"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Or someone who take Right of Way way, way, too seriously.

I can't believe he didn't see a vessel that big and interesting. It
seems far more likely that he was trying for a close pass ahead and
misjudged the speed or a stern buzz and didn't anticipate the huge
airflow disruption a vessel of this size would create. It looks like he
was trying to tack just before contact. Looks like a hot dogging stunt
gone bad.

--
Roger Long

It appears the smaller sailboat was the 'stand on' vessel (starboard tack)
and the larger the 'give way vessel' (port tack).
It will be interesting who is found at fault here.



Apparently, according to what I read, the 40' boat tacked just prior to the
collision. Therefore, the starboard rule wasn't in effect. Read the logs.

Too bad about it. Apparently, the boat was owned by Dawn Riley, but someone
borrowed the boat, and she wasn't aboard.

From the photographer:

Okay...
reviewing my own pics, the smaller vessel did not round up. They tacked. I
wasn't really paying attention to them much; l I knew they were there, they
were close but all was well, then the all of a sudden here they come. It
looked at first like they would be hit by MF, not the other way around. That
would have made their day far worse. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I
just grabbed a camera and started shooting.

The smaller boat was on a starboard tack and MF was on port at the time of
impact. I guess those dudes on the smaller boat just didn't see it. I really
have no idea how else they could have put themselves there.

The smaller boat did not put down sails after the accident, either. They
fled. First toward the Bay Bridge, then towards Richmond. It was 20 minutes
before the Falcon caught up with the other vessel. They gave five blasts.
The smaller boat held course under full sail still. That's when the CG
arrived and told the other boat to take her sails down. They took it from
there.


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

On Oct 15, 10:02*am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
....
Apparently, according to what I read, the 40' boat tacked just prior to the
collision. Therefore, the starboard rule wasn't in effect. Read the logs.....

There is a statement here by Tom Perkins:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835
and more photos he
http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gall...86640001_ojnQx

Perkins does not claim that the "Stan By" tacked. His claim is that
MF was to weather and on port and SB was on stb and to leeward. MF
turned PORT to give more room. He then says that SB rounded up and
hit them. He says that SB's main was sheeted hard in which is
apparently not true.

For all of the pictures where SB is in frame the sails are luffing.
It is hard to tell because of the telephoto lens but if there really
was 200 plus feet between SB and MF it seems unlikely that SB with her
sails luffing could have covered that ground and hit hard enough to do
the damage we see.

It is clear that with in two minutes before the the first picture with
SB in frame MF made a major alteration to port. It is reported that
SB's crew claims that MF turned in front of them. That seems
consistent with the photographs. The wake of SB in so far as I can
tell looks straight and diminishing as the series progresses.

--Tom.

Query: if a 290' vessel is 200' to weather of another vessel and it
turns hard to port will it "close the gate" on the leeward vessel by
swinging its stern to stb?

--Tom.

Hmmm... I don't see his comments via that link.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 10:02 am, "Capt. JG" wrote:
....
Apparently, according to what I read, the 40' boat tacked just prior to
the
collision. Therefore, the starboard rule wasn't in effect. Read the
logs....

There is a statement here by Tom Perkins:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835
and more photos he
http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gall...86640001_ojnQx

Perkins does not claim that the "Stan By" tacked. His claim is that
MF was to weather and on port and SB was on stb and to leeward. MF
turned PORT to give more room. He then says that SB rounded up and
hit them. He says that SB's main was sheeted hard in which is
apparently not true.

For all of the pictures where SB is in frame the sails are luffing.
It is hard to tell because of the telephoto lens but if there really
was 200 plus feet between SB and MF it seems unlikely that SB with her
sails luffing could have covered that ground and hit hard enough to do
the damage we see.

It is clear that with in two minutes before the the first picture with
SB in frame MF made a major alteration to port. It is reported that
SB's crew claims that MF turned in front of them. That seems
consistent with the photographs. The wake of SB in so far as I can
tell looks straight and diminishing as the series progresses.

--Tom.




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

On Oct 15, 12:01*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
Hmmm... I don't see his comments via that link.

Sorry, bad cut and paste. Try:
http://yachtpals.com/maltese-falcon-...collision-3074

--Tom.

Oh, I like this! Quoting the man who wrote a book titled "Mine's bigger
than yours.",

""right-of-way" doesn't apply when one of the vessels is restricted by sheer
size."

That's not in any rules I ever read. If MF was in a channel and unable to
change course then he would have a defense. OTOH, if the smaller vessel
tacked into a right of way position before MF could reasonably respond,
which is somewhat a size issue, than she was not actually the stand on
vessel.

I hope those of you on the west coast will keep us updated on this.

--
Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
Oh, I like this! Quoting the man who wrote a book titled "Mine's bigger
than yours.",

""right-of-way" doesn't apply when one of the vessels is restricted by
sheer size."

That's not in any rules I ever read. If MF was in a channel and unable
to change course then he would have a defense. OTOH, if the smaller
vessel tacked into a right of way position before MF could reasonably
respond, which is somewhat a size issue, than she was not actually the
stand on vessel.

I hope those of you on the west coast will keep us updated on this.


Based on the fact that the MF is a square rigged boat, it appears that
based on the set of the sails the wind is coming from the rear on the
port beam or about 220 to 230 degrees from the bow. In the pictures it
looks like the smaller boat is tacking into the wind on a tight reach.

If so from a simple boat to boat rules the smaller boat has the right of
way. Thing change when considering the size, channel, etc.

Is my wind analysis wrong?

Hard to say. Looking at the sails of both boats I think MF was close
reaching but not necessarily close hauled. If her sails were square to the
wind, the smaller boats sails would be aback. I'd like to be able to stop
the animation though to be sure.

--
Roger Long

On Oct 15, 2:45*pm, Keith nuttle wrote:
....
Based on the fact that the MF is a square rigged boat, it appears that
based on the set of the sails the wind is coming from the rear on the
port beam or about 220 to 230 degrees from the bow. *In the pictures it
looks like the smaller boat is tacking into the wind on a tight reach.

I think MF is a little different than your "typical" square rigged
boat because the yards are bent and the sails are set to develop
lift. For our needs I think it is close enough to say that the
weather end of the each yard is pointing into the apparent wind. The
foremast will be in clear air and the apparent wind will be like that
of a sloop sailing at similar speeds. The main and mizzen will be
progressively headed and so will be trimmed closer than they would be
on a sloop. The wind was westerly. On this frame:
http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gall...86639934_y45aP
MF was heading roughly North and in the next frame was heading more or
less NW I think. In the first frame she was reaching and in the
second about as close as she is likely able to get to beating to my
eye. The frames are at at about 3 second intervals.

If so from a simple boat to boat rules the smaller boat has the right of
* way. *Thing change when considering the size, channel, etc.

Yes. MF is on port SB is on stb. Rule 12 a(i) makes MF the give way
vessel and SB stand on. But, of course, everyone must avoid
collisions per Rule 8.


Is my wind analysis wrong?

Seems close enough to me.

--Tom.

On Oct 15, 2:09*pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
...OTOH, if the smaller vessel
tacked into a right of way position before MF could reasonably respond,
which is somewhat a size issue, than she was not actually the stand on
vessel....

AFIK, "Stand By" didn't tack. The photos show her on stb for the
entire collision. I'm guessing that some of the folks who said she
tacked saw her spin after she made contact -- and perhaps because the
sound was delayed thought she spun before the collision.

I also don't think MF is claiming rule 9 rights so it is a little
theoretical, but do folks think that 9(b) means that a sailing vessel
can't have rule 9 rights at all or that a sailing vessel that can only
navigate in a narrow channel has rights but still gives way to non-
sailing vessels?

--Tom.