|
Who's fault is it?
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 ************************************************* |
Who's fault is it?
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:41:55 GMT, 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 *********************************************** ** Given no further info, I'd be blaming the CG. Thanks for the post. 'Twas interesting. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Who's fault is it?
Great video. I believe that if you see a vessel within your range of
view (12:00 to 4:00) it is the captain's responsiblity to yield to that vessel, as that vessel has the right of way. If that is correct, then the Coast Guard would be issued a citation. |
Who's fault is it?
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. |
Who's fault is it?
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. Both would probably be held responsible. As to the VHF, sometimes on weekends and during derbies the VHF is turned off, there is so much bad talk on 16. Swearing, racist comments, etc. |
Who's fault is it?
Calif Bill wrote: 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. Both would probably be held responsible. As to the VHF, sometimes on weekends and during derbies the VHF is turned off, there is so much bad talk on 16. Swearing, racist comments, etc. Sorry to hear that profane racists have taken over VHF down there. Is 16 your emergency hailing channel or are you in one of the CG districts where the emergency hailing channel has been moved to 9? The Coast Guard still jumps pretty quickly on Ch16 violators up this way, warning them to take their traffic to another channel. VHF, partcularly Ch 16, is such an important safety consideration that no bunch of mouthy drunks making profane or racist comments should be allowed to disrupt it. |
Who's fault is it?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net... Both would probably be held responsible. As to the VHF, sometimes on weekends and during derbies the VHF is turned off, there is so much bad talk on 16. Swearing, racist comments, etc. Besides, realistically, unless the small boat had a 100 watt amp and external speaker system attached to the radio, he would probably never hear the call in a small, open, boat clipping along as seen in the film. RCE |
Who's fault is it?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:41:55 GMT, 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 ************************************************ * Clearly the CG failed to yield right of way to a vessel forward of his starboard beam. The other guy was looking in the direction of the priviledged vessel on HIS starboard beam ... as he should. There may be some contributary negligence since you should always be on the lookout in all directions but it is not the main issue. I think Uncle Sam owes this guy a new boat and an apology. The captain of the CG boat should be sailing a desk. That's my take also. He screwed up, big time. RCE |
Who's fault is it?
"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. |
Who's fault is it?
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. |
Who's fault is it?
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:41:55 GMT, 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 ************************************************ * Clearly the CG failed to yield right of way to a vessel forward of his starboard beam. The other guy was looking in the direction of the priviledged vessel on HIS starboard beam ... as he should. There may be some contributary negligence since you should always be on the lookout in all directions but it is not the main issue. I think Uncle Sam owes this guy a new boat and an apology. The captain of the CG boat should be sailing a desk. Agreed on all points. |
Who's fault is it?
"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. |
Who's fault is it?
" 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. |
Who's fault is it?
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 ************************************************* |
Who's fault is it?
"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. |
Who's fault is it?
wrote in message oups.com... Calif Bill wrote: 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. Both would probably be held responsible. As to the VHF, sometimes on weekends and during derbies the VHF is turned off, there is so much bad talk on 16. Swearing, racist comments, etc. Sorry to hear that profane racists have taken over VHF down there. Is 16 your emergency hailing channel or are you in one of the CG districts where the emergency hailing channel has been moved to 9? The Coast Guard still jumps pretty quickly on Ch16 violators up this way, warning them to take their traffic to another channel. VHF, partcularly Ch 16, is such an important safety consideration that no bunch of mouthy drunks making profane or racist comments should be allowed to disrupt it. No, it is still 16 here. But when the derbies are going, seems to bring out the worst. They are on it so much, the CG probably can not get a word in. But since all the ship traffic is on 13, we monitor that, if we have it on. |
Who's fault is it?
"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. |
Who's fault is it?
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. |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
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 both skippers are responsible for avoiding a collision, the skipper of the little runabout could be charged with a felony simply for being where he was. How many legal rights do you retain when you are conducting an illegal activity? Let's not forget that there is currently a 400-yard security zone surrounding all commerical, cruise ship, and military (i.e. the Coast Guard) vessels. No vessel shall approach to within 100 yards under any circumstance, and if within 400 yards speed must be reduced to the minimum amount required to maintain steerage. This was a stupid accident from all sides, and both skippers should have taken action to avoid the collision. Once the lawyers get involved and the stench starts to cloud up over the issue of who was at "fault" here, the point that the little runabout was operating illegally by aproaching the CG vessel at speed would certainly become a consideration. |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
|
Who's fault is 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. |
Who's fault is it?
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. |
Who's fault is it?
"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 |
Who's fault is it?
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "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 BTW: It plugs right into to VHF radio and no wiring is needed. I think it comes in black also. ;-) |
Who's fault is it?
"Chuck Tribolet" wrote in message ... It mounts to the top of the console rail with two SS hose clamps. Completely out of the way. I'd have to mount it inside the rail...or else my console cover wouldn't fit. |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
wrote in message news: I agree, if this is the law, it gets broken a hundred times a day, whenever the CG goes out cruising down the channel. Are you really saying all boats have to reduce to idle speed whever a coast guard boat passes them in the channel or approaches from any direction in open water? I spent 6 years in the CG and I NEVER heard that we had any special right to ignore COLREGs. In fact we were supposed to the the ones presenting the perfect example, held to a higher standard than the other riff raff on the water. We always assumed the other boaters were clueless and were plesantly surprised when the few did actually understand their responsibility. The "Rules" are broken, bent, misused, ignored, complied with to the letter/selectively on a daily basis by all people with all degrees of experience, knowledge, size, type, intent, etc............ The good news is that "no harm, no foul". The bad news is that quite frequently there is harm and in 99.9% of the cases, when this happens, BOTH individuals responsible, share the responsibility. In the case shown here, you can pick out majors errors on the part of both parties. My own feeling..... rather than place blame, look for the errors and add them to your constantly growing inventory of things to avoid/ watch for. otn |
Who's fault is it?
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "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 Are they amplified? No. But they are certainly louder than the built in speaker on your VHF. They also come in a 5 1/2" size. |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
wrote: On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:20:32 GMT, otnmbrd wrote: the point that the little runabout was operating illegally by aproaching the CG vessel at speed would certainly become a consideration. G Think you're pushing the intent of the law here. I can just see someones defense now...... Why did you continue to try and run from the CG patrol boat?... Why, your Honor, I was just trying to obey the law and maintain a 400yd security zone! There's plenty of blame to go around in this incident. I agree, if this is the law, it gets broken a hundred times a day, whenever the CG goes out cruising down the channel. Are you really saying all boats have to reduce to idle speed whever a coast guard boat passes them in the channel or approaches from any direction in open water? Actually, I was wrong. The zone extends for 500 yards- the 100 yard *forbidden zone* and an *additional* 400 yards steerage way only. One cite: http://www.sailingusa.info/anti-terrorism.htm |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
wrote in message oups.com... Actually, I was wrong. The zone extends for 500 yards- the 100 yard *forbidden zone* and an *additional* 400 yards steerage way only. One cite: http://www.sailingusa.info/anti-terrorism.htm You may be wrong in another area. The "cite" specifies Naval vessels not USCG |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
otnmbrd wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Actually, I was wrong. The zone extends for 500 yards- the 100 yard *forbidden zone* and an *additional* 400 yards steerage way only. One cite: http://www.sailingusa.info/anti-terrorism.htm You may be wrong in another area. The "cite" specifies Naval vessels not USCG Funny; these two references only from that link only mentiono "military" vessels, without specifying the branch of service: Security Zone Around Military Vessels A 500 yard security zone around military vessels is in effect. All other vessels are prohibited from entering the inner 100 yard zone and there is another 400 yard zone where traffic may only go as fast as to make steerage. (A total of 500 yards or about 1/4 nautical mile.) Boaters who fail to abide by these limitations may be charged with a felony. See Military Vessel Warning Notice (and) DO NOT approach military, cruise line or commercial shipping. Keep your distance. There is a 100-yard security zone around military, cruise line and many commercial vessels. |
Who's fault is it?- (something we have all overlooked........)
|
Who's fault is it?
You could do that.
And you don't need an amplified speaker. If you get an SH 5" remote speaker, it will be WAY TOO LOUD just run off the radio's remote speaker cord. I suspect it's more about getting the speaker up in your face than watts. "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Chuck Tribolet" wrote in message ... It mounts to the top of the console rail with two SS hose clamps. Completely out of the way. I'd have to mount it inside the rail...or else my console cover wouldn't fit. |
Who's fault is it?
IF your VHF has an RCA plug for the extension speaker. My Standard Horizon doesn't. My Raymarine didn't.
And I think it's identical to the West Marine except for the badge. " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "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 BTW: It plugs right into to VHF radio and no wiring is needed. I think it comes in black also. ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com