Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|