No attempt to avoid collision
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:02:52 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
.. .

,snipped
. The
other boat, not seeing the CG vessel could of course to nothing to
avoid the collision.

This is the bit that bothers me. The CG vesel was big enough and going (I
think) slower than he was.
Anyway, I think he must have seen it and was pretty stupid to keep going
and make no attempt to avoid collision

I believe he didn't see the CG vessel, as he stated. He was looking
the other way the whole time. I've been in situations like that
myself on the water. Fortunately no collisions though. At least no
non-racing collisions.

That's where he could be given part of the blame, by not keeping
proper lookout. But that's much smaller than seeing the whole thing
and doing absolutely nothing to avoid a collision.

Steve

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:02:37 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

What bothers me is people who keep lists of people they don't like. g

It was a literary allusion, Jon. To the Lord High Executioner's song in
The
Mikado about his little list of people who'll "none of them be missed".


He's on my list.

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

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:56:13 -0400, "Thomas Flores"

said:

It's not the uniforms, it's the type of person. You run into them in all
facets of life. Take the self appointed neighborhood Nazi ...

Then there's the self-righteous cadre of individuals who insist on
trumpeting, regardless of relevance to the discussion, how "green" they
are
in their boating activities, or how they would of course never employ
(gasp)
non-union labor.

I've got them on my list g.

They never would be missed.

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
.70...

Can anyone show me the Rule which gives law enforcement or CG "right of
way" when blue light flashing? Just asking

otn




Dave wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:02:37 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

What bothers me is people who keep lists of people they don't like.
g

It was a literary allusion, Jon. To the Lord High Executioner's song
in The Mikado about his little list of people who'll "none of them be
missed".




I found this in Annex V... nothing about enforcement. I suppose you could
claim that it's a sanctioned public safety activity, but would fall under
88.12.

§ 88.11 Law enforcement vessels

(a) Law enforcement vessels may display a flashing blue light when engaged
in direct law enforcement or public safety activities. This light must be
located so that it does not interfere with the visibility of the vessel’s
navigation lights.


(b) The blue light described in this section may be displayed by law
enforcement vessels of the United States and the States and their political
subdivisions.

§ 88.12 Public Safety Activities

(a) Vessels engaged in government sanctioned public safety activities, and
commercial vessels performing similar functions, may display an alternately
flashing red and yellow light signal. This identification light signal must
be located so that it does not interfere with the visibility of the vessel’s
navigation lights. The identification light signal may be used only as an
identification signal and conveys no special privilege. Vessels using the
identification light signal during public safety activities must abide by
the Inland Navigation Rules, and must not presume that the light or the
exigency gives them precedence or right of way.




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

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote

total bozos with delusions of grandeur.


Don't get me started on my brief membership in the Civil Air Patrol.

You too??

Leanne

No attempt to avoid collision
 

There was a (b) to 88.12....
In reading both 88.11 and 88.12 I have to think they have no special
privelege, even though common sense says we need to be aware of the
potential life threatening consequences to impeding their passage and act
accordingly.
There's definite room for argument, clarification, and/or further
research on this one.






"Capt. JG" wrote in
:

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
.70...

Can anyone show me the Rule which gives law enforcement or CG "right
of way" when blue light flashing? Just asking

otn




Dave wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:02:37 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

What bothers me is people who keep lists of people they don't like.
g

It was a literary allusion, Jon. To the Lord High Executioner's song
in The Mikado about his little list of people who'll "none of them
be missed".




I found this in Annex V... nothing about enforcement. I suppose you
could claim that it's a sanctioned public safety activity, but would
fall under 88.12.

§ 88.11 Law enforcement vessels

(a) Law enforcement vessels may display a flashing blue light when
engaged in direct law enforcement or public safety activities. This
light must be located so that it does not interfere with the
visibility of the vessel’s navigation lights.


(b) The blue light described in this section may be displayed by law
enforcement vessels of the United States and the States and their
political subdivisions.

§ 88.12 Public Safety Activities

(a) Vessels engaged in government sanctioned public safety activities,
and commercial vessels performing similar functions, may display an
alternately flashing red and yellow light signal. This identification
light signal must be located so that it does not interfere with the
visibility of the vessel’s navigation lights. The identification light
signal may be used only as an identification signal and conveys no
special privilege. Vessels using the identification light signal
during public safety activities must abide by the Inland Navigation
Rules, and must not presume that the light or the exigency gives them
precedence or right of way.

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Leanne" wrote

You too??

Because I was the maintenance officer of a flying club, I was brought in to
be the squadron maintenance officer. I'm sure you know but, for the benifit
of non pilots, the FAA considers a pilot to be like the captain of a ship.
The buck stops there and the pilot is 100% responsible for the condition of
the aircraft when the wheels leave the ground. Sure, this makes the pilot
responsible for things that (s)he didn't necessarily have control over but
the idea is that the pilot should have reviewed all the maintenance logs and
be otherwise satisfied that the aircraft is physically and paperwork legal
and safe for flight. Even if I hadn't been maintenance officer, it would
have been my responsibility to review the aircraft logbooks and question
anything that didn't seem right.

Wow! It was so bad I didn't think anyone would believe me and it wasn't
just paperwork stuff. There were mechanic's recomendations about things
that could have brought a plane down ignored, lots of them. With the
approval of my C.O., who was tired of bucking the state brass, I took
advantage of the FAA rough equivelent of the CG Aux. safety inspections.
They encourage people to have their aircraft and logbooks inspected with the
guarantee that there will be no enforcement action. The FAA found that I
had just scratched the surface.

Part of my job was to sign the planes off as being legal, airworthy and
available for flight. I therefore had to go back and report that, no, they
weren't; not by a long shot. The FAA called me up the next day and said,
"You know, we have this program to help people find the few things they
might have missed and agree to keep enforcement out of it while they take
care of problems, but. when we see a mess like this, we need some assurance
beyond just program participation".

State Wing went ballistic. They came down that very night and met with the
pilots and told them they had talked with the FAA, the planes were
completely legal, I was alarmist and out of line, and put them back on the
line. Then they were quietly taken into the shop where thousands and
thousands were spent on them. I had independent contacts in the shop so I
heard the full story. I was told by wing that my job was simply to report to
the pilots that wing had found the planes were airworthy and had no business
looking in the maintenance records. Since every pilot is legally obligated
(although many don't) to go through the log books, they were saying that the
only pilot in the squadron who wasn't allowed to look in the logbooks was
the maintenance officer! Then, they had me fired.

It was a real learning experience in the ways of government and military
structured organizations. The really depressing thing was the realization
summed up by what I told someone after the dust had settled, "I thought that
I had uncovered a cesspit of corruption and negligence but I had actually
just discovered a pool of absolute normalcy."

--
Roger Long

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Constant bearing decreasing range:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLErvNBf1Y

Why did the Coast Guard captain not turn to port to avoid the collision?

No attempt to avoid collision
 

"claus" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Constant bearing decreasing range:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLErvNBf1Y

Why did the Coast Guard captain not turn to port to avoid the collision?

Starboard would have been better

No attempt to avoid collision
 

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:33:57 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:

Starboard would have been better

Yes, it's considered good practice to never turn in the direction of a
moving boat if there is a choice.