And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!

Comments interspersed.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
down.

As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
exists in all its glorious ramifications.



Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.


I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.

I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
keep failing to get it.

As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.

S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
liberal fashion.

Yet more comments interspersed ....


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
And, as usual, you're twisting the facts into a pretzel you
can munch with copious quantities of beer when you're
motoring along in your twin-diesel powered catamaran!

Comments interspersed.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Yes Charles, you missed the beginning of this discussion, which has gone on for about
a
year.

Neal has always maintained that Rule 19 doesn't apply to sailboats - they are not
required
to slow down in the fog. He's trying to weasel out it now by claiming that since
there
are some situations where you might apply "in sight" rules that could also qualify as
"restricted visibility" that sailboats are always standon.

I only maintained the part of Rule 19 that says all vessels must slow
down to a safe speed only applies to those vessels NOT already
going at a safe speed. You have steadfastly refused to recognize
the fact that slowing down to a safe speed applies only to those
vessels going at a fast and unsafe speed for the conditions. My
little sailboat going at hull speed of a little over six knots is going
at a safe speed therefore I am not required by the Rules to slow
down.

Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not require boats to
slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:

"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions."

All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the basics. Rule 19 says
that sometimes you have to go even slower. Rule 19 specifically addresses restricted
visibilty, and says:

"(e) Except where it has been determined that a risk of collision does
not exist, every vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the
fog signal of another vessel, or which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation
with another vessel forward of her beam, shall reduce her
speed to the minimum at which she can be kept on her course. She
shall if necessary take all her way off and in any event navigate with
extreme caution until danger of collision is over."

The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there is no situation
where a sailboat must slow down. Yet rule 19 unequivocally mandates that "ALL VESSELS ...
SHALL REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM..." What can be clearer than that?

You've claimed that its impossible for a sailboat to slow down, but that only proves you
don't know how to sail. I suggest take a beginners sailing class if you don't understand
how to control your speed.


As for the in-sight situation it is common to have in-sight situations
in or near an area of restricted visibility so it follows that in-sight
Rules often apply in or near an area of restricted visibility so it
becomes apparent that stand-on/give-way does indeed exist in
or near an area of restricted visibility, hence a pecking order
exists in all its glorious ramifications.


I've often admitted that in light fog there can be situations where the "in sight" rules
take affect. However, in thick fog, two vessel making 7 knots each can be closing at 24
feet/second. In 50 foot visibilty, this does not leave enough time to even react. This
is why there can be no pecking order in thick fog - ALL VESSELS have an equal
responsibilty to REDUCE SPEED TO A MINIMUM!




Neal started by claiming sailboats should travel at full speed since it was unsafe for
them to slow down. He claimed there is never wind in fog, and that thick fog was a
myth
that didn't really exist. He claimed that sailboats don't have to slow down because
they
are inherently incapable to going at unsafe speeds, regardless of the conditions. Now
he's trying to construct a grey area scenario do prove his case.


I never said 'should' I said 'could'. There is a difference ya know. I said most
fogs don't have winds. Sail on an inland lake, sail in southern Florida, sail on
a river and you will find many situations where there is fog and little of no wind.


By claiming a vessel is "standon" you imply it must maintain course and speed. But even
so, claiming a sailboat "could" proceed a full speed in thick fog also blatantly wrong.


I did say small cruising sailboats like mine with hull speeds of six knots
or less are already going at a safe speed so they are not required by the
Rules to slow down to a safe speed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you
keep failing to get it.


For many situations, you may be correct. However, in thick fog, 6 knots is too fast, even
for a small boat. The rules are quite explicit. The courts have also been very specific
on this, holding vessels at fault because they did not anchor immediately.

BTW, just a month ago you claimed your hull speed was 7 knots. Did you suddenly slow
down?

As for a gray area. I'm doing nothing but giving concrete situations that
happen day in and day out and applying the Rules to them to come to
my valid conclusions that you happen to disagree with but have little
or nothing to support your opinions when I clearly do.


No, you've merely claimed rules that protect boats in thick fog don't make sense because
sometimes there isn't thick fog. This is nonsensical!

S.Simon - does not allow people to spin the facts in typical
liberal fashion.

Jeff Morris wrote:

Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not
require boats to slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:

On the contrary.

Rule 6 requires speeds to be safe at all times, there is no explicit
mention of reducing to a safe speed. Not even in 19b. Only in 19e.

Both 6 and 19b *imply* that a reduction might be mandated in some
circumstances, but only 19e makes *explicit* mention of reduction,
and then only in specific circumstances.

All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the
basics. Rule 19 says that sometimes you have to go even slower.

Even slower than safe speed? No, it only means that "safe" may at
times mean very slow.

The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there
is no situation where a sailboat must slow down.

In this he is of course mistaken.

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,
unless (as required be the following sentence) it becomes necessary to
take all way off. But remember that the whole of 19e only applies to
vessels which have heard another vessel's fog signal from apparently
forward, or where an unavoidable close quarters situation already exists.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:

Once again you show your total ignorance of the rules! Rule 19 does not
require boats to slow to a safe speed, its Rule 6:

On the contrary.
Rule 6 requires speeds to be safe at all times, there is no explicit
mention of reducing to a safe speed. Not even in 19b. Only in 19e.


You're being pedantic - rule 6 mandates a safe speed at all times. If the visibility gets
worse, this likely means vessels should slow down. I was only pointing out what you are
also claiming, a "safe speed" is not just a requirement in restricted visibility, it
always applies.

Both 6 and 19b *imply* that a reduction might be mandated in some
circumstances, but only 19e makes *explicit* mention of reduction,
and then only in specific circumstances.

Ah, that's why I quoted 19(e) and not 19(b) ???


All vessels must always proceed at a safe speed - this is one of the
basics. Rule 19 says that sometimes you have to go even slower.

Even slower than safe speed? No, it only means that "safe" may at
times mean very slow.

Even more pedantic. You might just claim the 19(e) is not required at all, since its
implied by rule 6. And yes, the courts have ruled that leaving the dock was going too
fast.


The central issue of this discussion has been your insistance that there
is no situation where a sailboat must slow down.

In this he is of course mistaken.

I think we are in strong agreement here.


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,
unless (as required be the following sentence) it becomes necessary to
take all way off.

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." 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. The rules are specific that there is no such lower limit -
minimum steerageway may be too fast. Indeed, the courts have ruled on occasion that not
dropping the anchor was too fast.

But remember that the whole of 19e only applies to
vessels which have heard another vessel's fog signal from apparently
forward, or where an unavoidable close quarters situation already exists.


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!

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.

--
-jeff
"Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information" ColRegs, Rule 7(c)

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! =-----

Finally.
John Cairns
"Tim Roberts" wrote in message
...
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! =-----

Good points, one comment interspersed.

otn

Tim Roberts wrote:

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?).

EG What's fog got to do with fishing? Trust me, they 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! =-----

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! =-----

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?

Haha! That's reallly funny, thinking that since you are the captain, no one
else can dispute what you think is a safe speed. Troll, at best."It's only a
legal decision...."; famous last words. What a turd.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
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! =-----