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....