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! =-----

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

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! =-----

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?

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.

"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.

"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

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?

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! =-----

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.