Sometimes it is hard to count when in a potentially dangerous situation.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:50:17 -0400, Charlie Morgan said:

The
proper signal is 5 short blasts, not 4, and not 12. ;')

Dunno about that 12. Sure looks to me like that would be "at least 5," and
comply literally with the rule Jon cites.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:22:58 GMT, in message
S7Tzg.302723$iF6.256082@pd7tw2no
Gary wrote:

You would have to ask for clarification for two reasons,
1) it is jargon that relates to US Inland rules; and
2) this was water where the International rules apply.

I admit I am weak on US Inland Rules, I am not American and rarely sail
inside the demarcation line for Inland Rules.

I don't suppose the average American sailor is very familiar with our
inland rules (Canada) either.

I'm far from expert, but the section of Rule 34 quoted below seems to
have much the same thing to say about the situation as the US Inland
Rules.

Manoeuvring and Warning Signals--
Canadian Modifications

(g) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin, when power-driven vessels are in sight of one another and
meeting or crossing at a distance within half a mile of each other,
each vessel underway, when manoeuvring as authorized or required by
these Rules

(i) shall indicate that manoeuvre by the following signals on
her whistle:

--one short blast to mean "I intend to leave you on my port
side",

--two short blasts to mean "I intend to leave you on my
starboard side", and

--three short blasts to mean "I am operating astern
propulsion", and

(ii) shall, upon hearing the one or two blast signal, referred
to in subparagraph (i), of the other vessel indicate her agreement by
sounding the same whistle signal and taking the steps necessary to
effect a safe passing. If, however, for any cause, a vessel on hearing
a one or two blast signal referred to in subparagraph (i) doubts the
safety of the proposed manoeuvre, she shall sound the signal specified
in paragraph (d) and each vessel shall take appropriate precautionary
action until a safe passing agreement is made.


Ryk

Ryk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:22:58 GMT, in message
S7Tzg.302723$iF6.256082@pd7tw2no
Gary wrote:


You would have to ask for clarification for two reasons,
1) it is jargon that relates to US Inland rules; and
2) this was water where the International rules apply.

I admit I am weak on US Inland Rules, I am not American and rarely sail
inside the demarcation line for Inland Rules.

I don't suppose the average American sailor is very familiar with our
inland rules (Canada) either.


I'm far from expert, but the section of Rule 34 quoted below seems to
have much the same thing to say about the situation as the US Inland
Rules.

Manoeuvring and Warning Signals--
Canadian Modifications

(g) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin, when power-driven vessels are in sight of one another and
meeting or crossing at a distance within half a mile of each other,
each vessel underway, when manoeuvring as authorized or required by
these Rules

(i) shall indicate that manoeuvre by the following signals on
her whistle:

--one short blast to mean "I intend to leave you on my port
side",

--two short blasts to mean "I intend to leave you on my
starboard side", and

--three short blasts to mean "I am operating astern
propulsion", and

(ii) shall, upon hearing the one or two blast signal, referred
to in subparagraph (i), of the other vessel indicate her agreement by
sounding the same whistle signal and taking the steps necessary to
effect a safe passing. If, however, for any cause, a vessel on hearing
a one or two blast signal referred to in subparagraph (i) doubts the
safety of the proposed manoeuvre, she shall sound the signal specified
in paragraph (d) and each vessel shall take appropriate precautionary
action until a safe passing agreement is made.


Ryk

Not sure what your point is.

The Canadian Mods to the rules for the Great Lakes would have to be the
same as the American rules wouldn't they? It would sure make life
difficult if the two coutries bordering on the Lakes had different
passing rules.

Note that these rules don't apply in any other Canadian inland waters.

Gary

Question: I'm aware that the GL Canadian rules mirror US Inland, but what
about remaining "Inland" areas of Canada?
I.e., are these different than International or do they basically mirror
International ?

otn

"Gary" wrote in message
news:eLNAg.314545$Mn5.10223@pd7tw3no...


The Canadian Mods to the rules for the Great Lakes would have to be the
same as the American rules wouldn't they? It would sure make life
difficult if the two coutries bordering on the Lakes had different passing
rules.

Note that these rules don't apply in any other Canadian inland waters.

Gary

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:14:44 -0400, "Sal's Dad"
wrote:

What am I missing?

What you are missing is the "prudent man" thing.


What rule number is that, Wayne?


If it looks like you
may be on a collision course with another vessel, and if
you have time
to do so, it is prudent to attempt communication of some
sort to clear
things up.


Which rule # is that? And if you don't have time to chat on
the radio, then what?





SV

"Sal's Dad" wrote
in message ...
Is a VHF radio required on a sailing vessel? Forgive my
ignorance; I have
a number of smaller boats, and don't own a VHF.

My understanding of the situation is that it was Roger's
OBLIGATION to
maintain his course and speed. Not to use (or even own!)
a radio, not to
have a working autopilot, not to do ANYTHING else, until
collision appeared
imminent. THEN he is obligated to take evasive action, as
he did.

What am I missing?


Sums it up rather well, I'd say.

SV

"Charlie Krusty Morgan" wrote in...
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:08:58 -0400, "Richard"

wrote:

Many short blasts means danger or imminent collision.


FIVE short blasts indicates either a danger alert, or a
negative
response (No, don't make that maneuver!) to a signal from
another boat
about their intentions.


I bet you hear that a lot, don't you.

SV

otnmbrd wrote:
Question: I'm aware that the GL Canadian rules mirror US Inland, but what
about remaining "Inland" areas of Canada?
I.e., are these different than International or do they basically mirror
International ?

otn

"Gary" wrote in message
news:eLNAg.314545$Mn5.10223@pd7tw3no...


The Canadian Mods to the rules for the Great Lakes would have to be the
same as the American rules wouldn't they? It would sure make life
difficult if the two coutries bordering on the Lakes had different passing
rules.

Note that these rules don't apply in any other Canadian inland waters.

Gary



They are very similar to International rules but some of the Canadian
Mods are important to know, for example:

Vessels Constrained by their Draught--Canadian Modification

(b)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in the Canadian waters of a roadstead,
harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, no vessel shall exhibit three
all-round red lights in a vertical line or a cylinder.


Crossing Situation--Canadian Modification

(b)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), in Canadian waters, a vessel crossing
a river shall keep out of the way of a power-driven vessel ascending or
descending the river, except on the St. Lawrence River northeast of Île
Rouge.

Could fall under Rule 2.
Now..... if your boat is set up so that you would have to leave the wheel
and go below to use the radio, it's one thing, but if you have the means to
use your radio at your steering station and you don't try then it could be
another thing all together G playing "devils advocate"


otn

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:14:44 -0400, "Sal's Dad"
wrote:

What am I missing?

What you are missing is the "prudent man" thing.


What rule number is that, Wayne?


If it looks like you
may be on a collision course with another vessel, and if
you have time
to do so, it is prudent to attempt communication of some
sort to clear
things up.


Which rule # is that? And if you don't have time to chat on
the radio, then what?





SV

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:04:26 GMT, in message
eLNAg.314545$Mn5.10223@pd7tw3no
Gary wrote:

Ryk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:22:58 GMT, in message
S7Tzg.302723$iF6.256082@pd7tw2no
Gary wrote:


You would have to ask for clarification for two reasons,
1) it is jargon that relates to US Inland rules; and
2) this was water where the International rules apply.

I admit I am weak on US Inland Rules, I am not American and rarely sail
inside the demarcation line for Inland Rules.

I don't suppose the average American sailor is very familiar with our
inland rules (Canada) either.


I'm far from expert, but the section of Rule 34 quoted below seems to
have much the same thing to say about the situation as the US Inland
Rules.

Not sure what your point is.

That knowing the Canadian Rules for the Great Lakes Basin is probably
close enough to knowing the US Inland Rules for a discussion like this
one.

The Canadian Mods to the rules for the Great Lakes would have to be the
same as the American rules wouldn't they? It would sure make life
difficult if the two coutries bordering on the Lakes had different
passing rules.

As you say, so being qualified as a Canadian for the Great Lakes would
give one knowledge of the rules, without knowledge of the local jargon
which is separate from the rules. (For that matter, do the rules say
anything about language of communication?)

Note that these rules don't apply in any other Canadian inland waters.

Noted.

Ryk