| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 ************************************************* |
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! ***** ****************************************** |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Isolation transformer and connection to ground | Electronics | |||
| Johnson 30 overheat warning fault | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
