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?




-----= 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! =-----

Comments interspersed:

Simple Simon wrote:
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.

Wrong and immaterial to the discussion. The discussion is how vessels
react and there responsibility when they can see each other, and when
they can not see each other.

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.

Absolutely wrong. What you seem unable to comprehend is that when
vessels can not see each other due to some form of restricted
visibility, that there is no stand-on/priveleged status ..... both
vessels must navigate with extreme caution.
IF .... while in fog or some other form of restricted visibility, the
two vessels should come in sight of each other (yes, they may well still
be in restricted visibility) then, and only then, do give-way, stand-on
conditions apply, unless, of course, they are so close, that BOTH
vessels must maneuver to avoid collision.
The very simple governing phrases you seem unable to comprehend and
apply to the terms "fog" and "restricted visibility", are "in sight of"
and "not in sight of".

I'm right and they're wrong - that's the bottom line.

nope

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.

Wrong again. Safe speed must be adapted to the prevailing circumstances.
If you are doing seven knots and can barely see your bow or just beyond,
you will never maneuver in time if something should appear. Sorry, rules
for speed apply to sail also.

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
or we are so close that both vessel's must maneuver to avoid collision.
(I'll ignore TSS or narrow channels)
What do you do if you are hearing the fog signal of what turns out to be
a 6000 hp Z-drive tug pushing a 150' deck barge (i.e. a vessel blowing
the same signal you are)

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.

immaterial

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 -

Potentially unsafe practices (Notice, it's perfectly OK for Neal to keep
sailing at 5-6 k, but not a motor vessel)

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.

Garbage and shows limited sailing skills.. Rules tell you to take all
way off if necessary.

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.

More garbage. There is no pecking order of any kind, in fog, when two
vessels cannot see each other, no matter what the different signals may
be. There is, also, no way for a motor vessel to tell if it is dealing
with a sailboat, by whistle signals alone.
Here again we can see Neals problem grasping the terms "in sight" and
"not in sight" and relating (or separating them, if you will) with the
terms "fog" and/or "restricted visibility".

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.

Again, the problem relating to terminology .... and ....no pecking
order.... and again you've proved nothing.

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.

.........ONLY if the vessels can see each other (you're still ignoring
rule 17(b) and how it would affect stand-on status).
So, how's the license renewal coming, Neal? Sure hope they don't make
you take a "Rules" test (open book or otherwise)BG

otn

Simple Simon wrote:

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.

Correct, if you replace IS with CAN BE. The in sight rules don't
just suddenly become invalid just because visibility becomes
restricted. The definitions are clear: "in sight" and "restricted
visibility" are not 100% mutually exclusive. That's why the "in
sight" rules apply not when visibility is not restricted, but
when one vessel can be observed visually from the other.

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.

That's crap. There is no way you can seriously claim that
7 knots is a safe speed in thick fog. You should surrender your
master's licence immediately and take up golf.

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.

Wrong.

In effect, I'm standing on and I'm doing it completely legally.

Even wronger. In thick fog you would not be under in-sight rules
and so could not possibly be legally standing-on.

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.

Nice try, and I admit there is some logic in this approach, but
it is nevertheless a flagrant violation of 19b, 19c, and 19e,
the point being that sound signals do not allow either you or
the motor boat to determine what your likely relative positions
are going to be once your range closes sufficiently for you
to be able to see each other. The whole point of 19 is that
it recognises that there might not be enough time for whichever
vessel would become the give-way vessel, once the in-sight rules
kick in, to take effective action to avoid collision.

Obviously, you've never sailed in real fog, such as what
we have out here. 35kts and a wall of impenetrable fog.

"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.

"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.


Hummm... Obviously this person has never spent any time in the pacific
northwest in the summer. I was at about 43N and 30 miles off when I
watched two 300 foot boats plow into each other because of fog. Do you
remember how the nose of that paper airplane you use to make looked
after a few nose dives?

Trust me, the mate was not considering a "pecking order" when that bow
loomed out of the mythical mist at a whoping 2.8 knts!

Damn the COLREGS.......no speed ahead!

Chris
Freya 39


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! =-----

Jeff Morris wrote:

Neal's point has been (though he doesn't state it explicitly in this
thread) that a
sailboat is "standon" in the thickest fog and is not required to reduce
speed. He has claimed repeatedly that rule 19 does not apply to sailboats
because they are incapable of ever traveling at an unsafe speed.

One has to remember that what is paramount to him is not whether
rule 19 applies "to sailboats" but whether it applies *to him*.

Perhaps in the limited types of situation of which he has experience,
restricted visibility is associated with less wind which will mean
that his sailing vessel is likely already to be proceeding at a safe
speed, and may even already be at the minimum speed at which she can
be kept on her course.

That's not to say that rule 19 doesn't apply to him, merely that he
is already automatically complying with it because the conditions of
19b and 19e are already met.

So, in his own little universe, he's probably right.
For the rest of us, in the real world, the story is different.

SS,

Great topic. Personal attacks detract from your credibility, unfortunately.
So, trying to stay on the theme of logic and Colregs: can you quote the
sections from the Regs which illustrate your four points? 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.

Although it seems I missed the original conversation, so I'm not sure of the
starting point.

Charles

====

Charles T. Low
- remove "UN"
www.boatdocking.com
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26 - my boat

====

"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.

"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

"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

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