CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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


Hmmmmm. "Proof of proficiency" sounds like a different concept than
"slept through a boating course one afternoon in order to obtain a
'minimally educated' certificate (currently required in about 40
states)".

If the Coast Guard would simply require that boaters need to get an
attendance certificate for a USCG Aux or Power Squadron course (many of
which are one-day events), this is already being handled on the state
level in almost every state where there's an appreciable amount of
water upon which to boat. I'm surprised that CA is so far behind the
trend. The USCG proposal isn't very necesary if it is simply for more
education.

However, if the USCG wants to establish some actual standards of
"proficiency" to demostrate *capability* as well as basic education,
I'd be 100% in favor of that. Some guy who is totally clueless about
how to operate his boat is a hazard to everybody around him- regardless
whether or not he can parrot "red, right, returning" and make a lucky
guess about basic COLREGS.

Another benefit; this program might eventually cut down on the number
of those licensed masters who should really have their certificates
printed on toilet paper. The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.
It might be tough to convince the USCG that a boater who just purchased
a boat six or eight months ago (and for whom the USCG has the original
"proficiency" record) has logged enough sea time to test for a license.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.


Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:11:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
. ..
On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.


Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?


You keep a log. It's done on the "honor system".



Great. So in other words, nothing. That's not much different than the way
boats are sold to yahoos too dumb to operate a soup spoon.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:11:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?

Don't know about you but I have logs of one sort or another for just
about all of my time on the boat.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:11:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?

Don't know about you but I have logs of one sort or another for just
about all of my time on the boat.


A record that could be faked, in other words. If the Coast Guard accepts
this form of documentation, it would be pretty much the same as their doing
nothing at all.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:26:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:11:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
m...
On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.


Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?


You keep a log. It's done on the "honor system".



Great. So in other words, nothing. That's not much different than the way
boats are sold to yahoos too dumb to operate a soup spoon.


Uh... Take the test that the hours qualify you to take and then tell
us how you did on it.

Log Books on boats are legal documents and are often used in court as
evidence to decide cases.


Just one comment: Exxon Valdez :-)

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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

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

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"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?

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?

Your boat got an hour meter?

No. But, I've been handling boats for over 40 years. It's a real problem.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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! *****
******************************************

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"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

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

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?

How it's (Bush's/Clinton's/the Trilateral Commission's/the Jews') fault
that your boat hit the bridge.

Or, the mob skimped on the tape measures used while building the bridge.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.

Statistics, no. Evidence, yes.

For example: One year not so long ago I was scheduled to give seminars
on various topics at a local boat show. I showed up to the seminar room
about 15 minutes early, long enough to catch the last portion of the
seminar that preceded mine. A representative from one of the license
schools was pitching his program and answering questions about
qualifying to
sit for an OUPV or 100-ton exam. About every third answer was, "As long
as you're willing to write it down, it's going to be accepted. Nobody
is going to challenge your self certification because they aren't going
to be able to prove that you *don't* have the time you claim." He gave
some pretty far fetched justifications for "rounding up" if hours on a
particualr day didn't actually qualify. To his credit, he did tell one
party who admitted that he had only been boating for 90 days and never
previously owned a boat of any type that it would probably be "too
early" to try to qualify for the exam.

I specifically know of individuals who sat for the exam with between
500-1000 engine hours on their first and only boats and no prior
experience. I asked one, how did you get the sea time to qualify? His
frank answer, "I lied."

Talk to nearly any one of the Captain's R US license mills about
qualification, and you will most likely have an opinion similar to my
own.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

On 15 May 2006 19:22:52 -0700, "
wrote:

A representative from one of the license
schools was pitching his program and answering questions about
qualifying to
sit for an OUPV or 100-ton exam. About every third answer was, "As long
as you're willing to write it down, it's going to be accepted. Nobody
is going to challenge your self certification because they aren't going
to be able to prove that you *don't* have the time you claim." He gave
some pretty far fetched justifications for "rounding up" if hours on a
particualr day didn't actually qualify. To his credit, he did tell one
party who admitted that he had only been boating for 90 days and never
previously owned a boat of any type that it would probably be "too
early" to try to qualify for the exam.

I specifically know of individuals who sat for the exam with between
500-1000 engine hours on their first and only boats and no prior
experience. I asked one, how did you get the sea time to qualify? His
frank answer, "I lied."

Talk to nearly any one of the Captain's R US license mills about
qualification, and you will most likely have an opinion similar to my
own.

To lie on your application, or to actively encourage others to lie, is
probably a felony criminal action. It also demeans the experience
level of owner/operators for you to imply that the practice is
widespread. All of the owner/operators that I know have thousands of
hours experience behind the wheel. I have not yet documented my own
time or sat for the exam but I know for a fact that I've accumulated
more than 1500 engine hours in the last 6 years, and thousands more in
years prior.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.


Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?


And how does hours on the water translate to good experience? Lots of
people spend hours a day on driving their cars, and they are still
incompetent.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On 15 May 2006 19:22:52 -0700, "
wrote:

A representative from one of the license
schools was pitching his program and answering questions about
qualifying to
sit for an OUPV or 100-ton exam. About every third answer was, "As long
as you're willing to write it down, it's going to be accepted. Nobody
is going to challenge your self certification because they aren't going
to be able to prove that you *don't* have the time you claim." He gave
some pretty far fetched justifications for "rounding up" if hours on a
particualr day didn't actually qualify. To his credit, he did tell one
party who admitted that he had only been boating for 90 days and never
previously owned a boat of any type that it would probably be "too
early" to try to qualify for the exam.

I specifically know of individuals who sat for the exam with between
500-1000 engine hours on their first and only boats and no prior
experience. I asked one, how did you get the sea time to qualify? His
frank answer, "I lied."

Talk to nearly any one of the Captain's R US license mills about
qualification, and you will most likely have an opinion similar to my
own.

To lie on your application, or to actively encourage others to lie, is
probably a felony criminal action. It also demeans the experience
level of owner/operators for you to imply that the practice is
widespread. All of the owner/operators that I know have thousands of
hours experience behind the wheel. I have not yet documented my own
time or sat for the exam but I know for a fact that I've accumulated
more than 1500 engine hours in the last 6 years, and thousands more in
years prior.

You can accumulate an hour a day for a million days, and you won't have
qualifying sea time.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

On 15 May 2006 23:37:35 -0700, "
wrote:

You can accumulate an hour a day for a million days, and you won't have
qualifying sea time.

That's true but it will also make you at least 2,740 years old.

The fact is that many, many people who are serious boaters can
accumulate legitimate amounts of sea time without lying about it.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 15 May 2006 23:37:35 -0700, "
wrote:

You can accumulate an hour a day for a million days, and you won't have
qualifying sea time.

That's true but it will also make you at least 2,740 years old.

The fact is that many, many people who are serious boaters can
accumulate legitimate amounts of sea time without lying about it.


Since I am a part-time serious boater (interest comes and goes), I probably
do not have enough legit hours in the past 3 years to qualify for the
captain's license requirements. A few years ago I did have enough hours
either crewing or piloting and planned to take the course while in Florida
one winter, but decided to forget about it. I was thinking of doing fishing
charters on the Egg Harbor, but was convinced by others that I'd regret it.

I can handle the boats and know the basic rules, but I still consider myself
to be a somewhat "experienced amateur" overall.

RCE

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 15 May 2006 08:22:11 -0700, "
wrote:

The vast majority of
pleasure boaters self certifying sea time to sit for the OUPV or
100-ton license do so with a wink, and a nod, and would also suffer
from a guilty conscience if they were so endowed.

I've heard you say that before, any supporting statistics or evidence?
Certainly anyone who has been boating for half a lifetime or more
should have no problem documenting sufficient hours, same for anyone
who uses their boat several times a week for 5 to 10 years.


Pray tell, how would all these boaters "document" their hours?


And how does hours on the water translate to good experience? Lots of
people spend hours a day on driving their cars, and they are still
incompetent.


Exactly. And, keeping a log is (if you think about it a bit), sort of like
someone who's trying to learn a skill from another person who's doing it
incorrectly. Practicing the wrong thing gets you nowhere.
Documenting....what? We've all seen boaters who behave like pigs. If they
keep logs, are they of any value?

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On 15 May 2006 23:37:35 -0700, "
wrote:

You can accumulate an hour a day for a million days, and you won't have
qualifying sea time.

That's true but it will also make you at least 2,740 years old.

The fact is that many, many people who are serious boaters can
accumulate legitimate amounts of sea time without lying about it.

I agree that many can.

I know from observation that others simply lie, or count every time
they move the boat from its slip to the adjacent fuel dock and back as
a "day" of experience. One of the red flags that I overheard in the
seminar was the assurance that the instructors at the school (with a
vested interest in qualifying as many people as possible) would be
happy to "help" fill out the sea service form for interested
applicants.

Qualification requires 360 days of experience, (90 of those days must
be within the last 3 years) with a "day" being defined as no less than
a single 4-hour watch underway. Being underway for 8 hours doesn't
qualify for "two days" in a single 24-hour period. Swinging around the
anchor doesn't count, moored at the resort guest dock for three days
doesn't count for "three days", etc. My comment on engine hours is
based on the fact that in the extremely unlikely event that a boater
always ran for *exactly* four hours after starting the engine, the
minimum number of engine hours required to meet the requirement of 360
4-hour days would be 1,440. No way does any boater without previous
experience and anything less than 1440 hours on his first ever boat
qualify, at all, under even the most liberal interpretation of sea
service. Since a lot of boating runs will be less than 4-hours in
length and therefore not qualify at all and some will be longer than 4
hours but only count for a single "day", it would probably take most
people somewhere close to double that 1440 engine hour number to
actually, legitimately, meet the sea service requirement. For a lot of
casual boaters, that's almost 30 years of weekend and summer vacation
cruising.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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.

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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! *****
******************************************

CG may request 'proof of proficiency' for recreational boaters
 

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.