Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Charles T. Low"
snip I'm left not knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying. So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more. snip "Simple Simon" snip I say there is a pecking order in restricted visibility. Lsnip 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. snip from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html "Rule 4 Application "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility." That seems to say it all. Thanks SS Everett |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Everett" wrote in message ... "Charles T. Low" snip I'm left not knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying. So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more. snip "Simple Simon" snip I say there is a pecking order in restricted visibility. Lsnip 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. snip from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html "Rule 4 Application "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility." That seems to say it all. Thanks SS Everett And the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and yell "STAND ASIDE" John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey John,
Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Of course, one "tries" to miss the errant PWC too. G Capt. Frank John Cairns wrote: "Everett" wrote in message ... "Charles T. Low" snip I'm left not knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying. So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more. snip "Simple Simon" snip I say there is a pecking order in restricted visibility. Lsnip 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. snip from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html "Rule 4 Application "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility." That seems to say it all. Thanks SS Everett And the next you're out sailing and it looks like you might be involved in a collision with a freighter you can wave your copy of the COLREGS at them and yell "STAND ASIDE" John Cairns-religiously avoids collisions with 800' lake freighters |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:51:21 GMT, something compelled "Capt.
Frank Hopkins" , to say: Hey John, Near my home port, aircraft carriers are the thing to avoid. Standing orders on USS Prairie, AD 15 read in part:* Aircraft carriers are unpredictable and change course at will, with little to no regard to the rest of the fleet. Whenever steaming with an aircraft carrier, a vigilant watch will be kept upon it, and the ship will be maneuvered out of the way as prudent. *As much as I remember. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Everett" wrote in message
from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html "Rule 4 Application "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility." That seems to say it all. Thanks SS Everett What does it say? Do you have a point? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Everett wrote:
from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html "Rule 4 Application "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility." That seems to say it all. To say what, exactly? The pecking order (rule 18), stand-on (rule 17), and give-way (rule 16) stuff is not in section I of part B, to which rule 4 refers, but in section II of part B, which is introduced by rule 11: "Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another." So the pecking order *only* applies when in sight. Section III which is rule 19 applies only to vessels not in sight of one another, when in restricted visibility. This means that, even where visibility is restricted (for any reason), as soon as ships come close enough to see each other, section III goes out the window and section II kicks in, restoring pecking order *which does not exist in section III*. But this revived pecking order may be academic if by then vessels are already in a close quarters situation. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
How absolutely, positively correct you are, sir!
S.Simon "Everett" wrote in message ... "Charles T. Low" snip I'm left not knowing for sure if your four conclusions are opinions, "guessed" from the Rules, or whether the Rules actually say what you're saying. So, I would appreciate it if you would flesh it out a bit more. snip "Simple Simon" snip I say there is a pecking order in restricted visibility. Lsnip 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. snip from the COLREGS http://www.oz.net/~papillon/kbmanual/colregs.html "Rule 4 Application "Rules in this section apply to any condition of visibility." That seems to say it all. Thanks SS Everett |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|