Col Reg Posts are Pointless?

mmmm - and rest assured about ferries - well english channel ones anyway. so long as you have a radar reflector you can be confident they will see you nowadays min 5 - 6 miles away with modern radar, normally 8 - 10 miles ........ (except in v rough wx, e.g. f10), and normally all bridge watchkeepers have a masters certificate so they are not the shitheads most ppl think they are /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
I think they start to deteriorate when people ride in on their hobby horse without having bothered to read the preceding thread. Quite often there will be a very specific situation under discussion about two small pleasure boats in a local area and then someone chips in with the "wouldn't do that in front of 250,000 tons of steel" - course you wouldn't, it wouldn't get up the Hamble!

The other thing is people start including their own scenarios to support their own argument and choose to ignore the situation under discussion.

If you can sort out the sensible posts from those made by people just looking for an argument, they can be informative and useful.
 
If this thread related to a specific situation I apologize for changing tack.

It is, of course, essential that everybody behaves in a predictable manner and follows the col regs. I would not advocate anything other. My original post was intended to identify a situation where I would consider it appropriate for a yacht to keep clear. Not zig-zag around, not ignore or re-write the col regs, but take early action so as not to impede another vessel. My scenario involved a typical channel crossing involving maybe one or two corrections to course in order to avoid a vessel in each of the "lanes". John suggests that this is wrong and as a professional seaman I am interested in his comments. What did disappoint me was the assertion that I can't be bothered to learn the IRPCS and that I consider those that do learn them to be idiots.
 
Steve, please do not think that anything that I have written was intended to imply that you are an idiot, or that you disregard the IRPCS etc etc. Perhaps I was not as considered as I usually try to be in my post, but there are a couple of characters on YBW who I have to bite my tongue fairly hard over when they post some comments, including that they disregard the Col Regs. Rest assured you are not one of them, and I apologise if I upset you in any way.
 
Thanks John. Rough day yesterday, so I was most likely a little sensitive.

I suppose this topic highlights the problems of text only communication. Inevitably a discussion takes the form of a series of statements and, unless one has a better command of the written language than I, and more time to consider responses than a crafty dabble during the working day allows, a post can easily appear argumentative. Can't see the internet ever taking over from a beer in the pub as the perfect forum for discussion /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I suspect that we are both handling this yacht/ship interaction in a similar manner, just that my post makes the avoiding action sound a little previous and, dare I say it, yours just a tad more on the last minute side.

Would be good to catch up with you sometime this year and I'll buy the beers, in atonement for my argumentative prose.
 
Well Graham, your post seems to have proved it's point. It's become another Col Regs discussion, which is not a discussion, but in the words of Monty Python a "mere gainsaying of anothers position" (or something like that, I was there, but memory is a funny thing).
 
Seriously, everyone seem to think that people are entrenched in their positions.... well not all of us.... I have remained open minded, and have reviewed my own strategies as a result of colregs discussions on here....

I do believe that I know the colregs sufficiently well, but am always open to understanding better 'sensible' interpretations and risk avoidance strategies...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Can't see the internet ever taking over from a beer in the pub as the perfect forum for discussion .


[/ QUOTE ]

Even on Scuttlebut I cant see anyone arguing against that....
 
Not sure if I would agree with you on the major problem with these discussions.
Seems more because when you have differing interpretations, their is a tendency not to explain why they may be correct , but instead get rather dogmatic over their replies.
 
Seems to generate into" I'm right cos I told you so " at times , which kind of defeats the purpose of the debate in the first place.
 
certain situations are unambiguous, certian situations are ambiguous depending on the circumstances, and as I have said on one previous occasion, some ppl like to argue a point for no reason at all.
the first instance is not worthy of debate, the second if the partucular circumstance is understood by all debaters (not those coming in half way through not having read the previous posts), and the third is a prat -IMHO
so unless you can be more specific as to where your sensibilities have been bruised, this conversation is more of a waste of time than the threads header
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top