"NOYB" wrote in message
et...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott Sexton wrote:
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or
the PB for not paying attention?

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************


While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among
modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats
the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on"
vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give
way" vessel.

It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and
under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel
approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it
became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same
COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably)
alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass
astern of the stand on vessel.

It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS
to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all
other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the
case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or
CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be
exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have
and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat.
Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk
of collision was apparent.

That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat
wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been
sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian
situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat.

It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by
one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every
boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG.


I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I
can't hear a thing that's being said on it.


I had to install a remote speaker on our 32 footer, even though the engine
cover was very well insulated and the boat ran pretty quite at the helm seat
at cruising speed.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
et...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott Sexton wrote:
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision,
or
the PB for not paying attention?

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************


While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among
modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats
the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on"
vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give
way" vessel.

It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and
under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel
approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it
became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same
COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably)
alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass
astern of the stand on vessel.

It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS
to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all
other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the
case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or
CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be
exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have
and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat.
Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk
of collision was apparent.

That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat
wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been
sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian
situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat.

It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by
one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every
boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG.


I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I
can't hear a thing that's being said on it.


I had to install a remote speaker on our 32 footer, even though the engine
cover was very well insulated and the boat ran pretty quite at the helm
seat at cruising speed.

The Grady White has an ICOM that must be amplified. It's louder than hell,
and I can hear it even at WOT.

"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
et...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott Sexton wrote:
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision,
or
the PB for not paying attention?

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************


While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among
modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats
the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on"
vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give
way" vessel.

It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and
under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel
approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it
became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same
COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably)
alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass
astern of the stand on vessel.

It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS
to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all
other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the
case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or
CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be
exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have
and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat.
Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk
of collision was apparent.

That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat
wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been
sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian
situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat.

It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by
one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every
boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG.


I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I
can't hear a thing that's being said on it.


I had to install a remote speaker on our 32 footer, even though the
engine cover was very well insulated and the boat ran pretty quite at the
helm seat at cruising speed.

The Grady White has an ICOM that must be amplified. It's louder than
hell, and I can hear it even at WOT.



I have an Icom M45. Speaker SUX! Have a remote speaker, but do not like
that one either. May hook it up to the stereo speakers and see if that
works.

I have a 17' whaler too. Mounting a 2" West Marine remote speaker on the console rail made a world
of difference underway.

"NOYB" wrote in message et...

wrote in message oups.com...

Scott Sexton wrote:
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or
the PB for not paying attention?

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************


While the term "right of way" has fallen into general disuse among
modern mariners, if this were a situation involving two civilian boats
the boat approaching from starboard would be called the "stand on"
vessel and the vessel from which the video was shot would be the "give
way" vessel.

It would be incumbent upon *both* vessels to avoid the collision, and
under the COLREGS the prior understanding would be that the vessel
approaching from starboard would maintain course and speed unless it
became apparent that a collision was imminent. Under those same
COLREGS, the give way vessel would either change speed or (preferably)
alter course dramatically and visibly- normally to starboard to pass
astern of the stand on vessel.

It would take somebody better versed in the finite details of COLREGS
to say whether military, police, fire, or rescue vessels require all
other vessels to give way, but I would be surprised if that isn't the
case. By common sense alone, most of us avoid impeding fire, police, or
CG boats. I don't know whether the skipper of the CG boat could be
exonerated because he wasn't a civilian boat- but he or she should have
and could have avoided the collision with the little speed boat.
Obviously the small boat was in sight of the CG patrolboat and the risk
of collision was apparent.

That said, I can't understand why the skipper of the little speed boat
wasn't keeping a better watch. A single glance to port would have been
sufficient to alert him that even as the stand on boat (in a civilian
situation) he needed to do something to avoid wrecking his boat.

It's also another example of a problem that would have been resolved by
one of my pet crusades....recommending or requiring a VHF for every
boat operating in waters patrolled by the USCG.


I have a VHF on my 17' Whaler, but when I'm operating at or near WOT, I can't hear a thing that's being said on it.

"Chuck Tribolet" wrote in message
...
I have a 17' whaler too. Mounting a 2" West Marine remote speaker on the
console rail made a world
of difference underway.

I thought about doing that, but I didn't want to add clutter.

It mounts to the top of the console rail with two SS hose clamps. Completely
out of the way.


"NOYB" wrote in message k.net...

"Chuck Tribolet" wrote in message ...
I have a 17' whaler too. Mounting a 2" West Marine remote speaker on the console rail made a world
of difference underway.

I thought about doing that, but I didn't want to add clutter.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Chuck Tribolet" wrote in message
...
I have a 17' whaler too. Mounting a 2" West Marine remote speaker on the
console rail made a world
of difference underway.

I thought about doing that, but I didn't want to add clutter.




Here you go. Nice and small but plenty of speaker power:
http://store.tackletogo.com/pombvhfexsp.html

"Scott Sexton" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or
the PB for not paying attention?

The boat that got hit was the stand-on boat. The CG is at fault, IMO.

In article ,
says...
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or
the PB for not paying attention?


I did a bit of searching for "stand on vessel" and found this site to be
informative:


http://www.boatingbasicsonline.com/c...ing/6_2_b1.php

and

http://www.boatingbasicsonline.com/c...2_b1print.php?
PHPSESSID=b0a5453b45108d3f4c06258fee845cce

Pretty much shows the CG as the guilty vessel.

There is a mention of :

"If the skipper of the blue vessel does not observe the red vessel
taking action to avoid collision, then he/she must take the required
action to avoid a collision."

But clearly the CG is at fault.


*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************

"Scott Sexton" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know who was cited for this accident?

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

Was it the CG for not altering course to avoid an emminent collision, or
the PB for not paying attention?

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************

Regardless who is at fault, the private boat (stand on vessel) should have
taken action when he saw that the USCG vessel was maintaining course. The
folks in that boat seemed clueless, as did the those in the USCG boat.

Bottom line........who cares who is "at fault". This accident could and
should have been avoided.

But...........shame on you USCG.