On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right', she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.


If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less
maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of
it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for
election and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked
right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat
if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane.
But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been
going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small
boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the
barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge
captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

On 23/06/2010 7:26 AM, Harry wrote:
On 6/23/10 9:22 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/06/2010 6:26 AM, Harry wrote:
On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.


According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges. What size
barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge
operator could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the
small boat, it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even
changed the direction of that train of barges significantly.

Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to post a
forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge.

Don't they have spotters and horns?

Can't say I have navigated those waters but if they are that long I
would expect spotters at least.


Well, on a nine barge train, the spotter would have to be on the bow of
the most forward barge to do any good. I don't know the answer to your
question.

I do know, though, that it can be very dangerous to fish in the "ship
channel" in the middle of Chesapeake Bay, because huge freighters can
"sneak right up" on you if you are not paying close attention. Another
dangerous place is near the mouth of the St. Johns River in NE Florida.
That river has significant shipping and military traffic.

Agreed about fishing or parking in a shipping channel. If you do, you
want to be looking out and be sure you can get out of the way quick.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver
flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious
who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator
will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right',
she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.


If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less
maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under
power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's
intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election
and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right
of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so
marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if
outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been
going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small
boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the
barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge
captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable
waterways and shipping lanes?

Steve

On 23/06/2010 8:32 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In article991b7911-95f9-412a-a5b7-
,
says...

On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

I have been there and almost got run over.. How you can miss it? I don't
know it's huge but the one that crept up on my was like a big silent
planed slipping in in the night... No lights on the front of the barges,
it was crazy.

Sounds fly by night. You said no lights? Is that even legal? Try that
in Canada with the barges HP rating and so fine city.


--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

On 23/06/2010 1:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:35 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:32:18 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
I have been there and almost got run over.. How you can miss it? I don't
know it's huge but the one that crept up on my was like a big silent
planed slipping in in the night... No lights on the front of the barges,
it was crazy.

I thought the front barge was required to have running lights and a
flasher.
At any rate the sun was up when this happened

Then again, if the fisherman were familiar with the area, then they
should have known to watch for barge traffic.

Depends, was where they were for shiping? I can't believe barges are
considered to be the right of way near anchorage points for example. No
mater what their size.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

On 23/06/2010 9:23 AM, W1TEF wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc
wrote:

On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

Well, I do. When underway, you wear one - my boat, my rules. :)

Agreed. I even verse it before the ride.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

It isn't a question of if the tow operator saw them - he couldn't have
stopped in time anyway. Like I said elsewhere, if they were fishing
on a river bend, they might not have known the tow was there until it
was too late.

Unfortunately, we can guess all we want - not enough information from
the news reports.

Yep.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver
flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious
who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator
will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right',
she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.


If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less
maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under
power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's
intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election
and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right
of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so
marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if
outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been
going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small
boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the
barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge
captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:59:40 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less
maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under
power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's
intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election
and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right
of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so
marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if
outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been
going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small
boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the
barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge
captain.


What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable
waterways and shipping lanes?


Probably the most relevant rule is 9(g):

g) Any vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid
anchoring in a narrow channel.

9(b) is also highly relevant in this case:

(b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel
shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate
only within a narrow channel or fairway.

However 9(f) may put some responsibility back on the tug:

(f) A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a narrow channel or
fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening
obstruction shall navigate with particular alertness and caution and
shall sound the appropriate signal prescribed in Rule 34(e).


http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule09.htm

On 23/06/2010 8:59 PM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver
flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty obvious
who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge operator
will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything 'right',
she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.


If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously less
maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is under
power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of it's
intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for election
and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked right
of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat if so
marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping lane. But if
outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have been
going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the small
boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right and if the
barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem with the barge
captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

What actually ARE the regs on pleasure craft anchoring in navigable
waterways and shipping lanes?

Steve

Don't know your regs and they can vary, but in Canada it is a no-no to
be anchored or adrift in marked or mapped shipping lanes. Can't quote
you the reg, not a legal beagle either but that is on the exams here.
Lots of right of way questions.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

On 23/06/2010 9:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/06/2010 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver
flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common
sense.

Unless there are facts we're not privy to, I think it's pretty
obvious who
has the majority of the fault. But, I suspect that the barge
operator will
take some percentage blame. Even if she was doing everything
'right', she
would still have the obligation to avoid a collision.


If you are a captain pushing a barge train, there isn't much you can
do to avoid a collision.
9 barges at a couple million pounds each are not going to turn on a
dime and it might take a couple miles to stop them.
About he can do is blow his horn.

In the strictest sense, it is in the details.

If the small boat was at anchor, then this gives the boater a certian
right as they are not under power. While the barge being obviously
less maneuverable has the right of way *provided* the small boat is
under power.

If the boat was not under power and at anchor, the barge MUST warn of
it's intent. It can't just blindly go down the river hell bent for
election and blindly run it down.

Another factor is about where the boat was anchored, is it a marked
right of way for shipping lane? This is unfavorable for the small boat
if so marked as you are not to park your arse in a active shiping
lane. But if outside the shipping lane, this is unfavorable to the barge.

We didn't get enough details on the read to say who was in fact guilty.

Even gets more complex on what flags were out, such as a diver flag.

Speed of the abrge is less importannt here. Other than he may have
been going faster than he could safely control it. For example, if the
small boat was on anchor, out of the shiping lanes it has the right
and if the barge was going too fast for control, that is a problem
with the barge captain.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

They were in a channel I believe. Thus, no anchoring allowed.

Of course anchorage would not be inside the shipping lane. But there
are aften anchorages just outside of those lanes.

I will wait until we see more detail. But the families aught to get a
good legal beegle that know the local and federal laws on this. Could
be a juicy law suit.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.