crash boom bucks!
 

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835

--Tom.

crash boom bucks!
 

On 2008-10-15 00:13:39 -0400, " said:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=107835

Unbelievable! No one was looking FORWARD? Did they think yelling
"Starboard" would mean something?


--
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/

crash boom bucks!
 

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

crash boom bucks!
 

"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.

crash boom bucks!
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

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.


The General Prudential Rule trumps, "Hey! Starboard!" The smaller boat
should have fallen off and passed behind the larger vessel.

crash boom bucks!
 

"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

crash boom bucks!
 

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.

crash boom bucks!
 

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.

crash boom bucks!
 

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

crash boom bucks!
 

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.

crash boom bucks!
 

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

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

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?

crash boom bucks!
 

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.

crash boom bucks!
 

wrote

AFIK, "Stand By" didn't tack. The photos show her on stb for the entire
collision.

Yes, but you can't alter course into a right of way position when the other
vessel doesn't have time to respond. Given the size and response time of
MF, the smaller vessel could have been carrying it's burdened status from a
tack that occured well before the photos begin. It's a little different
when a vessel has to tack because of shore or obstruction. If the smaller
vessel was tacking off a shore, the MF should have anticipated that it would
need to do so. Such a situation is a good time to use the radio.

--
Roger Long

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

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

crash boom bucks!
 

On Oct 15, 3:03*pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
wrote

AFIK, "Stand By" didn't tack. *The photos show her on stb for the entire
collision.

Yes, but you can't alter course into a right of way position when the other
vessel doesn't have time to respond. *...

Amen. The crux of the question seems to be if SB turned and hit MF or
if MF turned and cut off SB. This is the set-up according to the
owner of MF:

quote
The "stann By" was originally on a roughly reciprocal course to that
of the Falcon. Prior to the photos shown here, "Stann By" was bearing
away, and the two yachts were on safe courses to pass roughly with a
distance of 200 feet separation.
unquote

Everyone agrees on this part. The question is if this:

quote
After the "Stann By" had sailed past the Falcon's bow, the smaller
vessel suddenly rounded up, possibly to tack in order to follow the
Falcon, when she lost control, and with her main sheeted hard in, the
smaller boat was unable to bear away to avoid a collision.
unquote

I don't think the photos support that assertion, but they're telephoto
from a long way off. SB says MF rounded up in front of them and
caused the collision -- this seems plausible photographically, but
again photos can lie... If you look at the photo sequences they have
time stamps and it is clear that MF began a major turn to port in the
two minute period before SB comes into frame. It is clear that SB
didn't intend to tack as the jib is still fast to port after they get
spun by the collision. SB's sails are luffing for the entire time
they are in frame but the collision is hard enough to do major damage
which makes me wonder if the MF was still altering port and thus
swinging towards SB.

--Tom.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

"Roger Long" wrote
I'd like to be able to stop the animation though to be sure.

There's a link under the animation that will take you to the still images.
http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gall...86640001_ojnQx

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

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.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

I found the still photos and I think your are is right. MF was turning to
port, away from SB, and nearly close hauled at the point of collision.
Since she was turning away at the time of collision and giving SB more room,
she might well be blameless. Imagine facing a rub rail repair that costs
more than your whole boat! OTOH, if the original course would have taken MF
astern of SB and SB had maintained a straight course the bulk of the blame
would be on MF.

My best guess at this point would be misjudgement by SB due to the size of
MR combined with a desire to make a close pass. The degree of stern swing
in a turn of a vessel that large will enormous compared to what the SB
operator might expect thinking of her as a "sailboat". A vessel of that
size is of necessity rather shoal in proportion to length. Turning from a
reach to close hauled, it will take a while to accellerate to a speed where
the underbody is fully effective and there will be a few boat lengths of
greater leeway. This could add up to where MF was quickly half a boat
length, a huge amount at this scale, closer to SB than anticipated. Throw
in a few moments of deer in the headlights indecision about whether to head
up or fall off and CRASH!

--
Roger Long

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 3:24 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
....
My best guess at this point would be misjudgement by SB due to the size of
MR combined with a desire to make a close pass. The degree of stern swing
in a turn of a vessel that large will enormous compared to what the SB
operator might expect thinking of her as a "sailboat". A vessel of that
size is of necessity rather shoal in proportion to length. Turning from a
reach to close hauled, it will take a while to accellerate to a speed where
the underbody is fully effective and there will be a few boat lengths of
greater leeway. ...

Well, my ship handling "knowledge" at the 290' scale is the tiny bit
of theory I read for my license and I may be standing up a bit for the
underdog on principle. Still, I have this feeling that if, as stated
by Perkins the vessels were on reciprocal courses with MF slightly to
weather just before the incident then MF's turn to port could the
primary cause of the collision.

Given that:
1) the frames are 3 seconds apart
2) reciprocal courses
3) MF is 290' long
4) MF pivots about her keel more or less at 145'
5) MF turned port 30 to 45 degrees between frames

I think if follows that:
1) CPA closed 75-100 feet in 3 seconds because of MF's course change
2) the stern of MF was suddenly moving ~15 knots faster towards SB
than it was before the start of MF turn

Now, MF claims that they were going to pass to weather of SB on the
courses they were both on and that they made their turn to open the
CPA to 200'. I take that to mean that they had a CPA of less than
200' and from the photos the turn they took was big so the CPA must
have been a good deal less than that. From SB's point of view the
stern of MF suddenly comes across their bows and the speed of closure
is roughly doubled and CPA was reduced 75 to 100'. SB is stand on.
It is clear that SB luffed her sails w/in the 3 seconds the MF began
her turn and they remained eased for the entire sequence. SB is
attempting to avoid a collision but can she? MF's stern is coming at
her in excess of 15 knots so going astern of MF is suddenly
impossible. MF's midships is still closing at MF's leeway plus SB
forward motions (say 10 knots). A crash tack may be the best bet but
even that might not be enough but the 27 seconds from MF's alteration
to crash doesn't give them much time to think about it.

Conclusion is a little strong but I suspect:
1) if MF had not altered SB would have passed safe astern of her
2) MF made a major change of course seconds before contact in
violation of Rule 8
3) SB was stand on but in extrimis attempted to avoid contact
4) MF was obligated to give way and do so with ample time.

Therefore MF is primarily at fault. While SB should have taken more
decisive action when it was clear that a collision was imminent and
certainly should have stood by after the crash she is largely
innocent.

Your witness :)

--Tom.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

"Two meter troll" wrote
most boats dont move sideways throught the water

You've obviously never watched me sail...

These discussions are always amusing. I'm picturing a tombstone inscribed
with, "Technically, he had the right of way."

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

Ernest Scribbler wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote
most boats dont move sideways throught the water

You've obviously never watched me sail...

These discussions are always amusing. I'm picturing a tombstone inscribed
with, "Technically, he had the right of way."


I always like the term that was use years ago "Dead right"

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 11:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.

its pretty simple from my stand point you dont get close to another
boat unless you are planning to come along side. you avoid
collisions.

it comes down to a simple statement: you operate your vessel safely
and well clear of other vessels when you have the option. this fella
had the option and he decided to ignore a safe working distance.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote
I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance.

Don't all boats' sterns go sideways in a turn, by virtue of having the
steering apparatus back there? (I thought that was what made the darn things
so hard to parallel park.)

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 11:26*am, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote

most boats dont move sideways throught the water

You've obviously never watched me sail...

These discussions are always amusing. I'm picturing a tombstone inscribed
with, "Technically, he had the right of way."

he he he ya my little 30' umiak is pretty good at sideways. the junk
rig is easy but unless the dagger board is all the way down she tends
to sail pretty well the same speed to the side as ahead.

I always assume that if it is in front of me and avoidable i avoid it,
right of way or no. of course anything within a 1/4 mile on my bow is
in front of me. takes a long, long time to stop the boat i usually
drive so i play it very, very safe.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote
You can imagine how that feature is amplified when the boat is 260
feet long, and pivots on it's keel!

The side of the MT was probably traveling faster towards the SB than
the SB was traveling forward.

Sounds like an excellent reason to stay the heck out of its way. SF Bay is
what, 2-3 miles wide?

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 12:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:17:03 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll





wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.

its pretty simple from my stand point you dont get close to another
boat unless you are planning to come along side. you avoid
collisions.

it comes down to a simple statement: you operate your vessel safely
and well clear of other vessels when you have the option. this fella
had the option and he decided to ignore a safe working distance.

If anything, he was simply as inexperienced as you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dog you have no idea of my experiance.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll
wrote:

ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.


Duh! It is definitely a simple situation. There are but two sailboats
involved. It's very simple to avoid a close quarters situation when there
are only two boats involved. All it takes is for both captains to pay
attention to their job and take action as needed in plenty of time to avoid
a close quarters situation. There is never any need to get close enough that
a collision occurs in open water like that. Both captains share the blame
for the collision. Neither captain took action to avoid a close quarters
situation. If either of them had there would have been no collision.

Wilbur Hubbard

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 3:24 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
...
My best guess at this point would be misjudgement by SB due to the size
of
MR combined with a desire to make a close pass. The degree of stern
swing
in a turn of a vessel that large will enormous compared to what the SB
operator might expect thinking of her as a "sailboat". A vessel of that
size is of necessity rather shoal in proportion to length. Turning from a
reach to close hauled, it will take a while to accellerate to a speed
where
the underbody is fully effective and there will be a few boat lengths of
greater leeway. ...

Well, my ship handling "knowledge" at the 290' scale is the tiny bit
of theory I read for my license and I may be standing up a bit for the
underdog on principle. Still, I have this feeling that if, as stated
by Perkins the vessels were on reciprocal courses with MF slightly to
weather just before the incident then MF's turn to port could the
primary cause of the collision.

Given that:
1) the frames are 3 seconds apart
2) reciprocal courses
3) MF is 290' long
4) MF pivots about her keel more or less at 145'
5) MF turned port 30 to 45 degrees between frames

I think if follows that:
1) CPA closed 75-100 feet in 3 seconds because of MF's course change
2) the stern of MF was suddenly moving ~15 knots faster towards SB
than it was before the start of MF turn

Now, MF claims that they were going to pass to weather of SB on the
courses they were both on and that they made their turn to open the
CPA to 200'. I take that to mean that they had a CPA of less than
200' and from the photos the turn they took was big so the CPA must
have been a good deal less than that. From SB's point of view the
stern of MF suddenly comes across their bows and the speed of closure
is roughly doubled and CPA was reduced 75 to 100'. SB is stand on.
It is clear that SB luffed her sails w/in the 3 seconds the MF began
her turn and they remained eased for the entire sequence. SB is
attempting to avoid a collision but can she? MF's stern is coming at
her in excess of 15 knots so going astern of MF is suddenly
impossible. MF's midships is still closing at MF's leeway plus SB
forward motions (say 10 knots). A crash tack may be the best bet but
even that might not be enough but the 27 seconds from MF's alteration
to crash doesn't give them much time to think about it.

Conclusion is a little strong but I suspect:
1) if MF had not altered SB would have passed safe astern of her
2) MF made a major change of course seconds before contact in
violation of Rule 8
3) SB was stand on but in extrimis attempted to avoid contact
4) MF was obligated to give way and do so with ample time.

Therefore MF is primarily at fault. While SB should have taken more
decisive action when it was clear that a collision was imminent and
certainly should have stood by after the crash she is largely
innocent.

Your witness :)

--Tom.

All your guesses mean NOTHING. Both boats were at fault as neither boat took
action to avoid a close quarters situation. Both captains were asleep at the
wheel and negligent.


RULE 7

Risk of Collision

(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If
there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational,
including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision
and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information,
especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations
shall be among those taken into account:

(i) such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an
approaching vessel does not appreciably change;

(ii) such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change
is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or
when approaching a vessel at close range.


RULE 8

Action to Avoid Collision

(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the
case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the
observance of good seamanship.

(b) Any alteration of course or speed to avoid collision shall, if the
circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to
another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small
alterations of course or speed should be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it
is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another
close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to
result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall
be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the
situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping
or reversing her means of propulsion.

(f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the
circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room
for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another
vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so
as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full
regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully
obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are
approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

I hope this helps.

Wilbur Hubbard

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:48:24 -0400, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote:

wrote
You can imagine how that feature is amplified when the boat is 260
feet long, and pivots on it's keel!

The side of the MT was probably traveling faster towards the SB than
the SB was traveling forward.

Sounds like an excellent reason to stay the heck out of its way. SF Bay is
what, 2-3 miles wide?


I'm guessing they just wanted a closer look and the plan had some
flaws.

40 foot sailboats sail very close to each other all the time when
racing, so it doesn't seem that unusual. It doesn't always end in a
collison.

I'll bet they didn't have the entire bay to themselves, either.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll
wrote:

On Oct 16, 12:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:17:03 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll





wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.

its pretty simple from my stand point you dont get close to another
boat unless you are planning to come along side. you avoid
collisions.

it comes down to a simple statement: you operate your vessel safely
and well clear of other vessels when you have the option. this fella
had the option and he decided to ignore a safe working distance.

If anything, he was simply as inexperienced as you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dog you have no idea of my experiance.

You've painted a picture.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 1:30*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
....
All your guesses mean NOTHING. Both boats were at fault as neither boat took
action to avoid a close quarters situation. Both captains were asleep at the
wheel and negligent. ...

That both were at fault is almost axiomatic. It took poor judgment by
both parties to get into the situation where we first see them in the
photographs. It is important and useful to point that out. I thought
I had made that clear before, but if not it is good of you to point it
out. However, the evidence we have is the series of photographs and a
short statement from the owner of MF both of them concerning the
minute or two before collision. By that time both had sinned by
getting into a dangerous situation. A post mortem of the evidence
that we have could help determine what actually happened and what
mistakes were made. From that one might apportion blame and credit
(if there is any) and learn something about what better options the
skippers might have had given the situation as it existed. I hope
there is more to be learned here than that "both captains were ...
negligent".

--Tom.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:30:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

(ii) such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change
is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or
when approaching a vessel at close range.

This is an important point. With an approaching large vessel you
could take a bearing on the bow and get a changing angle, same on the
stern with the angle changing in the opposite direction. The end
result would be a collision amidships.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote
40 foot sailboats sail very close to each other all the time when
racing, so it doesn't seem that unusual.

Maybe, but I consider myself pretty darn close when I'm less than a boat
length from somebody. The difference in a racing situation is you expect
other boats to be there and you have a pretty good idea where they're
planning to go, to say nothing of the fact that you'll seldom run into one
ten times your size.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:01:23 -0400, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote:

wrote
40 foot sailboats sail very close to each other all the time when
racing, so it doesn't seem that unusual.

Maybe, but I consider myself pretty darn close when I'm less than a boat
length from somebody. The difference in a racing situation is you expect
other boats to be there and you have a pretty good idea where they're
planning to go, to say nothing of the fact that you'll seldom run into one
ten times your size.


I was just pointing out that to many sailors, close quarters is not
unusual. That attitude may have played a part.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
. ..
wrote
40 foot sailboats sail very close to each other all the time when
racing, so it doesn't seem that unusual.

Maybe, but I consider myself pretty darn close when I'm less than a boat
length from somebody. The difference in a racing situation is you expect
other boats to be there and you have a pretty good idea where they're
planning to go, to say nothing of the fact that you'll seldom run into one
ten times your size.

I do also, but it's not all that unusual. However, I know I would not get
that close to 260' long boat if I could avoid it.

I don't think we have quite enough facts to decide who was primarily at
fault, but it seems to me that unless you're at anchor, sounding signals as
such, with the proper lights as required, AND you have six nuns aboard,
you're probably going to share some of the blame.

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

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 2:36*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll





wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:17:03 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.

its pretty simple from my stand point you dont get close to another
boat unless you are planning to come along side. you avoid
collisions.

it comes down to a simple statement: you operate your vessel safely
and well clear of other vessels when you have the option. this fella
had the option and he decided to ignore a safe working distance.

If anything, he was simply as inexperienced as you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dog you have no idea of my experiance.

You've painted a picture.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually i have not "painted a picture" as you put it.
You have accumulated a minimum of factual data and a maximum of
opinion, mine and others on this board and you think you know me.
Mostly what you have is my views of east coast sailors and that this
board is full of yachetys who have money and few boat brains. you have
several tidbits of emergancy repairs that work; scandelize those folks
who hang out in the white boat end of the marina and didn't come frome
some sour old fart in the pond. You have that i asked for a free sail
boat if someone had one rotting out back of the house. you also have
that i dont take just a batch pixels and trust them to the fullest.
you might infer that i think several of the stuffed shirts in this
group are much less than gods. lastly you know that I cannot spell. If
you had perhaps been paying attention you might know that i tend to
not be on the board for several months at a time.

pretty scanty picture (more like a doodle on a knapkin) i am at least
able to doodle effectivly.


o handle your other point.
yes, In a race boats are close to each other: where these boats in a
race?

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 5:27*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

. ..

wrote
40 foot sailboats sail very close to each other all the time when
racing, so it doesn't seem that unusual.

Maybe, but I consider myself pretty darn close when I'm less than a boat
length from somebody. The difference in a racing situation is you expect
other boats to be there and you have a pretty good idea where they're
planning to go, to say nothing of the fact that you'll seldom run into one
ten times your size.

I do also, but it's not all that unusual. However, I know I would not get
that close to 260' long boat if I could avoid it.

I don't think we have quite enough facts to decide who was primarily at
fault, but it seems to me that unless you're at anchor, sounding signals as
such, with the proper lights as required, AND you have six nuns aboard,
you're probably going to share some of the blame.

--
"j" ganz

Mr.Ganz you said a mouth full. i think the nuns might have to be
replaced by the pope these days.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

Thanks... I don't know about replacing the nuns with the pope... I have a
pope-soap-on-a-rope someone gave me as a gift.... LOL

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 5:27 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

. ..

wrote
40 foot sailboats sail very close to each other all the time when
racing, so it doesn't seem that unusual.

Maybe, but I consider myself pretty darn close when I'm less than a boat
length from somebody. The difference in a racing situation is you expect
other boats to be there and you have a pretty good idea where they're
planning to go, to say nothing of the fact that you'll seldom run into
one
ten times your size.

I do also, but it's not all that unusual. However, I know I would not get
that close to 260' long boat if I could avoid it.

I don't think we have quite enough facts to decide who was primarily at
fault, but it seems to me that unless you're at anchor, sounding signals
as
such, with the proper lights as required, AND you have six nuns aboard,
you're probably going to share some of the blame.

--
"j" ganz

Mr.Ganz you said a mouth full. i think the nuns might have to be
replaced by the pope these days.



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