Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:57:53 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The
rules of the road don't require them to think about these things, they
simply require them to punch 2 -3 degrees into the autopilot for five
minutes at the appropriate time and then back.

I'm reasonably sure they would have readily done that if you could
have made your intentions clear to them. It's entirely possible that
they were expecting you to fall off and pass port-to-port since that
would be normal in an oncoming situation in the absence of any other
information.

There is nothing in
the rules of the road that says they don't have to do this unless
there is radio contact.

That's true of course, but if you don't do it, you are assuming at
least some of the risk for any confusion that develops.

The other issue that I have with your description of events could
delicately be described as somewhat attitudinal, particularly with
regard to socio-economic status and means of propulsion. There is
nothing wrong with money, only with not having it. There is nothing
wrong with having an engine on your boat and using it. You need to
get over it. After all, you may win the lottery some day and/or come
up with the most successful ship design ever dreamed of. Hopefully
you'll still talk with us common folk who are down to our last small
yacht when that happens. :-)

Be safe out there...

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"Wayne.B" wrote

The other issue that I have with your description of events could
delicately be described as somewhat attitudinal, particularly with
regard to socio-economic status and means of propulsion.

So what? My attitude (which is not exactly as you describe since I
didn't spend a lifetime around boats and airplanes without some
tolerance for people with money) is irrelevant to the outcome if
anyone crossing the master of this boat in the future. His attitude
however, could have great bearing on the situation.

BTW I've been primarily a powerboat designer for most of my career.

--

Roger Long

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Gary wrote:
I do understand sound signals, what we are talking about here is voice
communications with slang terms. It would be clear to me what two
short blasts on an opposing vessels whistle meant. It still would not
be clear to me what he means if he calls me up and says; "How about a
two whistle pass?"

Please go back and read the rules on signals. Maybe you didn't
understand the discussion.

Gary,
Thank you for your response. Like I said, I am just starting to study
the rules in earnest for the OUPV test, so I'm no expert - yet... :)
I actually was reading the section on signals when I wrote that. And
as I said, I may have misunderstood the discussion that was taking
place. Its just that it seemed reasonable to me that if you have a good
understanding of signals, then you should recognize the meaning in a
radio exchange about them. But of course I agree that if I were to hear
that particular request on the radio, I would most certainly immediately
ask for a specific clarification as to meaning and intent (especially if
I could not immediately determine the meaning from observation of the
position and movement of the vessels involved) - just so I am absolutely
clear. While the radio request example cited in the post was perhaps not
as clear as it could have been, I believe it was made as a suggestion of
a general type of statement about communicating a request (again, I do
agree that the cited example could be confusing from lack of clarity).
Perhaps I am more attuned than the average person to listening carefully
to radio exchange meanings since I learned to fly over in Spain where
you hear mostly *Spanglish* over the radio, and different *regional*
Spanglish with accents to boot!

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Sailaway wrote:
Gary wrote:
I do understand sound signals, what we are talking about here is voice
communications with slang terms. It would be clear to me what two
short blasts on an opposing vessels whistle meant. It still would not
be clear to me what he means if he calls me up and says; "How about a
two whistle pass?"

Please go back and read the rules on signals. Maybe you didn't
understand the discussion.

Gary,
Thank you for your response. Like I said, I am just starting to study
the rules in earnest for the OUPV test, so I'm no expert - yet... :)
I actually was reading the section on signals when I wrote that. And as
I said, I may have misunderstood the discussion that was taking place.
Its just that it seemed reasonable to me that if you have a good
understanding of signals, then you should recognize the meaning in a
radio exchange about them. But of course I agree that if I were to hear
that particular request on the radio, I would most certainly immediately
ask for a specific clarification as to meaning and intent (especially if
I could not immediately determine the meaning from observation of the
position and movement of the vessels involved) - just so I am absolutely
clear. While the radio request example cited in the post was perhaps not
as clear as it could have been, I believe it was made as a suggestion of
a general type of statement about communicating a request (again, I do
agree that the cited example could be confusing from lack of clarity).
Perhaps I am more attuned than the average person to listening carefully
to radio exchange meanings since I learned to fly over in Spain where
you hear mostly *Spanglish* over the radio, and different *regional*
Spanglish with accents to boot!

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.

What is an OUPV?

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

KLC Lewis wrote
Course changes should be made by the stand-on
skipper at sufficient distance that there will be no risk of collision
as soon as the stand-on skipper decides that the give-way vessel is
NOT going to change course. Yes, the give-way skipper is wrong not to
change course. But insisting on "right of way" is even wronger.

Sal's Dad wrote:
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.

Just to clarify the above remarks:
The rules governing these situations, Like several of the rules, allow
different actions under certain circumstances.
(the following from Charlie Wing's study guide)
Part B, RULE 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel:
The stand-on vessel is required to maintain course and speed.
If the give-way vessel does not take early and obvious action, then the
stand-on vessel *may* take action to avoid collision, except for
altering course to port for a give-way vessel on her port. If the
situation deteriorates to the point where collision cannot be avoided by
action of the give-way vessel alone, then the stand-on vessel *must*
take action, including altering course to port if that is judged safest.

(Notice how the above rules do not take into account any special
circumstances like, for instance, if the stand-on vessel cannot change
course to starboard due to close rocks she is passing, but cannot change
to port where the give-way vessel is approaching. This is where the
following rules come in.)

(Notice how the following rules don't mention anything about a stand-on
or give-way vessel. That means it is *everyone's* responsibility to
avoid collision, no matter who is 'right' or 'wrong'.)

RULE 6
Safe Speed
A vessel is required to limit her speed so that she can avoid collision
and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions.
RULE 8
Action to avoid collision
(a) If you must take action to avoid collision, the action must be
substantial and early enough to indicate clearly to the other vessel you
are taking action.
(b) Changes of course and/or speed should be large enough to be obvious
to the other vessel.
(c) Change of course is often preferable to change of speed, unless it
will result in another bad situation.
(d) The action must result in passing at a safe distance.
(e)If necessary, a vessel shall (must) slow or stop in order to avoid
collision.

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Roger Long related thusly:
The primary thing keeping air traffic straightened out where there is
no ATC or tower is everyone following right of way rules and behaving
in a predictable fashion. The radio is a secondary back up. As soon
as pilots start using the radio as the primary tool, relying on it
rather than proper behavior, things get hairy.

And at uncontrolled airports you can also have aircraft taking off or
entering the traffic flow to land that do not have a radio (I haven't
flown in some years, is this still possible with the new rules?). So
"predictable" behavior allows everyone to mesh safely in the pattern at
relatively (to boats) high speed, regardless of radio communication.
Predictable air traffic behavior is a primary result of the rules, just
like on the water. It is when we encounter someone who does not know, or
who does not follow the rules that we have those hairy situations. Then
it is our responsibility to avoid them.

I handled it properly and differently than
you might have but THAT'S NOT THE DAMN POINT!

Yeah, well it might not have been your point that you handled it
properly, but its still a valid point. If the other guy ain't gonna move
to avoid a collision, then you have to - and in time, which you did.

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Gary wrote:
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.

Touché :)


What is an OUPV?

That stands for a U.S. Coast Guard designation for the first level of a
"Captain's" license - Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessels, more
commonly known here in the U.S. as the "Six Pack" license due to the
restriction to just six passengers. Can be for Inland only, Inland with
Great Lakes, or Near Coastal - good for taking passengers up to 200
miles offshore, and which includes inland.

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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.

Ok, that is where the confusion came in. Somehow in my exuberance I
missed the part about the discussion being strictly about International
Rules. knock on wooden head Different signals, and no delay for
agreement required before action. Got it.

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"Sailaway" wrote in message
...
Gary wrote:
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.

Touché :)


What is an OUPV?

That stands for a U.S. Coast Guard designation for the first level of a
"Captain's" license - Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessels, more
commonly known here in the U.S. as the "Six Pack" license due to the
restriction to just six passengers. Can be for Inland only, Inland with
Great Lakes, or Near Coastal - good for taking passengers up to 200 miles
offshore, and which includes inland.

Nope. The lowest level license is called a Limited OUPV or launchtender. See
this link: http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/cb-capt.htm.

Also, the OUPV near coastal is up to 100 miles offshore.

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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:28:27 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:57:53 GMT, "Roger Long"
snip
There is nothing in
the rules of the road that says they don't have to do this unless
The other issue that I have with your description of events could
delicately be described as somewhat attitudinal, particularly with
regard to socio-economic status and means of propulsion. There is
nothing wrong with money, only with not having it.
Snip


So, there I was at the pool at the Hotel/Marina de la Navidad in Barra
de Navidad. Did you ever see the old Saturday Night Live skit where
Garret Morse hides behind the newspaper when the last other black
customer gets off the bus? A hostess comes out, serves drinks, refunds
fares, and he sees how the other half lives. That's how it felt. I was
hiding behind a book.

Anyway, this marina and lagoon have BIG boats. Attessa (225 feet, 5
stories, helicopter on stern) had just came and left. Paul Allen's
smallest boat was too big for the marina and was anchored in the
lagoon.

Attessa: http://yachts.monacoeye.com/yachtsby...attessa01.html

Besame: http://www.rexyachts.com/YBobBesame104.pdf

Three kinda drunk power boaters and their either wives or nieces from
Philadelphia were at the pool drinking $200 bottles of champagne. The
only one I can identify was the owner of the 100ish footer "Besame",
with a St. Francis YC burgee that had blocked us from the anchorage
at Careyes a few days before (not their fault...small anchorage, big
boat). They were busy comparing the size of their equipment and saying
things like "Sailing is for people who can't afford power boats" and
"heck they can't even afford the fuel." Nyuk nyuk nyuk...

The most obnoxious was the guy who had the smallest equipment (I mean
boat) of course.

So, let me add to your statement, there is nothing wrong with money
except not having it or ranking people on how much they have.

Amazing where a thread on a meeting situation can lead....

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

ray lunder wrote:

Years ago we used to have to toot our horn to alert the bridge troll.
There was a specific series of honks but my dad was doing it and I was
about 10 so I've forgotten. Guess that's a thing of the past.

You are still supposed to be able to do that. But some bridges don't
or won't answer. Generally the radio works well except in some places
between Lake Worth and Ft. Lauderdale where there are a lot of bridges
close together and you can't always tell which bridge you are talking
to.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:16:20 GMT, Rosalie B.
wrote:


In article ydzzg.289377$iF6.117034@pd7tw2no,
Gary wrote:

I don't think that VHF radios are required on small pleasure craft but I
wonder why everybody wouldn't have one as a basic safety onboard safety
item?

You would think. And also a GPS so you would know where you were if
you got into trouble. I often hear (on the radio) where someone is
lost and has no idea where they are - complicated by the fact that
there are several different places with the same name in the
Chesapeake.

But there are indeed boats with no radios, or at least they aren't
using them. In 2002 when we were coming north from Ft. Pierce, I
wrote:

There is a large white wooden ketch from Montreal which has been
behind us, but was slowly catching up to us. He was behind us
yesterday, and must have stopped somewhere behind us, and he's behind
us again, although he is slowly reeling us in. Four power boats went
by him, and he was yawing and pitching wildly in their wake. They went
by us too. We have the sail up to steady us though, and we don't pitch
as much.

He eventually catches us, and we follow him through the Matanzas
Inlet, and don't go aground although the alarm goes off a couple of
times. The TowBoatUS guy that appears to be stationed here permanently
is fishing from his boat. A boat with a round bow that looks like a
little tug named CLOONFUSH passed us. It has a medallion figurehead
lion on the front.

When we came to the last bridge before the San Sebastian River, I
called the bridge (as I usually did) to request an opening. The
bridge tender asked me if we knew what were the intentions of a boat
which he said was anchored there in front of the bridge. It was the
big white wooden ketch, with a red kayak as a dinghy. It appeared to
be skippered by a single hander from Canada.

I didn't know what to tell the bridge tender of course, but as we came
up to him, we saw him hastily pulling his anchor, so I reported to the
bridge that he had apparently been waiting for someone else to go
through the bridge because he either didn't have a radio or didn't
know how to hail the bridge. So he went through with us, and stuck
close behind us (we'd also passed him north of Titusville and he was
going a lot slower than we were then).

We got to the turn off, and he started to come up the Sebastian River
with us. I think he thought he could to go through the Bridge of Lions
with us but was foiled because we weren't going there.

grandma Rosalie

S/V RosalieAnn, Leonardtown, MD
CSY 44 WO #156
http://home.mindspring.com/~gmbeasley/id1.html

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Many short blasts means danger or imminent collision.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
ray lunder wrote:

Years ago we used to have to toot our horn to alert the bridge troll.
There was a specific series of honks but my dad was doing it and I was
about 10 so I've forgotten. Guess that's a thing of the past.

You are still supposed to be able to do that. But some bridges don't
or won't answer. Generally the radio works well except in some places
between Lake Worth and Ft. Lauderdale where there are a lot of bridges
close together and you can't always tell which bridge you are talking
to.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:16:20 GMT, Rosalie B.
wrote:


In article ydzzg.289377$iF6.117034@pd7tw2no,
Gary wrote:

I don't think that VHF radios are required on small pleasure craft but
I
wonder why everybody wouldn't have one as a basic safety onboard
safety
item?

You would think. And also a GPS so you would know where you were if
you got into trouble. I often hear (on the radio) where someone is
lost and has no idea where they are - complicated by the fact that
there are several different places with the same name in the
Chesapeake.

But there are indeed boats with no radios, or at least they aren't
using them. In 2002 when we were coming north from Ft. Pierce, I
wrote:

There is a large white wooden ketch from Montreal which has been
behind us, but was slowly catching up to us. He was behind us
yesterday, and must have stopped somewhere behind us, and he's behind
us again, although he is slowly reeling us in. Four power boats went
by him, and he was yawing and pitching wildly in their wake. They went
by us too. We have the sail up to steady us though, and we don't pitch
as much.

He eventually catches us, and we follow him through the Matanzas
Inlet, and don't go aground although the alarm goes off a couple of
times. The TowBoatUS guy that appears to be stationed here permanently
is fishing from his boat. A boat with a round bow that looks like a
little tug named CLOONFUSH passed us. It has a medallion figurehead
lion on the front.

When we came to the last bridge before the San Sebastian River, I
called the bridge (as I usually did) to request an opening. The
bridge tender asked me if we knew what were the intentions of a boat
which he said was anchored there in front of the bridge. It was the
big white wooden ketch, with a red kayak as a dinghy. It appeared to
be skippered by a single hander from Canada.

I didn't know what to tell the bridge tender of course, but as we came
up to him, we saw him hastily pulling his anchor, so I reported to the
bridge that he had apparently been waiting for someone else to go
through the bridge because he either didn't have a radio or didn't
know how to hail the bridge. So he went through with us, and stuck
close behind us (we'd also passed him north of Titusville and he was
going a lot slower than we were then).

We got to the turn off, and he started to come up the Sebastian River
with us. I think he thought he could to go through the Bridge of Lions
with us but was foiled because we weren't going there.

grandma Rosalie

S/V RosalieAnn, Leonardtown, MD
CSY 44 WO #156
http://home.mindspring.com/~gmbeasley/id1.html

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Rule 8 (b) is one of the most overlooked in my experience. I practice
it religiously and find it makes radio calls usually unnecessary. The
communication is instantaneous, graphic, and directly related to the
situation. No time is wasted trying to figure out which boat is
which, waiting for the frequency to clear, or negotiating what to do.
It isn't sufficient in all circumstances but keeps radio frequencies
clear for situations that require them.

--

Roger Long



"Sailaway" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote
Course changes should be made by the stand-on
skipper at sufficient distance that there will be no risk of
collision as soon as the stand-on skipper decides that the give-way
vessel is
NOT going to change course. Yes, the give-way skipper is wrong not
to
change course. But insisting on "right of way" is even wronger.

Sal's Dad wrote:
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.

Just to clarify the above remarks:
The rules governing these situations, Like several of the rules,
allow different actions under certain circumstances.
(the following from Charlie Wing's study guide)
Part B, RULE 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel:
The stand-on vessel is required to maintain course and speed.
If the give-way vessel does not take early and obvious action, then
the stand-on vessel *may* take action to avoid collision, except for
altering course to port for a give-way vessel on her port. If the
situation deteriorates to the point where collision cannot be
avoided by action of the give-way vessel alone, then the stand-on
vessel *must* take action, including altering course to port if that
is judged safest.

(Notice how the above rules do not take into account any special
circumstances like, for instance, if the stand-on vessel cannot
change course to starboard due to close rocks she is passing, but
cannot change to port where the give-way vessel is approaching. This
is where the following rules come in.)

(Notice how the following rules don't mention anything about a
stand-on or give-way vessel. That means it is *everyone's*
responsibility to avoid collision, no matter who is 'right' or
'wrong'.)

RULE 6
Safe Speed
A vessel is required to limit her speed so that she can avoid
collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and conditions.
RULE 8
Action to avoid collision
(a) If you must take action to avoid collision, the action must be
substantial and early enough to indicate clearly to the other vessel
you are taking action.
(b) Changes of course and/or speed should be large enough to be
obvious to the other vessel.
(c) Change of course is often preferable to change of speed, unless
it will result in another bad situation.
(d) The action must result in passing at a safe distance.
(e)If necessary, a vessel shall (must) slow or stop in order to
avoid collision.

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

ray lunder wrote:
Years ago we used to have to toot our horn to alert the bridge troll.
There was a specific series of honks but my dad was doing it and I was
about 10 so I've forgotten. Guess that's a thing of the past.

The still listen for ships whistles on the Hiram-Chittenden locks in
Seattle.

Gary

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Capt JG wrote:
Nope. The lowest level license is called a Limited OUPV or
launchtender. See this link: http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/cb-capt.htm.

Yes, but I was ignoring launch tender for purposes of this discussion.

Also, the OUPV near coastal is up to 100 miles offshore.

I am reading this as I write:
Near Coastal
....waters to seaward of the Boundary Line to 200 miles offshore. A near
coastal license may be restricted to a smaller distance offshore, such
as 100 miles.

The license may also be restricted to less than 100 tons if the Coasties
decide that your experience warrants it.

Nitpick away...

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"Sailaway" wrote in message
...
Capt JG wrote:
Nope. The lowest level license is called a Limited OUPV or launchtender.
See this link: http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/cb-capt.htm.

Yes, but I was ignoring launch tender for purposes of this discussion.

Also, the OUPV near coastal is up to 100 miles offshore.

I am reading this as I write:
Near Coastal
...waters to seaward of the Boundary Line to 200 miles offshore. A near
coastal license may be restricted to a smaller distance offshore, such as
100 miles.

The license may also be restricted to less than 100 tons if the Coasties
decide that your experience warrants it.

Nitpick away...

Not nitpicking... :-)

I think you're talking about a Masters 100 Ton, Near Coastal.

Here's a link:
http://www.ketch.alaska.edu/departme...onLicense.html

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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Capt JG wrote:
I think you're talking about a Masters 100 Ton, Near Coastal.

Yup, brain fart, my bad - was reading the masters section when writing.
Uninspected license is 100 miles and 100 tons, with Mate endorsement out
to 200 miles, Masters out to 200 miles. Restrictions can apply to
Masters to less than 200 miles, and less than 200 tons in increments
according to experience.
BTW when I ask for nitpicking, its always in the spirit of learning from
you more experienced guys/gals. :)

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"Sailaway" wrote in message
...
Capt JG wrote:
I think you're talking about a Masters 100 Ton, Near Coastal.

Yup, brain fart, my bad - was reading the masters section when writing.
Uninspected license is 100 miles and 100 tons, with Mate endorsement out
to 200 miles, Masters out to 200 miles. Restrictions can apply to Masters
to less than 200 miles, and less than 200 tons in increments according to
experience.
BTW when I ask for nitpicking, its always in the spirit of learning from
you more experienced guys/gals. :)

Hey, not a problem... I have an OUPV, NC, and was just making sure I wasn't
gypped. :-)

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

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

Technically...

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule34.htm

(d) When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and
from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions
of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the
other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate
such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle.
[Such / This] signal may be supplemented by at least five short and rapid
flashes.


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

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
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.

CWM

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

This thread has gone on far too long.

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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.

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"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

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

"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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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.

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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

Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

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

VHF Radios onboard was Dangerous Maga-yacht in Maine
 

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:43:42 GMT, in message
ydzzg.289377$iF6.117034@pd7tw2no
Gary wrote:

I think we can sum this up by saying that:

Roger was probably in the right as far as Colregs and right of way was
concerned.

Single handing demands some effort to think ahead and does not grant you
any special status.

Likewise long distance double handing.

The discussion that has evolved is the requirement to have/use VHF.
That is a good topic.

I don't think that VHF radios are required on small pleasure craft but I
wonder why everybody wouldn't have one as a basic safety onboard safety
item?

Furthermore, if one is onboard why wouldn't you make best use of it as
required by the Colregs?

It is generally accepted among small boat sailors on Lake Ontario that
if you observe yourself to be converging with a freighter you should
simply tack away rather than try to negotiate a closer pass by radio,
no matter how much room and opportunity the larger vessel has to alter
course.

(I interpret the rules to say that if you have one you must use it.
Just like radar etc. "all available means")

Both Canadian and US Rules specify "all available means *appropriate*
in the prevailing circumstances and conditions". In day light with
good visibility it might be inappropriate to devote crew attention to
some means (e.g. radio, radar, etc.) if it meant reduced attention to
safe vessel operations and a visual watch. Maybe even at night...

During last month's Lake Ontario 300 we were racing double handed
towards Main Duck Island (a mark of the course that also separates the
up and downbound traffic lanes) at the east end of Lake Ontario in
full darkness. Radio conversation with the freighters was complicated
by identifying which one you were talking to. (Two upbound in
relatively quick succession, one with enough deck lighting to almost
hide its nav lights and certainly to hide the one behind.) Had we not
been racing I would have practiced our usual technique of simple
avoidance, but we radioed in hopes of being able to stay on the
favoured tack. The result was a delay in tacking out of the path of
the first freighter that we erroneously thought was altering course to
starboard as reported by the second. All available means appropriate
might have been simply acting on our visual watch and *listening* to
our radio.

Ryk