it must try. Rule 9, unlikely....narrow channel, NUC anchors Rule 10, unlikely also. When faced with a collision, no matter what your situation if you have any abilities at all, you must try to use them to your advantage, if possible. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"otnmbrd" wrote | Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" | RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion | (generally). There you go again. Making up rules on the spot to suit you. It makes you look silly. But worse than that it makes you wrong wrong wrong... Please tell me something. The Rule says *The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel". What you say contradicts this rule. You say it's able to maneuver but restricted. This is true. The rule says it. But you just never let it sink into your thick skull that none of that matters. What matters is the rule also says *and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. Two vessels both of them unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. So tell me why one must give way. The rule says it can't do it. Explain how it can do it when the rule says it can't. | For this reason you will see most pecking orders keep NUC above RAM. | For example: A ship, broken down with no possible way to use it's | engine.....this vessel is NUC. Approaching it is an aircraft carrier, | launching aircraft....this vessel is RAM. Wrong again. The rule says and says it clearly. RAM is unable to keep out of the way. | Now, by your account, these two vessels are equal..... not so. | The broken down ship has no options, while the carrier does. The carrier | may be able to slow/speed-up or alter course slightly to avoid....it may | have to cease operations until clear of the NUC (remember, the carrier | CAN maneuver). I'm afraid your confused...... If the aircraft carrier can maneuver to keep out of the way it's not RAM. One part of being RAM is being unable to keep out of the way. Duh! How many times am I gonna have to say this. You keep ignoring half the rule. STOP IT! I'm not letting you get away with it. I don't care how experienced you are. The facts are the facts. | The remainder of what you say is more of your uninformed nonsense not | worth commenting on other than to restate your lack of understanding of | Rule 2 and the various possibilities of conditions and circumstances not | specifically written within the rules. Never mind that. First explain why your so uninformed about what RAM is. You say RAM can maneuver to stay out of the way of a NUC. The rule says it can't maneuver to stay out of the way. Who should I believe? Should I believe what the Colregs say? Should I believe some experienced captain posting on a news group? Tell me where the rules say experienced captains are allowed to make up their own rules. Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
otnmbrd wrote:
No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18, But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC is on top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it. And it may be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule 18 says. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. | otnmbrd wrote: | No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18, | | But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC | is on top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it. | And it may be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule | 18 says. I agree and you did a fine job teaching me why.... Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
All you're doing is saying that in the cases you've seen, the NUC is
worse off than a RAM. So then explain, why do the rules imply that it is not necessarily the case? otnmbrd wrote: Jeff wrote in : otnmbrd wrote: Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion One more thing: Rule 13 (Overtaking) specifically takes priority over rule 18. This is affirmed in both Rules 13 and 18. Thus, a NUC is required to, if possible, keep out of the way of a vessel it may be overtaking. If it was presumed that a NUC is totally incapable of maneuvering, it would not have this responsibility. The authors, in their wisdom, must have foreseen a situation where a vessel might be a NUC, but still able to fulfill its Rule 13 responsibilities. We seem to differ on the abilities of a NUC. I say a NUC either can't steer or can't use it's engine(s) or both. No engine(s) no overtaking No steering, odds of overtaking (i.e. holding a course long enough to be considered overtaking...andG why would they want to?)slim to none. In addition, a NUC may have Rule 9 and 10 responsibilities. Clearly, a NUC may be unable to fulfill any of these responsibilities, but the rules do not consider it an absolute, and to the extent possible, it must try. Rule 9, unlikely....narrow channel, NUC anchors Rule 10, unlikely also. When faced with a collision, no matter what your situation if you have any abilities at all, you must try to use them to your advantage, if possible. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message . .. I agree and you did a fine job teaching me why.... Thank you. So, Neal claimed that a sailboat is the giveway vessel with respect to a CBD. Is this true? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote | So, Neal claimed that a sailboat is the giveway vessel with respect to | a CBD. Is this true? It's true if you follow the regular pecking order. The one that's the accepted one. The one that's on Capt. Neal's lesson page. But Rule 18 never says it. My new stand on/give way rule post makes it clear. You said you didn't pay attention to it. You said there was too much info. But what it does is summarize rule 18 and makes it easy to see in your mind just what the rule is saying. It says CBD's only to stay out of the way of NUC and RAM. You have to go to the narrow channel rule to come to the conclusion that sail gives way to CBD. I think. Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Sorry Jeff, but in my copy of the rules, NUC is listed above Ram which is
listed above fishing, etc.... If you follow the list down top to bottom as would a pecking order, NUC would be first. To me, that is what rule 18 says, and for the various reasons I have given. To me, the most important words are "unable to maneuver" versus "restricted in ability to maneuver" For instance, a fishing vessel is considered a vessel with restricted maneuverability but not as (normally) restricted as RAM, so it is listed after RAM. A sailboat................. otn "Jeff" wrote in message . .. otnmbrd wrote: No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18, But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC is on top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it. And it may be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule 18 says. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
The NUC is broken down unable to maneuver in any reasonable way (steering or
engine(s)) The implications are within "unable to maneuver" versus "restricted in ability to maneuver"....... in my book two totally different animals. Think open ocean and look at all six RAM examples..... not one has as few options as a ship with no engine. otn "Jeff" wrote in message ... All you're doing is saying that in the cases you've seen, the NUC is worse off than a RAM. So then explain, why do the rules imply that it is not necessarily the case? otnmbrd wrote: Jeff wrote in : otnmbrd wrote: Incorrect..... NUC is unable to maneuver...."PERIOD" RAM is ABLE to maneuver but in a highly restricted fashion One more thing: Rule 13 (Overtaking) specifically takes priority over rule 18. This is affirmed in both Rules 13 and 18. Thus, a NUC is required to, if possible, keep out of the way of a vessel it may be overtaking. If it was presumed that a NUC is totally incapable of maneuvering, it would not have this responsibility. The authors, in their wisdom, must have foreseen a situation where a vessel might be a NUC, but still able to fulfill its Rule 13 responsibilities. We seem to differ on the abilities of a NUC. I say a NUC either can't steer or can't use it's engine(s) or both. No engine(s) no overtaking No steering, odds of overtaking (i.e. holding a course long enough to be considered overtaking...andG why would they want to?)slim to none. In addition, a NUC may have Rule 9 and 10 responsibilities. Clearly, a NUC may be unable to fulfill any of these responsibilities, but the rules do not consider it an absolute, and to the extent possible, it must try. Rule 9, unlikely....narrow channel, NUC anchors Rule 10, unlikely also. When faced with a collision, no matter what your situation if you have any abilities at all, you must try to use them to your advantage, if possible. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18
simply does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It truly isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been taught, and that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what the words say. Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself, it is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat should keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that sailing vessels should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not one single mention of any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must give way to. And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." You may even be right that in the history of Admiralty Law there has never been a case where a RAM was less maneuverable than a NUC, but the rules allow for it. (Actually, the concept of a NUC is new, introduced in 1972, so there are few precedents for this.) An one more point: This was introduced as a "Pedantic Rules Quiz," where I implied that I was being overly picky about the precise words in the rules. As such, it has little to do with general experience, or even common sense. otnmbrd wrote: Sorry Jeff, but in my copy of the rules, NUC is listed above Ram which is listed above fishing, etc.... If you follow the list down top to bottom as would a pecking order, NUC would be first. To me, that is what rule 18 says, and for the various reasons I have given. To me, the most important words are "unable to maneuver" versus "restricted in ability to maneuver" For instance, a fishing vessel is considered a vessel with restricted maneuverability but not as (normally) restricted as RAM, so it is listed after RAM. A sailboat................. otn "Jeff" wrote in message . .. otnmbrd wrote: No, there is a reason NUC is on top of RAM in rule 18, But the point is that it isn't. The wording does not imply that NUC is on top of RAM. That is certainly the way everyone remembers it. And it may be true in 97% of the situations. But it is not what Rule 18 says. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote | So, Neal claimed that a sailboat is the giveway vessel with respect to | a CBD. Is this true? It's true if you follow the regular pecking order. The one that's the accepted one. The one that's on Capt. Neal's lesson page. But Rule 18 never says it. My new stand on/give way rule post makes it clear. You said you didn't pay attention to it. You said there was too much info. But what it does is summarize rule 18 and makes it easy to see in your mind just what the rule is saying. It says CBD's only to stay out of the way of NUC and RAM. You have to go to the narrow channel rule to come to the conclusion that sail gives way to CBD. I think. Rule 18 does have a lot say about the relationship between CBD's and sail and power boats. What is the nature of this relationship? And does the Narrow Channel Rule really say the sailboats are giveway with respect to "channel bound" vessels? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"otnmbrd" wrote | The NUC is broken down unable to maneuver in any reasonable way (steering or | engine(s)) The implications are within "unable to maneuver" versus | "restricted in ability to maneuver"....... in my book two totally different | animals. | Think open ocean and look at all six RAM examples..... not one has as few | options as a ship with no engine. Please stop being so dense! I've put it in writing and Jeff's put it in writing. If you can read you've read it at least a dozen times now. I'm talking about what the rules say about NUC and RAM. What you say doesn't matter. What the rule says does matter. We're learning what the rules actually say. We're not learning what people *think* they say. You keep taking one part of a rule and you use it to make your claims. That's crazy. The rules can't be taken piecemeal. You have to use the entire rule if you want anybody to side with you. You STILL refuse to accept the fact that what Jeff said can't be denied.... Worse you keep totally ignoring it when both of us say exactly what the rules say. Jeff said: "And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." You argue that since you know cases where RAM can maneuver to keep out of the way then they are lower in the pecking order than NUC. But, that's not the case. IF A VESSEL **IS ABLE** TO MANEUVER TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY THEN BY DEFINITION IT ISN'T A RAM. You list examples of RAM that aren't RAM. You just think they are but your thinking is based on your ignoring what the rules actually say. I admit it. I used to think the same as you about the pecking order. Jeff changed my mind by proving I was wrong. I guess it's easier for women to admit a mistake. We don't have all that macho nonsense to worry about... You really do need to have a woman slap you senseless. Your that pig-headed! Pig-headed is dangerous. A real captain admits he's wrong when somebody proves he's wrong. Even Captain Neal admits a mistake once in a while That makes him a better man than you and at least an equal captain. Have you thought about retiring? Your thinking has become too inflexible. You could be endangering fellow seamen. Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"otnmbrd" wrote | The NUC is broken down unable to maneuver in any reasonable way (steering or | engine(s)) The implications are within "unable to maneuver" versus | "restricted in ability to maneuver"....... in my book two totally different | animals. | Think open ocean and look at all six RAM examples..... not one has as few | options as a ship with no engine. Please stop being so dense! I've put it in writing and Jeff's put it in writing. If you can read you've read it at least a dozen times now. I'm talking about what the rules say about NUC and RAM. What you say doesn't matter. What the rule says does matter. We're learning what the rules actually say. We're not learning what people *think* they say. You keep taking one part of a rule and you use it to make your claims. That's crazy. The rules can't be taken piecemeal. You have to use the entire rule if you want anybody to side with you. You STILL refuse to accept the fact that what Jeff said can't be denied.... Worse you keep totally ignoring it when both of us say exactly what the rules say. Jeff said: "And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." You argue that since you know cases where RAM can maneuver to keep out of the way then they are lower in the pecking order than NUC. But, that's not the case. IF A VESSEL **IS ABLE** TO MANEUVER TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY THEN BY DEFINITION IT ISN'T A RAM. You list examples of RAM that aren't RAM. You just think they are but your thinking is based on your ignoring what the rules actually say. You're wrong in this. The categories of RAM and NUC encompass broad spectrums. There is nothing that says that a RAM or a NUC is totally disabled, only that they may be unable to fulfill its responsibilities in some circumstances. Otn's point is that there is little or no overlap (which may be true in practice), while I say that the rules permit some degree of overlap. Actually, the rules say little about the degree of limitation, my point is simply that nowhere do they say that RAM's must stay clear of NUC's. I admit it. I used to think the same as you about the pecking order. Jeff changed my mind by proving I was wrong. I guess it's easier for women to admit a mistake. We don't have all that macho nonsense to worry about... Otn will change his mind too, when he forgets what he "knows" is true and re-reads the rules. |
My new stand-on/give way list.
"Jeff" wrote... | Rule 18 does have a lot say about the relationship between CBD's and | sail and power boats. What is the nature of this relationship? I don't see where it talks about them by name. But it does say any vessel other than NUC and RAM shall not impede the safe passage of CBD. Any vessel other than NUC and RAM includes sail and power. | 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's another way of saying give way, isn't it? Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote... | Rule 18 does have a lot say about the relationship between CBD's and | sail and power boats. What is the nature of this relationship? I don't see where it talks about them by name. But it does say any vessel other than NUC and RAM shall not impede the safe passage of CBD. Any vessel other than NUC and RAM includes sail and power. Yup. That's what it says. | 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's 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"? |
My new stand-on/give way list.
BG
"Jeff" wrote in message ... Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18 simply does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It truly isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been taught, and that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what the words say. OK, now I see the point you are trying to make........ yes and no........ no, it doesn't specifically say it......yes, it implies it due to the way the list is incorporated within the rules. Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself, it is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat should keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that sailing vessels should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not one single mention of any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must give way to. We disagree. To me, the way the list is set up and considering the degree of unable to maneuver/restricted ability to maneuver, for each of the groups listed, there is a natural progression downwards in that degree of "disability"..,... NUC/RAM/fishing..... so that there is a strong implication of a pecking order, even though you are correct in that it is not stated. We can fully agree that the rules frequently do not specifically state a particular type, condition, possibility. Much is left to implication, experience, common sense (rule 2) as to how you apply the basic wording/rule to your specific situation. In the case of NUC/RAM..... the fact that there is no specific mention of who RAM or NUC must give way to, there is ample reason within the words "unable to maneuver"/ "restricted in ability to maneuver" to say that RAM must give way to NUC. And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." Incorrect. One is described as "unable to maneuver" the other as "restricted in it's ability to maneuver". This is an important difference. You may even be right that in the history of Admiralty Law there has never been a case where a RAM was less maneuverable than a NUC, but the rules allow for it. (Actually, the concept of a NUC is new, introduced in 1972, so there are few precedents for this.) Actually, NUC has been around long before 1972. It is just that in 72 they tried to explain the signifcance of NUC/RAM and note the difference between the two. An one more point: This was introduced as a "Pedantic Rules Quiz," where I implied that I was being overly picky about the precise words in the rules. As such, it has little to do with general experience, or even common sense. BG reason for my beginning BG.....finally got the message. otn |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Interesting........"unable to maneuver" and "restricted in ability to
maneuver" mean the same thing.......NOT in my book. An aircraft carrier launching or recovering aircraft is considered RAM. "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... Please stop being so dense! I've put it in writing and Jeff's put it in writing. If you can read you've read it at least a dozen times now. I'm talking about what the rules say about NUC and RAM. What you say doesn't matter. What the rule says does matter. We're learning what the rules actually say. We're not learning what people *think* they say. You keep taking one part of a rule and you use it to make your claims. That's crazy. The rules can't be taken piecemeal. You have to use the entire rule if you want anybody to side with you. You STILL refuse to accept the fact that what Jeff said can't be denied.... Worse you keep totally ignoring it when both of us say exactly what the rules say. Jeff said: "And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." You argue that since you know cases where RAM can maneuver to keep out of the way then they are lower in the pecking order than NUC. But, that's not the case. IF A VESSEL **IS ABLE** TO MANEUVER TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY THEN BY DEFINITION IT ISN'T A RAM. You list examples of RAM that aren't RAM. You just think they are but your thinking is based on your ignoring what the rules actually say. I admit it. I used to think the same as you about the pecking order. Jeff changed my mind by proving I was wrong. I guess it's easier for women to admit a mistake. We don't have all that macho nonsense to worry about... You really do need to have a woman slap you senseless. Your that pig-headed! Pig-headed is dangerous. A real captain admits he's wrong when somebody proves he's wrong. Even Captain Neal admits a mistake once in a while That makes him a better man than you and at least an equal captain. Have you thought about retiring? Your thinking has become too inflexible. You could be endangering fellow seamen. Cheers, Ellen |
My new stand-on/give way list.
otnmbrd wrote:
BG "Jeff" wrote in message ... Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18 simply does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It truly isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been taught, and that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what the words say. OK, now I see the point you are trying to make........ yes and no........ no, it doesn't specifically say it......yes, it implies it due to the way the list is incorporated within the rules. The implication is in your imagination. Taking away the list bullets it reads: "A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; a vessel engaged in fishing; [and] a sailing vessel." There is no way to twist that to mean that a RAM should keep out of the way of a NUC. You've heard the pecking order so many times that you see that list and think that's what it is. Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself, it is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat should keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that sailing vessels should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not one single mention of any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must give way to. We disagree. To me, the way the list is set up and considering the degree of unable to maneuver/restricted ability to maneuver, for each of the groups listed, there is a natural progression downwards in that degree of "disability"..,... NUC/RAM/fishing..... so that there is a strong implication of a pecking order, even though you are correct in that it is not stated. 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. We can fully agree that the rules frequently do not specifically state a particular type, condition, possibility. Much is left to implication, experience, common sense (rule 2) as to how you apply the basic wording/rule to your specific situation. In the case of NUC/RAM..... the fact that there is no specific mention of who RAM or NUC must give way to, there is ample reason within the words "unable to maneuver"/ "restricted in ability to maneuver" to say that RAM must give way to NUC. 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. And in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." Incorrect. One is described as "unable to maneuver" the other as "restricted in it's ability to maneuver". This is an important difference. 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." You may even be right that in the history of Admiralty Law there has never been a case where a RAM was less maneuverable than a NUC, but the rules allow for it. (Actually, the concept of a NUC is new, introduced in 1972, so there are few precedents for this.) Actually, NUC has been around long before 1972. It is just that in 72 they tried to explain the signifcance of NUC/RAM and note the difference between the two. An one more point: This was introduced as a "Pedantic Rules Quiz," where I implied that I was being overly picky about the precise words in the rules. As such, it has little to do with general experience, or even common sense. BG reason for my beginning BG.....finally got the message. otn |
My new stand-on/give way list.
Jeff wrote in
: otnmbrd wrote: BG "Jeff" wrote in message ... Sorry Otn, perhaps you should get a new copy of the rules. Rule 18 simply does not say that a RAM shall keep out of the way of a NUC. It truly isn't there. You think it is, because that's what we've been taught, and that's what your experience is, but that simply isn't what the words say. OK, now I see the point you are trying to make........ yes and no........ no, it doesn't specifically say it......yes, it implies it due to the way the list is incorporated within the rules. The implication is in your imagination. Taking away the list bullets it reads: "A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; a vessel engaged in fishing; [and] a sailing vessel." There is no way to twist that to mean that a RAM should keep out of the way of a NUC. You've heard the pecking order so many times that you see that list and think that's what it is. 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. Let me be very explicit: Rule 18(a) is not a pecking order by itself, it is a list, with no order implied, of the vessels that a power boat should keep out of the way of. Similarly, 18(b) is a list that sailing vessels should keep out of the way of, so on. There is not one single mention of any vessels that either a NUC *or* a RAM must give way to. We disagree. To me, the way the list is set up and considering the degree of unable to maneuver/restricted ability to maneuver, for each of the groups listed, there is a natural progression downwards in that degree of "disability"..,... NUC/RAM/fishing..... so that there is a strong implication of a pecking order, even though you are correct in that it is not stated. 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..... Take all the vessels regarded as RAM..... think of the possibilities. We can fully agree that the rules frequently do not specifically state a particular type, condition, possibility. Much is left to implication, experience, common sense (rule 2) as to how you apply the basic wording/rule to your specific situation. In the case of NUC/RAM..... the fact that there is no specific mention of who RAM or NUC must give way to, there is ample reason within the words "unable to maneuver"/ "restricted in ability to maneuver" to say that RAM must give way to NUC. 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 in the Rule 3 definitions NUC's and RAM's are described exactly the same: "unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel." Incorrect. One is described as "unable to maneuver" the other as "restricted in it's ability to maneuver". This is an important difference. 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. 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). otn |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com