"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 14 May 2006 19:15:33 -0700, "wf3h" wrote:

http://www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=184983

Coast Guard Requests Authority to Require 'Proof of Proficiency'
By Louis Gerlinger
May 3, 2006
If approved, the provision could lead to mandatory licensing for
boaters nationwide.

WASHINGTON D.C. (LNS) - The Coast Guard has asked Congress for
authority to establish a "proof of proficiency" requirement for
recreational boaters - which, officials conceded, could lead to
mandatory nationwide licensing for recreational boat operators. A
legislative change proposal, which was submitted by the Coast Guard's
Office of Boating Safety, would amend Section 4302(a) of Title 46,
United States Code, which gives the Secretary of Transportation
authority to prescribe regulations, by adding subsection (4) which
would read (The Secretary may prescribe regulations) "establishing
minimum requirements for recreational vessel operator proficiency."
California presently doesn't have a mandatory education or licensing
requirement for recreational boat operators

I hope they put some math in the test!
--
'Til next time,

John H

Essay: Your boat is 30 feet high, measuring from the waterline. The water is
10 feet deep. Clearance under the bridge is 42 feet. Which information is
missing here?

On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:20:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On 14 May 2006 19:15:33 -0700, "wf3h" wrote:

http://www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=184983

Coast Guard Requests Authority to Require 'Proof of Proficiency'
By Louis Gerlinger
May 3, 2006
If approved, the provision could lead to mandatory licensing for
boaters nationwide.

WASHINGTON D.C. (LNS) - The Coast Guard has asked Congress for
authority to establish a "proof of proficiency" requirement for
recreational boaters - which, officials conceded, could lead to
mandatory nationwide licensing for recreational boat operators. A
legislative change proposal, which was submitted by the Coast Guard's
Office of Boating Safety, would amend Section 4302(a) of Title 46,
United States Code, which gives the Secretary of Transportation
authority to prescribe regulations, by adding subsection (4) which
would read (The Secretary may prescribe regulations) "establishing
minimum requirements for recreational vessel operator proficiency."
California presently doesn't have a mandatory education or licensing
requirement for recreational boat operators

I hope they put some math in the test!
--
'Til next time,

John H

Essay: Your boat is 30 feet high, measuring from the waterline. The water is
10 feet deep. Clearance under the bridge is 42 feet. Which information is
missing here?


Yeah, or: You start on a 200 mile trip. What do you need to know to
calculate how much fuel you need?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:20:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On 14 May 2006 19:15:33 -0700, "wf3h" wrote:

http://www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=184983

Coast Guard Requests Authority to Require 'Proof of Proficiency'
By Louis Gerlinger
May 3, 2006
If approved, the provision could lead to mandatory licensing for
boaters nationwide.

WASHINGTON D.C. (LNS) - The Coast Guard has asked Congress for
authority to establish a "proof of proficiency" requirement for
recreational boaters - which, officials conceded, could lead to
mandatory nationwide licensing for recreational boat operators. A
legislative change proposal, which was submitted by the Coast Guard's
Office of Boating Safety, would amend Section 4302(a) of Title 46,
United States Code, which gives the Secretary of Transportation
authority to prescribe regulations, by adding subsection (4) which
would read (The Secretary may prescribe regulations) "establishing
minimum requirements for recreational vessel operator proficiency."
California presently doesn't have a mandatory education or licensing
requirement for recreational boat operators

I hope they put some math in the test!
--
'Til next time,

John H

Essay: Your boat is 30 feet high, measuring from the waterline. The water
is
10 feet deep. Clearance under the bridge is 42 feet. Which information is
missing here?


Yeah, or: You start on a 200 mile trip. What do you need to know to
calculate how much fuel you need?
John H

......and calculate exactly how long pretzels will remain fresh, in a sealed
bag in the galley.
A) 5 minutes
B) 2 days
C) 1 week
D) 30 seconds

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
,

John H

Essay: Your boat is 30 feet high, measuring from the waterline. The water is
10 feet deep. Clearance under the bridge is 42 feet. Which information is
missing here?


OK, I'll bite. If my the "bridge clearance" (height) of my vessel is 30
feet and the vertical clearance of a fixed span bridge is 42 feet,
there is only one possible answer- the draft of the vessel. If it
exceeds 10 feet, it's not going to make it. :-)

The other possibility would ordinarily be the state of the tide, but
that can't be a variable in this case based on the wording of the
question. Vertical clearances are measured to mean high water, not MLW,
so if you're dealing with a charted clearance of 42 feet there should
always be at least 42 feet available. Your question becomes tricky when
you have a 45 foot bridge clearance dimension for the vessel and a
42-foot charted clearance for the bridge. Definitely time to break out
the tide table and calculator before trying to pass under that same
bridge.

On 16 May 2006 10:27:26 -0700, "
wrote:

OK, I'll bite. If my the "bridge clearance" (height) of my vessel is 30
feet and the vertical clearance of a fixed span bridge is 42 feet,
there is only one possible answer- the draft of the vessel. If it
exceeds 10 feet, it's not going to make it. :-)

The other missing dimension is horizontal clearance, not usually an
issue for recreational boats, but definitely a consideration for tug
and barge combinations.

Wayne.B wrote:
On 16 May 2006 10:27:26 -0700, "
wrote:

OK, I'll bite. If my the "bridge clearance" (height) of my vessel is 30
feet and the vertical clearance of a fixed span bridge is 42 feet,
there is only one possible answer- the draft of the vessel. If it
exceeds 10 feet, it's not going to make it. :-)

The other missing dimension is horizontal clearance, not usually an
issue for recreational boats, but definitely a consideration for tug
and barge combinations.

Ah yes, right you are.

I can't think of many regional examples where a vessel that could make
the vertical clearance of a fixed span would have any difficulty with
the horizontal clearance, but now that you mention it I can think of a
handful and in certain parts of the country (with a lot more river
navigation) it is undoubtedly a much larger issue. As you say though,
not usually a problem for vessels with a beams typically less than
20-feet.

On 16 May 2006 10:27:26 -0700, "
wrote:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
,

John H

Essay: Your boat is 30 feet high, measuring from the waterline. The water is
10 feet deep. Clearance under the bridge is 42 feet. Which information is
missing here?


OK, I'll bite. If my the "bridge clearance" (height) of my vessel is 30
feet and the vertical clearance of a fixed span bridge is 42 feet,
there is only one possible answer- the draft of the vessel. If it
exceeds 10 feet, it's not going to make it. :-)

The other possibility would ordinarily be the state of the tide, but
that can't be a variable in this case based on the wording of the
question. Vertical clearances are measured to mean high water, not MLW,
so if you're dealing with a charted clearance of 42 feet there should
always be at least 42 feet available. Your question becomes tricky when
you have a 45 foot bridge clearance dimension for the vessel and a
42-foot charted clearance for the bridge. Definitely time to break out
the tide table and calculator before trying to pass under that same
bridge.

You'd probably pass the test, Chuck. But, would the average 'Joe Blow' off
the street have your knowledge?

If one of the detractors were 'the width of the bridge', I'll bet it would
get a lot of hits!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************