|
No attempt to avoid collision
|
No attempt to avoid collision
"Mike" wrote in message ... Constant bearing decreasing range: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLErvNBf1Y The Coast Guard vessel was the give-way vessel because it had the other on its own starboard bow. It should have slowed down, turned to starboard and passed astern of the skiff. Pathetic! Where was the horn - the five short blast danger signal? Wilbur Hubbard |
No attempt to avoid collision
On Jul 10, 12:21*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: The Coast Guard vessel was the give-way vessel because it had the other on its own starboard bow. It should have slowed down, turned to starboard and passed astern of the skiff. Pathetic! Where was the horn - the five short blast danger signal? Wilbur Hubbard What is pathetic is your understanding of the Rules of the Road. Everyone knows, except you obviously, that an enforcment vessel has a "de facto" right of way while conducting an enforment mission. I cant belive you dont know that since you are such a self elavated sailing expert. I hope someday you will become as skilled as I am. When I was running crew boats I would have kicked a deck hand off for being twice as smart as you are. Fred |
No attempt to avoid collision
Perhaps the CG vessel was on a mission, but that doesn't excuse running into
another boat. It seems pretty obvious that the CG could have avoided the collision. Another few seconds would have been the entire delay. Yelling at another speedboat gets you nothing. wrote in message ... On Jul 10, 12:21 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: The Coast Guard vessel was the give-way vessel because it had the other on its own starboard bow. It should have slowed down, turned to starboard and passed astern of the skiff. Pathetic! Where was the horn - the five short blast danger signal? Wilbur Hubbard What is pathetic is your understanding of the Rules of the Road. Everyone knows, except you obviously, that an enforcment vessel has a "de facto" right of way while conducting an enforment mission. I cant belive you dont know that since you are such a self elavated sailing expert. I hope someday you will become as skilled as I am. When I was running crew boats I would have kicked a deck hand off for being twice as smart as you are. Fred -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No attempt to avoid collision
Exactly. As has been pointed out here endlessly, being the stand on vessel
doesn't make you blameless if you take no action to avoid the collision. Rules aside, the CG boat would have gotten to its mission objective a lot sooner if it had followed the full rules of the road instead of just the one governing the passing situation. -- Roger Long |
No attempt to avoid collision
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:01:23 -0400, "Roger Long" wrote: Exactly. As has been pointed out here endlessly, being the stand on vessel doesn't make you blameless if you take no action to avoid the collision. Rules aside, the CG boat would have gotten to its mission objective a lot sooner if it had followed the full rules of the road instead of just the one governing the passing situation. Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do, if this case ever came to an admiralty court it's likely that the CG vessel would be assigned the majority of blame regardless of rules of the road, respondinig to an emergency, etc. That's because the primary rule is to take evasive action to avoid a collision if at all possible. The other boat, not seeing the CG vessel could of course to nothing to avoid the collision. But the CG vessel, having seen the whole thing develop, could have easily avoided the collision either by changing course or even just sounding a horn to warn the other vessel. But they did nothing and so have the vast majority of the blame. Steve |
No attempt to avoid collision
"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 But the CG vessel, having seen the whole thing develop, could have easily avoided the collision either by changing course or even just sounding a horn to warn the other vessel. But they did nothing and so have the vast majority of the blame. I am not arguing with that despite what I have written above. |
No attempt to avoid collision
"Steve" wrote
Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do .... Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging federal property, and terrorism thrown in. We're pretty much a police state now. -- Roger Long |
No attempt to avoid collision
On Jul 11, 9:47*am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Steve" wrote Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do .... Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging federal property, and terrorism thrown in. *We're pretty much a police state now. -- Roger Long As can plainly be seen the USCG boat is manned by personal who even do not know the basics to pull up a fender after leaving the dock. Both deserve equal blame IMO. Fred |
No attempt to avoid collision
On Jul 11, 6:51*am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:47*am, "Roger Long" wrote: "Steve" wrote Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do .... Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging federal property, and terrorism thrown in. *We're pretty much a police state now. -- Roger Long *As can plainly be seen the USCG boat is manned by personal who even do not know the basics to pull up a fender after leaving the dock. Both deserve equal blame IMO. *Fred I forgot another thought. As in other events law enforment kill people their justification is, "I felt in danger for my life." That is all that is needed to shoot to death an unarmed "suspect" in the back as the suspect is walking away. It is clear in the USCG situation they felt in danger and therefore were justified to use deadly force to protect themselves.... In this case ramming the recreational vessel who obviosly approaced the USCG vessel to closely. THe same holds true for any other war ship. If yo get "too close" they can blow you out of the water. REmember the USS COLE? Never again.those guys in the speed boat were very possibly terrorists and therefore the USCG was justifed in ramming the boat. Fred |
No attempt to avoid collision
"Roger Long" wrote in message
... Exactly. As has been pointed out here endlessly, being the stand on vessel doesn't make you blameless if you take no action to avoid the collision. Rules aside, the CG boat would have gotten to its mission objective a lot sooner if it had followed the full rules of the road instead of just the one governing the passing situation. -- Roger Long I looked at the vid again, and I'm even more shocked by what happened. It was pretty clear that the people on the PB weren't paying attention even in the fuzzy vid, yet on the CG boat came. It's really disturbing to think that they would have so little regard for life and limb, given the CG's mission. It was totally avoidable. They could have done their mission, and then cited the PB for not keeping a proper watch or whatever. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No attempt to avoid collision
"Roger Long" wrote in message
... "Steve" wrote Whil it's difficult to predict what a judge would do .... Considering the kind of judges that have been appointed over the past couple of decades, I would expect the entire blame to be placed on the speedboat with charges of impeading law inforcement, assulting CG officers, damaging federal property, and terrorism thrown in. We're pretty much a police state now. -- Roger Long I'm starting to think that the Supreme Court did the right thing w.r.t. the decision on firearms. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No attempt to avoid collision
wrote in message
... On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:37:22 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Roger Long" wrote in message ... Exactly. As has been pointed out here endlessly, being the stand on vessel doesn't make you blameless if you take no action to avoid the collision. Rules aside, the CG boat would have gotten to its mission objective a lot sooner if it had followed the full rules of the road instead of just the one governing the passing situation. -- Roger Long I looked at the vid again, and I'm even more shocked by what happened. It was pretty clear that the people on the PB weren't paying attention even in the fuzzy vid, yet on the CG boat came. It's really disturbing to think that they would have so little regard for life and limb, given the CG's mission. It was totally avoidable. They could have done their mission, and then cited the PB for not keeping a proper watch or whatever. The video is a little misleading. At the beginning they show a CG boat and helicopter. That's not the boat that ran them over. It was a private craft manned by CG AUX. I think the victims may have even been looking at whatever the "rescue" boat was headed towards. It sure appears that the CG Aux was greatly exceeding their authority, and I would guess they were probably found almost entirely to blame. Ok.. I feel a little better, having had my own run-in with the Aux. Some are great, so are total bozos with delusions of grandeur. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No attempt to avoid collision
"Capt. JG" wrote
total bozos with delusions of grandeur. Don't get me started on my brief membership in the Civil Air Patrol. -- Roger Long |
No attempt to avoid collision
On Jul 11, 11:20*am, "Roger Long" wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote total bozos with delusions of grandeur. Don't get me started on my brief membership in the Civil Air Patrol. ... I think it's the uniforms. If you dress folks up like extras from some kind of farcical operetta about vaguely fascist aquatic clowns the guys who show up for a second day of work are likely to be acting to type... The CAP, CG Aux and Power Squadron all do some good work and have the potential to be wonderful resources but they seem to attract a lot of guys who really ought to go join the benevolent order of costume parties and I think they are the worse for it... --Tom. |
No attempt to avoid collision
On Jul 11, 11:09*am, " wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:20*am, "Roger Long" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote total bozos with delusions of grandeur. Don't get me started on my brief membership in the Civil Air Patrol. ... I think it's the uniforms. *If you dress folks up like extras from some kind of farcical operetta about vaguely fascist aquatic clowns the guys who show up for a second day of work are likely to be acting to type... *The CAP, CG Aux and Power Squadron all do some good work and have the potential to be wonderful resources but they seem to attract a lot of guys who really ought to go join the benevolent order of costume parties and I think they are the worse for it... --Tom. Hi Tom You bring up an interesting concept that was rather startlingly described in 1971 (Zimbardo). Phillip Zimbardo's (1971) Prisoners Experment held at Stanford revealed a rahter ugly side of humans. The results suggest that given certain roles: "...Prisoners (students) and guards (students) rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One- third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. Finally, Zimbardo terminated the experiment because he realized that his experiment was unethical..." In other words give a guy a gun and a uniform and they start acting like an ass hole. But some argue only ass holes are attracted to American style law inforcment. Bob |
No attempt to avoid collision
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 running around poking into everyone's business, posting flyers and even going so far as to demand that any reports of illegal or dangerous activities/situations be to him instead of the police so that he can report them himself. This is all above and beyond any homeowners associations agreements or convenants and actually interferes with police business. At least with the CAP, CGAux, etc you only deal with them on a limited basis. Imagine living on the same block or next door to this 24/7. If anyone has any suggestions of how to deal with this type of person, I'm all ears. Thanks. Thomas Flores wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 11:20 am, "Roger Long" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote total bozos with delusions of grandeur. Don't get me started on my brief membership in the Civil Air Patrol. .... I think it's the uniforms. If you dress folks up like extras from some kind of farcical operetta about vaguely fascist aquatic clowns the guys who show up for a second day of work are likely to be acting to type... The CAP, CG Aux and Power Squadron all do some good work and have the potential to be wonderful resources but they seem to attract a lot of guys who really ought to go join the benevolent order of costume parties and I think they are the worse for it... --Tom. |
No attempt to avoid collision
Tell us how you really feel!
wrote in message ... On Jul 11, 11:20 am, "Roger Long" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote total bozos with delusions of grandeur. Don't get me started on my brief membership in the Civil Air Patrol. .... I think it's the uniforms. If you dress folks up like extras from some kind of farcical operetta about vaguely fascist aquatic clowns the guys who show up for a second day of work are likely to be acting to type... The CAP, CG Aux and Power Squadron all do some good work and have the potential to be wonderful resources but they seem to attract a lot of guys who really ought to go join the benevolent order of costume parties and I think they are the worse for it... --Tom. -- "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. What bothers me is people who keep lists of people they don't like. g -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
No attempt to avoid collision
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". |
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. |
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? Should have slowed down, sounded the danger signal and turned to starboard. That's what the COLREGS required of him. But since the Coast Guard passes out Captain's licenses to known and admitted recreational drug abusers who knows what kind of a bogus captain was at the helm of the CG vessel? -- Gregory Hall |
No attempt to avoid collision
On 2008-07-13 17:05:58 -0400, "Gregory Hall" said:
"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? Should have slowed down, sounded the danger signal and turned to starboard. That's what the COLREGS required of him. Dang, that was a good response. Shame you continued with blathering. -- Jere Lull Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
No attempt to avoid collision
In article ,
claus wrote: "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? Because he should have turned to starboard? He should have done something.... |
No attempt to avoid collision
In article 2008071321401650073-jerelull@maccom,
Jere Lull wrote: On 2008-07-13 17:05:58 -0400, "Gregory Hall" said: "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? Should have slowed down, sounded the danger signal and turned to starboard. That's what the COLREGS required of him. Dang, that was a good response. Shame you continued with blathering. He's a troll. I can only imagine. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com