Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Jonathan Ganz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #62   Report Post  
Ronald Raygun
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?

  #63   Report Post  
Ronald Raygun
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?

  #64   Report Post  
Capt. Mooron
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
|
|
|


  #65   Report Post  
otnmbrd
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?




  #66   Report Post  
Simple Simon
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?




  #67   Report Post  
Wally
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #68   Report Post  
Jonathan Ganz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?






  #69   Report Post  
Ronald Raygun
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #70   Report Post  
Jeff Morris
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017