Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#29
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Avoid these compasses | ASA | |||
Marketing phrases to avoid.... | General | |||
Another example to avoid following: | General | |||
What's the OB 90-225 HP outboards to avoid | General |