"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?

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?

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?

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?

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?