Constant bearing decreasing range:

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

"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

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

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

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

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

"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

"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?

"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

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.