"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:22 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

If water is being discharged in the spot where
most boats would assume is where an engine discharges water, then the
logical conclusion would be that my engine is engaged.

The logical conclusion is that a pump is running.

Casady


Right.. but most people would associate that with the engine, especially
if
it's pretty constant and puffing steam from time to time.

I too would go by the steam and conclude an engine is running, true
enough.

Whether or not a sailboat is "sailing" or under power is a judgement
call and has nothing to do with exhaust or water flow. The boat is
probably under power if:

- It is going dead into the wind with sails luffing for some extended
period of time.

- It is making good speed in light air with only the mainsail up.

For the purposes of collision avoidance the boat has to be treated as
under sail regardless, but if I believe a boat is under power I'll
stand on as long as prudent and use horn signals or a radio call if
intentions are unclear.

The real fun starts when a sailboat clearly under power suddenly
alters course and starts to cross your bow from the port side. It
happens more often than you'd think. If admonished, more often than
not the sailboat will repond with a burst of profanity directed
towards power boaters in general.

Actually, it doesn't happen more than I think. :-) Happens all the time. No
point in profanity, since they may not be able to hear, but the finger
works.

I think the key issue is collision avoidance and causing confusion, both of
which need to be avoided/prevented.

As Salty rightly pointed out, if you do something that causes an "emergency"
maneauver, then you're not doing something right.

But, I don't think that was the original diversion in the capsize thread.
(Of course, it was so long ago, that who knows.) I believe we were talking
about propelling vs. engagement of the engine.

When I have the engine on, I consider it to be engaged, mainly because I can
engage it immediately. I don't run the engine if I'm really under sail and
moving nicely, unless there's some extenuating circumstance, e.g., I want to
slow the boat down while I student reefs under sail. Engine in reverse with
low Rs works nicely for this. There are other situations, of course.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:14:01 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:



I think that you will find that whether a sailboat, a powerboat or a
row boat, the court will always find against the party who, in the
event evasive action was possible, failed to take evasive action or to
do everything in his/her power to avoid the accident.

Problem is, that's usually both parties.

--Vic


Yes, to some degree/percent. Reminds me of the comment that unless you have
six nuns in habits aboard, and are anchored with all appropriate measures in
place, you're likely to be found somewhat at fault in a collision.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:26:12 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:14:01 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:



I think that you will find that whether a sailboat, a powerboat or a
row boat, the court will always find against the party who, in the
event evasive action was possible, failed to take evasive action or to
do everything in his/her power to avoid the accident.

Problem is, that's usually both parties.

--Vic


Yes, to some degree/percent. Reminds me of the comment that unless you have
six nuns in habits aboard, and are anchored with all appropriate measures in
place, you're likely to be found somewhat at fault in a collision.


Provided that you are anchored in an approved anchorage :-)
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:56:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:14:01 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:19:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:32:26 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:44:15 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

If I turn on my engine, even if it's in neutral, I consider
myself a powerboat.

That is the way the rules are being taught and interpreted these days.

Not really. Even Americas Cup racers are permitted to run an engine
for charging purposes while racing.

I have an outboard on my boat. If I am just noodling around and not
trying to set any speed records, I may leave the engine in the water
while sailing, even though it is not running. That may look like I'm
motoring to you, but if you don't see a black sphere hanging from my
spreaders, or a steaming light, I'm a sailboat.

That's the LAW.

No it is not. A black sphere signifies that you are at anchor. You should
have said 'cone apex downward'


When I typed that, my brain was idling and not in gear. :- )

Lets's just change it to, "That may look like I'm motoring to you, but
if you don't see a day shape or navigation light indicating otherwise,
I'm a sailboat.

If jon were to find himself in an Admiralty court, and proudly stated
that although he was legally sailing, he was acting as if he was a
powerboat, I think that would open him up to some unexpected
surprises. He would have just admitted that he was not following the
colregs.

One basic problem with his practice is that it leads to confusion by
other vessels, who will be expecting his vessel to act as what it
really is. Not much different from the chucklehead on land who trys
and give the right of way to others at a 4 way stop, when it is his
turn to go. Suddenly, order evaporates and no one knows what to expect
or do. This is followed by all cars lurching and stopping as they play
guessing games in the intersection.

Actually if jon were to find himself in Admiralty Court the first
question that would be asked is "Who took what action to avoid or
prevent the accident". Only after this question is resolved will the
question of what objects were dangling from the forestay arise.

I think that you will find that whether a sailboat, a powerboat or a
row boat, the court will always find against the party who, in the
event evasive action was possible, failed to take evasive action or to
do everything in his/her power to avoid the accident.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It's almost unheard of for one party to be assigned 100% of the blame.
Contributing factors are what Admiralty Court is all about. Just as
with the application of law on land, if you expect court decisions to
reflect what YOU think is common sense, you will be wrong pretty much
100% of the time.

The colregs are merely a starting point for the discussion. Find me a
court case where a tanker or freighter was found at fault for failing
to "give way" for a crossing "stand-on" row boat. Similarly, you will
find that when a case gets to court, allowances will be made for the
manuvering problems of a sailboat with both sails up and engine
running in gear at the same time. They are not as manuverable as they
would be with the sails down, and the court understands that. It is
also understood that because they have much smaller mechanical drive
systems, they can't slow down or stop as fast as a similar sized power
boat.

None of that is spelled out in the Colregs, but it is always a factor
in court.

A few years ago there was a case in the Singapore Admiralty Court
wherein a ship proceeding East deviated into the West bound traffic
lane. A collision resulted. The findings of the court never mentioned
the colregs but relied solely on the Singapore Traffic System
Regulations.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:26:12 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:14:01 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:



I think that you will find that whether a sailboat, a powerboat or a
row boat, the court will always find against the party who, in the
event evasive action was possible, failed to take evasive action or to
do everything in his/her power to avoid the accident.

Problem is, that's usually both parties.

--Vic


Yes, to some degree/percent. Reminds me of the comment that unless you
have
six nuns in habits aboard, and are anchored with all appropriate measures
in
place, you're likely to be found somewhat at fault in a collision.


Provided that you are anchored in an approved anchorage :-)
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Or have a light on in one that isn't. heh

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:50:02 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:

Yes, to some degree/percent. Reminds me of the comment that unless you have
six nuns in habits aboard, and are anchored with all appropriate measures in
place, you're likely to be found somewhat at fault in a collision.


Provided that you are anchored in an approved anchorage :-)
Cheers,

A few years ago the Lake Okiboji cops killed a guy in his bunk in an
approved anchorage. It is against the law to go more than 5 mph within
300 feet of shore, of course. These are the guys who wrote up a guy
for that whose sinking boat wouldn't have made it to shore if he had
slowed down.

Casady

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:52:40 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:36:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:17:30 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:49:56 -0400, Jeff wrote:

Since most un-powered
boats are not registered, its not easy to determine their relative
safety. We'd have to look at hours spent in various types of boats, etc.

There were statistics published sometime in the last couple of years
which showed that deaths in canoes and kayaks were way out of
proportion to their overall numbers. Canoes and kayaks are usually
unregistered of course.

That's not surprising. Seems like an awful lot of people with very
little boating knowledge are buying or renting rotomolded Kayaks and
blithely heading out into dangerous situations. It's become as big a
fad as hula hoops, but a lot more dangerous.

I would be surprised if hula hoops sold fewer than a hundred times as
many as kayaks. Pretty much every family I knew had at least one. They
made the news regularly for a while.

Addendum:

More than a hundred million in the first year.

Casady