|
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are whether
Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is a pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing vessels need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is involved in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?). Fishing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Sailing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Many Other vessels also sound 1 Long & 2 Short How do you know the other vessel isn't a fishing vessel Sailing vessels must keep out of the way of fishing vessels even in Simple Simon's pecking order (surely! or maybe this will just add fuel to another pointless argument from Simon). As you can't tell what the vessel is (because you haven't seen it) - prudence requires you to slow down - THE RULES require you to slow down - just in case it IS a fishing vessel and you have to give way. Also, I have skippered many yachts that sail (and steer) quite happily at 2 knots, so this can't slow down (must maintain hull speed) approach is a load of ********. 7 knots is not a safe speed for a yacht in restricted visibility! Would you sail into a berth at 7 knots? I don't think so. There are no grey areas in the IRPCS. Just in the way we interpret them. Clearly there are some out there who are not employing common sense and employing safe practice when they are at sea. Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the internet. The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to blame as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Wow! I got about a third of the way through today's messages and decided to
bail! (Only one life to live.) But I will remind everyone that one law-enforcement officer I know said he virtually always lays two charges in collison situations, the stand-on vessel's skipper getting at least "failure to maintain an adequate lookout." Related to the so-called "General Avoidance Rule." I'm not sure about Simple Simon (is that "Neal") thinking that 6 knots under sail is a "safe speed." I think a read of the Regs shows that safe speed is not ever one number, but takes myriad factors into consideration, and that sometimes a safe speed is stopped, or reversing. ((Backwind a sail, I guess!) Charles ==== Charles T. Low - remove "UN" www.boatdocking.com www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat ==== "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a year... |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
A bit of history for those new to this discussion: I'm not sure how long ago it started, but it's months not days ago, and friend Neal basically started off by stating that since a sailboat and a power driven vessel made different signals in fog, there was a full pecking order in fog and a sailboat was then considered a stand-on vessel when it heard the fog signal of a powerdriven vessel. Also, that it didn't need to reduce speed since it was all ready at a reduced speed. (someone can look back to confirm this, or possibly Jeff or Shen can confirm my memory). Needless to say, he was shown to be wrong, and since then has been trying to talk his way out of it ..... to no avail, as you can all see, by trying to apply abstract conditions to the basic "in sight" and "not in sight" conditions of the initial discussions. Regarding rule 6 and 19 .... keep in mind, that those responsible for the rules, seem to be aware that you cannot write a rule to cover every situation, so "insert" rule 2. Although the wording of rule 6 and 19 in most sections, does not specifically state "reduce speed" the implication is there, and "rule 2", you are responsible to act upon that implication. As I've said before, Neal is a basic "newbie" who has somehow gotten a beginners license, which he's rarely if ever used. His knowledge of the rules is based on his own reading and interpretation, not experience or real knowledge of their meaning or intent. The best reason to get into an argument/discussion on any maritime subject, with Neal, is to learn how NOT to think or interpret the "Rules", or any other subject, for that matter, I've seen him expound upon, as BG I have seen him come up with some clever ways to try and "cover his butt". otn |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ROFL
otn Simple Simon wrote: "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Simon, you wrote: If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels position? Yes I would. The Rules require me to. S.Simon |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ROFL
otn Simple Simon wrote: Sea fog and land fog are two different animals. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... I guess in pieman land you get light fog only. Here in North Calif you get friggin fog so thick you can not see the front of the car from the drivers seat! Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another. At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another. Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore, I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision. If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES. Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation. This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility. If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation. (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc, here - we're talking at sea.) This means the give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - knows the practical application as well as the letter of the Rules. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Sorry Jeff, It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread. I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of restricted visibility. Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should perhaps add a couple of points; First Point: Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1 (Application) '(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels' Second Point: Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog? He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker. I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog. I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound signals much easier than with an engine on. Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and Meteorology amongst other things. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Finally.
John Cairns "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the internet. The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to blame as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Comments interspersed:
Simple Simon wrote: And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran! Comments interspersed. "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a year. Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as "restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon. I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow down. Totally wrong and another indication of your incompetence. As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order exists in all its glorious ramifications. This is a vain attempt to cover your butt, because you've been shown that a pecking order doesn't exist, which means sailboats are not stand on when vessels are not in sight .... i.e. Neals Damage Control Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case. I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind. Bull chips I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you keep failing to get it. More Bull chips As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do. S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical liberal fashion. The above is nothing more than NDC (Neal Damage Control) incompetently attempted. otn |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
More NDC .....ignore....
we've all ready been over this, O stupid one .... you are just now beginning to understand how to separate "in sight" from "not in sight" when it comes to restricted visibility ....actually, I'm really becoming worried about your basic mental capacity to reason. otn Simple Simon wrote: If I'm backpedaling furiously then you're flogging that dead horse frantically with whips in both hands. You continue to argue using the discredited thick fog scenario and that simply will not discredit my facts about restricted visibility being all sorts of situations where in-sight circumstances eventuate within the area of restricted visibility and in-sight Rules come into play. What don't you get about vessels being in sight in or near an area of restricted visibility? S.Simon More NDC (Neal Damage Control) |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
ROFL You're dinky little license and sailboat, will NEVER make you one
of the "Big Boys"..... never mind your lack of experience and/or knowledge. otn Simple Simon wrote: Go pick your nose or something constructive like that because it's clear you have too little knowledge to play with us big boys! S.Simon "Rick" wrote in message nk.net... Simple Simon wrote: So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's four facts that cannot be disputed. ??? Why drag me into your fantasy world, Nil? All I ever did was call you a nautical wannabe. The last thing in the world I would ever do is argue about the COLREGS with the Cliff Claven of a.s.a. Shenn and Otnmbrd are unlimited masters with a career at sea actually operating ships so I do believe they are a bit more qualified to interpret the COLREGS than, what is it you claim to hold, a 6 pack MOTOR ticket or something? The only thing I can see in your post that cannot be disputed is this determined adherence to your nautical fantasy life and your peculiar need to shop it around so many newsgroups. Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Good points, one comment interspersed.
otn Tim Roberts wrote: This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is a pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing vessels need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is involved in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?). EG What's fog got to do with fishing? Trust me, they fish in fog. Fishing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Sailing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Many Other vessels also sound 1 Long & 2 Short How do you know the other vessel isn't a fishing vessel Sailing vessels must keep out of the way of fishing vessels even in Simple Simon's pecking order (surely! or maybe this will just add fuel to another pointless argument from Simon). As you can't tell what the vessel is (because you haven't seen it) - prudence requires you to slow down - THE RULES require you to slow down - just in case it IS a fishing vessel and you have to give way. Also, I have skippered many yachts that sail (and steer) quite happily at 2 knots, so this can't slow down (must maintain hull speed) approach is a load of ********. 7 knots is not a safe speed for a yacht in restricted visibility! Would you sail into a berth at 7 knots? I don't think so. There are no grey areas in the IRPCS. Just in the way we interpret them. Clearly there are some out there who are not employing common sense and employing safe practice when they are at sea. Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the internet. The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to blame as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Yup, they are different. Not. The causing effect may be different, but the
fog is the same. And we get sea fog on the coast. Watched sea fog for many years growing up, coming both through the Golden Gate and over the Marin Headlands and San Franciso. Knowing when I got out of school, the frikken fog would get us at about 3:30 pm. And could not run the convertible top down with the date. Grew up next to Berkeley in the hills. Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Sea fog and land fog are two different animals. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... I guess in pieman land you get light fog only. Here in North Calif you get friggin fog so thick you can not see the front of the car from the drivers seat! Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another. At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another. Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore, I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision. If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES. Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation. This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility. If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation. (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc, here - we're talking at sea.) This means the give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - knows the practical application as well as the letter of the Rules. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Sorry Jeff, It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread. I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of restricted visibility. Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should perhaps add a couple of points; First Point: Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1 (Application) '(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels' Second Point: Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog? He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker. I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog. I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound signals much easier than with an engine on. Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and Meteorology amongst other things. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
otnmbrd wrote:
ROFL You're dinky little license and sailboat, will NEVER make you one of the "Big Boys"..... never mind your lack of experience and/or knowledge. Nil couldn't get a job as a messman, he simply is not qualified. If he was fit enough, could afford and pass the training, and somehow managed to get an STCW certificate his attitude would get him kicked off at the first port anyway. Have seen a lot of his type dragging their gear down the gangway over the years, one trippers who found out it takes more than a big mouth to be a seaman. Nil is singing and dancing now, backed into a corner, shown to be a fraud and nothing more than just another internet wannabe ... Rick |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Do you have a boat in the area? Mine's in Sausalito.
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... Yup, they are different. Not. The causing effect may be different, but the fog is the same. And we get sea fog on the coast. Watched sea fog for many years growing up, coming both through the Golden Gate and over the Marin Headlands and San Franciso. Knowing when I got out of school, the frikken fog would get us at about 3:30 pm. And could not run the convertible top down with the date. Grew up next to Berkeley in the hills. Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Sea fog and land fog are two different animals. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... I guess in pieman land you get light fog only. Here in North Calif you get friggin fog so thick you can not see the front of the car from the drivers seat! Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another. At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another. Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore, I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision. If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES. Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation. This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility. If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation. (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc, here - we're talking at sea.) This means the give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - knows the practical application as well as the letter of the Rules. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Sorry Jeff, It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread. I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of restricted visibility. Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should perhaps add a couple of points; First Point: Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1 (Application) '(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels' Second Point: Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog? He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker. I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog. I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound signals much easier than with an engine on. Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and Meteorology amongst other things. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon wrote:
"Tim Roberts" wrote Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels position? Yes I would. The Rules require me to. Good, that's what I like to see, Cap'n. Nice reasoned argument. So, pray tell, which particular rules require this? Would you care to say how, without knowing where the other vessel is, you can ensure your action *will* result in the vessels involved passing at a safe distance (rule 8d) and not result in another close quarters situation, in this case with the same vessel (rule 8c)? Note that rule 8e also requires you to slow down if necessary. Rule 8 is in section I, by the way, so applies whether in sight or not. Would you also care to explain how, by altering course to avoid a vessel of the position of which you are uncertain, you are not violating rule 7c by making assumptions on the basis of scanty information? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Jeff Morris wrote:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote Jeff Morris wrote: Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ... SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that? Careful, you're misquoting. It says "...to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course", which means the vessel in question doesn't need to go any slower than the speed at which steerage can be maintained, I've quoted this rule in full about 5 times in the year we've have this running debate. I assume the everyone is familiar with the full wording, so I sometimes only quote the "short version." Well, you'll never get anywhere with sloppy quoting. By saying "TO A MINIMUM" you're in danger of making people think you think the rule means something other than what it really means. In short, you need to be more of a pedant. :-) Neal has claimed that it is unsafe for a sailboat to proceed at anything less than the full speed for a given wind, and therefore claims that anything less than hull speed may be unsafe. Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other speed. That's fallacious. Yes, again I assume everyone is familiar with the wording. But all you're saying is that this rule only applies when there's a possibility of a collision - but that's the interesting situation! Well, he could say that provided there is no other traffic around, it is perfectly safe for him to go as fast as he can, particularly if that isn't very fast. Where he goes wrong is when, as you say, it gets interesting. This debate has gone on for over a year. Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-) The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough, That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does. and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his position that the signals give the listener an early warning of what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply. But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*. That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the letter of some of them which he closes his mind to. In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can* happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist, its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many rules. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
... .... In short, you need to be more of a pedant. :-) I bow to the master! This debate has gone on for over a year. Dear me. And you've still not managed to convince him? Doesn't say much for your arguing skills, does it? :-) Neal has essentially admitted he's wrong a few times, but prefers to keep the debate going for fun. The problem is that every time it starts up a few people will be sucked in by his nonsense. I hate to think how many newbies there are that think they have Right-Of-Way in the fog! The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow if the visibility is bad enough, That's easy. It doesn't, not until it gets interesting. Then it does. and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. That's easy. It doesn't. There is some merit, however, in his position that the signals give the listener an early warning of what kind of vessel they're dealing with, and what SO/GW relationship will arise when they come close enough for in-sight rules to apply. But the ambiguity of the -.. signal scotches that clever idea. precisely. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. His argument is slightly different, AIUI. I don't think he's arguing grey area, but rather that there is a point at which the area suddenly changes from black to white: If there is going to be a collision during an episode of navigating not in-sight, there will always be a few moments prior to the actual collision when visibility will be restored to the level at which in-sight rules apply and so he will be OK because he will be top of the pecking order *once that happens*. That makes sense, in a perverted and infantile sort of way, but is of course completely against the spirit of the rules and also against the letter of some of them which he closes his mind to. Yes, he's tried to make this case. But this time he seems to be saying that the rules were not written with thick fog in mind, since it is so rare. But he never addresses the fundamental concept of 19(e), that when you hear a fog signal ahead, and can't figure it out, you must slow down. In any case, it isn't even universally true. Vis could be reduced to less than the distance from helm to bow, so a collision *can* happen without a "shield" of in-sight rules to protect him. He also seems to have forgotten that even where the shield does exist, its "thickness" in terms of time available in which to decide on what action to take, and to take it, needs to be substantial, and by denying himself (or the other vessel) sufficient time, he is violating many rules. Neal never responds when I mention "closing rates." His claim has been that since the powerboat has stopped for him, he will always be able to avoid it. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
"Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... What do you think causes the land fog to move out to sea? The Wind. Drainage winds and katabatic winds can both move off land out to sea and carry fog with them. I don't think fog is moved around much by the wind. Fog develops when atmospheric conditions are such that the air becomes saturated with water vapor. A distant fog bank on the ocean doesn't "blow" in to surround your boat. The fog that surrounds you generates at your location as the atmospheric variables permit. Eisboch |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
It's simple. Information is not scanty when 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder. 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course. 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters situation. S.Simon "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message ... Simple Simon wrote: "Tim Roberts" wrote Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels position? Yes I would. The Rules require me to. Good, that's what I like to see, Cap'n. Nice reasoned argument. So, pray tell, which particular rules require this? Would you care to say how, without knowing where the other vessel is, you can ensure your action *will* result in the vessels involved passing at a safe distance (rule 8d) and not result in another close quarters situation, in this case with the same vessel (rule 8c)? Note that rule 8e also requires you to slow down if necessary. Rule 8 is in section I, by the way, so applies whether in sight or not. Would you also care to explain how, by altering course to avoid a vessel of the position of which you are uncertain, you are not violating rule 7c by making assumptions on the basis of scanty information? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
All well and good but you must ask yourself who is
the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. If you are a sailor and if you've ever sailed a 27-foot cruising sailboat with a fin keel and balanced spade rudder you would know that at five or six knots one can put the helm down rapidly so the vessel spins and stops in less than a boat length. If I am going one or two knots this is not the case. The boat doesn't have enough way on to spin on her keel and stop. One must have a certain amount of speed to have decent maneuverability. If any judge ever attempted to say my speed was unsafe because it was too fast at five or six knots I could easily set up a demonstration to prove him in error. As for your situation with the vessel fishing when I hear the same signal I'm giving I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. S.Simon "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is a pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing vessels need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is involved in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?). Fishing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Sailing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Many Other vessels also sound 1 Long & 2 Short How do you know the other vessel isn't a fishing vessel Sailing vessels must keep out of the way of fishing vessels even in Simple Simon's pecking order (surely! or maybe this will just add fuel to another pointless argument from Simon). As you can't tell what the vessel is (because you haven't seen it) - prudence requires you to slow down - THE RULES require you to slow down - just in case it IS a fishing vessel and you have to give way. Also, I have skippered many yachts that sail (and steer) quite happily at 2 knots, so this can't slow down (must maintain hull speed) approach is a load of ********. 7 knots is not a safe speed for a yacht in restricted visibility! Would you sail into a berth at 7 knots? I don't think so. There are no grey areas in the IRPCS. Just in the way we interpret them. Clearly there are some out there who are not employing common sense and employing safe practice when they are at sea. Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the internet. The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to blame as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
hi
so what you are saying is that in a heavy mist created by hot bathwater in a colder bathroom ,simple simons rubber duck being un powered should stand on even though it is at risk of a collision with his plastic toy power boat. fragged "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Dear Group, Some people here who claim to be captains are so obviously too stupid to realize that fog, thick or thin, is but one example of restricted visibility that they have drawn the wrong conclusions concerning the issue of stand-on and give-way vessels in restricted visibility. While I maintain there are, indeed, stand-on and give- way vessels in restricted visibility they claim not. They say there is no pecking order in or near restricted visibility. I say there is a pecking order in restricted visibility. Here's my proof which, so far, nobody has been able to refute rationally or logically. Heavy rain can cause restricted visibility, dust and smog can cause restricted visibility, sand storms can restrict visibility and there is restricted visibility in a maritime environment most everywhere in the core of a hurricane. Even smoke from forest fires can cause restricted visibility. You idiots relying on a worst case scenario (very thick fog) to prove your point will continue to come up way, way short of the mark. My argument has been and is that stand-on and give-way vessels exist in or near restricted visibility and I have proven it below in a step-by-step, logical fashion. Your stinkin' fog so thick you can't see the bow of your vessel does not change my argument because unusually thick fog is but one instance of restricted visibility and is generally an exception to the rule. The very purpose of having vessels slow to a safe speed is so when they eventually come within sight of one another they will be going at a safe speed so they can avoid a collision while following the in-sight Rules. It's sort of like being a safe driver on the road at night and not going so fast that you cannot stop in the distance your headlights shine. So, to set things straight with respect to the ongoing and lame and just plain incorrect arguments presented by Jeff Morris, Shenn44, Otnmbrd, and Rick, here's four facts that cannot be disputed. Fact one: In or near an area of restricted visibility vessels are required to sound signals specific to the vessel in question. Motor vessels sound one signal when underway and those vessels above them in the pecking order sound another and different signal. This is an ABBREVIATED pecking order. Fact two: When two vessels proceeding in restricted visibility get close enough to each other that they are in-sight (visually) they must then follow the in-sight rules where the FULL pecking order is mandated. Fact three: These two vessels, although operating in or near an area of restricted visibility, become a stand-on and a give-way vessel as long as they remain in sight of one another. Fact four: There is, indeed, a stand-on and a give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - the ultimate authority when it comes to understanding the COLREGS. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
You've never obviously seen it blowing in the Golden Gate on
its way to Bezerkeley. The interior valley heats up and rises, and the air flows from the cooler ocean toward the valley. It is typical to see fog moving at 30+ kts through the slot between Angel Island and Alcatraz. "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... What do you think causes the land fog to move out to sea? The Wind. Drainage winds and katabatic winds can both move off land out to sea and carry fog with them. I don't think fog is moved around much by the wind. Fog develops when atmospheric conditions are such that the air becomes saturated with water vapor. A distant fog bank on the ocean doesn't "blow" in to surround your boat. The fog that surrounds you generates at your location as the atmospheric variables permit. Eisboch |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon wrote:
It's simple. Information is not scanty when 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder. Fair enough. But first, please, show me a reliable method of taking a bearing on a fog signal. I only seem to be able to achieve a precision of plus or minus 180 degrees, or plus or minus 45 if lucky. 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course. Backwards logic again. Rule 7d1 says risk of collision shall be deemed to exist if you are on collision course (i.e. if the compass bearing does not appreciably change). That doesn't mean that if you are apparently on a collision course (by magically sensed compass bearing of a foghorn) that you should assume you are on collision course, from which an arbitrary change of course will divert you. 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters situation. The purpose of 8a/8b/8c is in big part to ensure the other vessel's master is made aware in good time of your action. I'm more concerned about the rest of rule 8 here. You can't hope to comply with 8d (action ... to result in passing at a safe distance) if you have no way of assessing what that distance is likely to be because you have no precise enough idea of its relative position. And again I remind you that even when 19e doesn't apply, 8e also tells you to slow down if necessary to avoid collision. What kind of course alteration are you proposing, by the way? A U-turn? Sounds like a good legalese trick to disarm 19e, since it would automatically change a fog signal detected apparently forward of the beam into one abaft the beam. That would certainly for the moment exempt you from 19e's slowing down requirement unless it had been determined that RoC exists or that a CQS could not be avoided. But what if you're surrounded by fog signals? Then what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Simple Simon wrote:
All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
It's obvious you've never sailed in fog..... your statements are akin to
Bobsprit talking about sailing. Neither has merit. CM "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... | | It's simple. Information is not scanty when | | 1) I hear the fog signal of a vessel forward over a period of time and | it's bearing is not changing and the signal is getting louder. | | 2) I must follow the Rules that states if there is any doubt that a vessel | is on a collision course then assume it is indeed on a collision course. | | 3) I know Rule 8 states a course change early and pronounced is perhaps | the best way to avoid a close quarters situation so I follow Rule 8 and | change my course early and evidently so as to avoid a close quarters | situation. | | S.Simon | | | | | "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message ... | Simple Simon wrote: | | "Tim Roberts" wrote | | Are you saying that in restricted visibility, you would change course | regardless of whether you had a visual confirmation of the other vessels | position? | | Yes I would. The Rules require me to. | | Good, that's what I like to see, Cap'n. Nice reasoned argument. | So, pray tell, which particular rules require this? | | Would you care to say how, without knowing where the other vessel | is, you can ensure your action *will* result in the vessels involved | passing at a safe distance (rule 8d) and not result in another close | quarters situation, in this case with the same vessel (rule 8c)? | | Note that rule 8e also requires you to slow down if necessary. | | Rule 8 is in section I, by the way, so applies whether in sight | or not. | | Would you also care to explain how, by altering course to avoid | a vessel of the position of which you are uncertain, you are not | violating rule 7c by making assumptions on the basis of scanty | information? | | | |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Dang, I missed this one.
Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is
is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under the circumstances he finds himself in. Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is. S.Simon "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Ronald Raygun wrote:
Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other speed. That's fallacious. What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher speed? Does that wash? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
No this isn't true. For example, a near collision would not
be considered safe. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under the circumstances he finds himself in. Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is. S.Simon "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Wally wrote:
What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher speed? Does that wash? Not really. Manoeuvrability alone is not good enough, he needs to budget for reaction time. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Again you show ignorance. The courts have held that it is the responsibility of the
master not only to fully understand and abide by the rules, but also to understand and abide by the interpretation of the courts. One area often discussed in these terms is the meaning "safe speed." The meaning of "moderate speed" (from the old rules) and "safe speed" has been much discussed over the years. The appropriate speed varies a lot with the conditions, but is usually held to be somewhere between 2 knots and 6 knots for vessels without radar. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under the circumstances he finds himself in. Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is. S.Simon "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Grew up in El Cerrito and have my boat on a trailer in Pleasanton. 21'
Jetcraft Bluewater. thinking of a 26-27 Farallon Whaleback type in maybe 2 years. Tow it to San Juans and cruise for a couple of months and same to Florida and maybe barge to St. Thomas area. Bill "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Do you have a boat in the area? Mine's in Sausalito. "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... Yup, they are different. Not. The causing effect may be different, but the fog is the same. And we get sea fog on the coast. Watched sea fog for many years growing up, coming both through the Golden Gate and over the Marin Headlands and San Franciso. Knowing when I got out of school, the frikken fog would get us at about 3:30 pm. And could not run the convertible top down with the date. Grew up next to Berkeley in the hills. Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Sea fog and land fog are two different animals. "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... I guess in pieman land you get light fog only. Here in North Calif you get friggin fog so thick you can not see the front of the car from the drivers seat! Bill "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Extremely thick fog is mostly a myth. Yes, it occurs on occassion but the general run of the mill fog is not so thick that vessels can collide without ever seeing one another. At any rate, the worst case scenario of pea soup thick fog is but one case of restricted visibility and the majority of the other cases definitely allow in-sight situations in or near an area of restricted visibility. In sight situations are ruled by the in sight rules which specify give-way and stand-on status for vessels in sight of one another. Jeff, Otnmbrd, Shen44 and Rick have up till now maintained there is NEVER a stand-on vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility while I have maintained there IS a stand-on and give-way vessel in or near an area of restricted visibility. I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line. I maintain that my sailboat even in a thick fog is going at a safe speed by virtue of the fact that the hull speed is less than seven knots max. Many fogs have little or no wind so I may well be going even slower. Even if the winds are brisk in a fog and I'm going hull speed I'm still going at a safe speed. In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally. If I hear the fog signal of a motor vessel I know right away if and when we come in sight of each other I am the stand-on vessel and the motor vessel is the give way vessel unless I'm overtaking the motor vessel which is not likely at all considering they all think safe speed is 10-15 knots instead of the usual 20-30 knots - let's face the facts here for once. Therefore, I keep going at my safe speed of five or six knots and try to determine by the sound signal if there's a danger of collision. If I determine there is a danger of collision I change course - I'm certainly not going to take all sails down and come to a stop and become a sitting duck to be run over and sunk by a ship not keeping an adequate lookout and going too fast for the conditions. This would be causing a collision and not avoiding a collision - a violation of the RULES. Yet this what the arrogant tugboat captains are saying the Rules require me to do. WRONG! When a motor vessel hears the fog signal of a sailboat or any other boat above it in the pecking order it knows before even coming in sight of that vessel that the motor vessel is the give way vessel in a close quarters situation and a close quarters situation in most cases of restricted visibility in an in sight situation. This is what I call the abbreviated pecking order. That there is an abbreviated pecking order proves there is a give-way and stand-on vessel in restricted visibility. If and when the motor vessel and sailing vessels come within sight of one another the motor vessel already knows it is the give-way vessel in all but the overtaking situation. (we're not talking narrow channels, traffic schemes, etc, here - we're talking at sea.) This means the give-way/stand-on status exists in or near an area of restricted visibility. S.Simon - knows the practical application as well as the letter of the Rules. "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... Sorry Jeff, It seems I also missed much of the earlier thread. I was agreeing with the point that thick fog is not the only type of restricted visibility. Now that I have discovered a bit more about the original thread, I should perhaps add a couple of points; First Point: Rule 19 Very definitely applies to all vessels at sea by virtue of Rule 1 (Application) '(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels' Second Point: Did Neal really claim that you don't get wind in fog? He perhaps needs to understand the process by which sea-fog is formed. It happens when warm, wet air comes into contact with a sea that is colder than it's own dew point. The only way sea fog disperses is 'normally' with a change in wind direction which brings in dry air which is able to absorb the moisture in the fog. Continued wind from the same direction merely feeds more moisture, and thus, more fog! If the same wind direction continues for long enough - the fog gets thicker and thicker. I have certainly been in situations where I have been sailing in thick fog. I find it safer than motoring because you can hear other vessels sound signals much easier than with an engine on. Sorry to bore everyone with this pedantry, but I lecture in both COLREGS and Meteorology amongst other things. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Haha! That's reallly funny, thinking that since you are the captain, no one
else can dispute what you think is a safe speed. Troll, at best."It's only a legal decision...."; famous last words. What a turd. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. If you are a sailor and if you've ever sailed a 27-foot cruising sailboat with a fin keel and balanced spade rudder you would know that at five or six knots one can put the helm down rapidly so the vessel spins and stops in less than a boat length. If I am going one or two knots this is not the case. The boat doesn't have enough way on to spin on her keel and stop. One must have a certain amount of speed to have decent maneuverability. If any judge ever attempted to say my speed was unsafe because it was too fast at five or six knots I could easily set up a demonstration to prove him in error. As for your situation with the vessel fishing when I hear the same signal I'm giving I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. S.Simon "Tim Roberts" wrote in message ... This debate has gone on for over a year. The two main issues are whether Rule 19(e) requires sailboats to slow is the visibility is bad enough, and whether the "prolonged-short-short" signal of some vessels in the fog implies a standon/giveway relationship. In the current version, Neal is attempting to show that since there is a grey area where both the "in sight" and "restricted visibility" rules might apply, then there is pecking order in restricted visibility. And since there is a pecking order, sailboats need not slow down. Fortunately, no one else seem to be buying it. O.K just to throw another little spanner in the works - even if there is a pecking order in restricted visibility, the argument that sailing vessels need not slow down doesn't carry any weight if the other vessel is involved in fishing (though who'd fish in fog?). Fishing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Sailing vessel sound signal = 1 Long & 2 Short Many Other vessels also sound 1 Long & 2 Short How do you know the other vessel isn't a fishing vessel Sailing vessels must keep out of the way of fishing vessels even in Simple Simon's pecking order (surely! or maybe this will just add fuel to another pointless argument from Simon). As you can't tell what the vessel is (because you haven't seen it) - prudence requires you to slow down - THE RULES require you to slow down - just in case it IS a fishing vessel and you have to give way. Also, I have skippered many yachts that sail (and steer) quite happily at 2 knots, so this can't slow down (must maintain hull speed) approach is a load of ********. 7 knots is not a safe speed for a yacht in restricted visibility! Would you sail into a berth at 7 knots? I don't think so. There are no grey areas in the IRPCS. Just in the way we interpret them. Clearly there are some out there who are not employing common sense and employing safe practice when they are at sea. Just one final point. Take some time to examine reports from the Marine Accident Investigation Board, they're easy enough to find on the internet. The bottom line is that in a collision situation both Masters are to blame as the rules clearly state that both parties are equally responsible for avoiding collisions, regardless of 'Pecking Order'. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Not really. At the slower speed he'll have more time to maneuver and may
well carry a shorter distance during the maneuver. otn Wally wrote: Ronald Raygun wrote: Well, that's bull**** of course, except in the zephyrs he's likely to find himself in. He's making the mistake in logic that an implication still holds when both sides are negated. From an opinion (which, it has to be admitted, can in some circumstances be correct, such as when there is very little wind) that it is safe for him to proceed as fast as the wind will let him, he jumps, you say, to the conclusion that it is unsafe to proceed at any other speed. That's fallacious. What about his contention that he has better maneuverability at a higher speed than a lower one, such that he can stop more effectively at the higher speed? Does that wash? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Not really true. You need to get away from this habit, that if it's not
specifically written, it's not there. In Rule 2 one is advised that one is responsible for whatever one does or doesn't do and they must take the necessary precautions and act in a seaman like manner. In other words, you are to act and govern the movement of your vessel in such a way that you avoid a collision. Every vessel and set of circumstance vary, so there is no way one could give a set of numbers for speeds which would cover all of those needs .... YOU, are to determine and apply those numbers .... YOU are to know what is safe speed for your vessel and your conditions. YOU are responsible, not the courts (G They only decide if you were or weren't and to what degree). Rule 6 Tells you exactly what "Safe Speed" is, it just doesn't list any numbers, since those numbers can vary so greatly from vessel to vessel and condition to condition. If in doubt, stop, recite rule 2, understand it, and THEN start over. otn Simple Simon wrote: Yes, since the COLREGS do not specify what safe speed is is remains the Captains decision to decide safe speed under the circumstances he finds himself in. Unsafe speed is only determined if and when a collision occurs and it gets hashed over in court. This is another problem with the Rules. They say vessels should proceed at a safe speed at all time but then NEVER define what a safe speed is. S.Simon "otnmbrd" wrote in message ink.net... Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Otn,
Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Finally, the voice of reason. Thanks for setting things
right with respect to this question of who determines safe speed. S.Simon "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or
other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
G I was searching for something else from Neal (read my response to
his response). If you are maintaining a complete deck log, ANY changes in speed MUST be noted (only done on ships). otn Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote: Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the
basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
COLREGS - The final word on pecking order in restricted visibility.
This is like saying its up to each gun owner to refrain from shooting his neighbor.
Obviously, someone must decide the appropriate speed of a vessel, and that task falls to the master. But he is also responsible for making a proper choice. As for "no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts" you are completely wrong. The courts have held, many times, that the professional master is responsible for understanding the interpretations of the courts. An amateur may get by with an ignorance excuse, but someone that holds a master's license can and will be held to a higher standard. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Courts are after the fact and you harp on not taking action on the basis of scanty information. Well, there is no scantier information than the possible future decisions of courts. Tell me this, if it isn't the master's decision as to what safe speed for his vessel is then whose is it? S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Are you claiming that the Master has the final say as to what a safe speed is, that is, no court or other authority has the right to second guess his decision? Or are you just saying that humans have free will? The rules give the master a lot of leeway, but that doesn't mean that he can't be found liable in both civil and criminal proceedings. In fact, I might guess that the majority of admiralty cases involve situations where the court had to decide whether the master's decision was good or bad. -- -jeff "Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message .net... Otn, Neal is right. In the absence of posted limits, it is up to the master to decide what safe speed for their vessel is. Your decision "should be" logged as you are legally responsible for that decision. Notice I say "should be", It is not required, but could be used in your defense. Capt. Frank otnmbrd wrote: Dang, I missed this one. Hey Neal .... are you saying, that as the Master of a large motor vessel, it is up to me to decide "Safe Speed", so that it's ok for me to decide that since I have two radars (10cm and 3cm) and a Mate watching one and me the other, it's OK for me to feel it safe to proceed at 20 k? Just want to be sure where we stand. otn Ronald Raygun wrote: Simple Simon wrote: All well and good but you must ask yourself who is the arbitor of what is a safe speed for a particular vessel? It is clear in my mind it is the Captain of the vessel who determines what is or is not a safe speed for any particular situation or circumstance. OK The bottom line is I am the Captain of my ship and if I say five or six knots is a safe speed then no other man can dispute it. OK, except for the relatives of the folks who drowned as a result of your poor judgement. Only if there is a collision and there is a court case can a judge determine that I was wrong. OK, but why put it to the test? Why not act in a way that no judge will determine that you ewere wrong? Even then, it is only a legal decison to determine liability It is indeed that, but not only that. and still does not take away a Captain's right to determine what is a safe speed. Not retrospectively, no, but The Rules form the basis not only of civil but also of criminal proceedings. You could have your puny licence rescinded. They'd take away the captain's right to captain. Just think of the consequences, man! A life sentence -- condemned forever to being an armchair sailor. Unthinkable! Heh, heh, at least in the "liberal" UK we don't need licences. I have to admit I might be the give-way vessel by virtue of the fact that all vessels above me in the pecking order give the same signal. Therefore, I am ready to give-way the moment the other vessel comes in sight and I see what it is. This proves there is a pecking order (give-way/stand-on) in or near an area of restricted visibilty as I have claimed all along. Why is this such an important point to prove? Pecking order exists only under what aviators would call VFR, i.e. only under section II. It is quite apparent from the rules that vessels can be "in sight" even though "in or near an ARV". So what? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com