Near Collision

[tome]

Clear as mud m\'lud

OED Machinery: Machines, works of a machine, mechanism.

A propellor is clearly a mechanism and therefore machinery.

Lloyds register marine survey lists under the heading "Machinery" :

Thrust, intermediate and screw shafting
Clutch and reversing gear with methods of control
Reduction gearing
Propeller (including spare propeller, if supplied)

see http://www.lr.org/market_sector/marine/transfer_plans.htm

You've got yourself into a bit of a corner here Simon!!

 

[tome]

The thrust of the matter

See you've slowly come round to the idea that the propellor forms part of the propulsion system. I don't expect it'll take much more than another 100 posts or so before you bow to the inevitable fact that 'mechanical propulsion' of a sailing vessel actually requires the propellor to be turning.

 

[tcm]

yup! Charter fleet insurance

Wouldn't ve surprised at all if they have no actual boat hull/gear insurance but just have third party. Or maybe do have some insurance for if the whole lot goes up in flames in the harbour, but with a massive excess of 100grand or whatever. We need an insurance expert to know this, which i think we've very clearly demonstrated ...that we aren't.

 

[halcyon]

Re: The thrust of the matter

Why can we not have one thread, not three at a time ????????????

If you check col regs, in short a motor sailing yacht must be

propelled by it's machinery and sails, it is then required to show a motoring cone.

The word " propelled " means it must have it's propeller turning, if it is not turning, it is not propelling the vessel, it is not motor sailing, therefore it is not a powered vessel.

Therefore it must be a yacht.

The end

Brian

 

[Bergman]

Re: Not quite

If the gear is in neutral then the engine is not attached to the prop shaft.

 

[jimi]

Re: Not quite

Oh dear! I now realise how foolish I've been. How could we all be so criminally negligent to set off on the high seas without several bits of essential equipment. How have seafarers coped all these years without them?

Vital prequisites before venturing forth into inhabited waters obviously are:

1) A diver a) to check for the presence of a propeller b) to see if there's a rope around it
2) An engineer to check if the gearing mechanism is all present & correct
3) A maritime lawyer to agree what each parties actions should be
4) A Fast RIB to carry these experts across to check out oncoming craft
5) Sonar detectors to detect propellor movement
6) Night vision equipment to check for heat emissions

There must be lots of other helpful equipment, perhaps we could pay a lot more tax and enjoy the benefit of a lot more policed TSS, seabed laid sonar & visual monitoring equipment.

Good grief I've just had an idea. Why does'nt a boat that is motoring but looks as if its sailing display some sort of signal to indicate that? How's that for an idea?


Oh and it might save me having to use my liferaft when the experts can't agree before collision is achieved!



Jim

 

[halcyon]

Re: Not quite

That's a great idea, how about a cone ??????????????????

Brian

 

[Guest]

Re: The thrust of the matter

Well done Brian, my thoughts exactly?

 

[peterb]

\"Funnel up\"

The point about the 1910 regs was that if you saw a vessel with its funnel up you assumed that it was under engine whether or not it also had sails. If it had its funnel up but was not under engine then it showed a signal to claim the "rights" of a sailing vessel. The 1948 regs changed this so that if the vessel looked like a sailing vessel but was actually under engine then it showed a signal to give up its "rights" as a sailing vessel.

 

[Guest]

Re: Not quite

I dont think you've quite got the hang of this yet simonc. To use your example, yes a spade/digging implement is exactly that but all the time its hanging on a hook in my shed it wont ever dig a thing, but it can still be discribed as a "digging implement". Is a knife only a knife if you are using it to cut something. Likewise an engine in a boat can be discribed as an engine/propelling machinery or what ever, it can even be running but if its not driving the boat it isn't propelling it. Using your arguement, if I leave the engine in place but dis-connect the shaft, then start the engine I must be a power driven vessel,,,I dont think so
Surely the people who wrote the Regs intended to try to differentiate between the manuoverability of the either PB's or yachts and seeing that a yacht with an engine "driving" had the same or similar manuoverability characteristics they allowed for it?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Wouldn\'t it be much easier if...

...instead of the rule saying:
(c) The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.

it said instead:
(c) The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used for propulsion.

But it doesn't.

 

[Guest]

Re: Clear as mud m\'lud

I was also quoting from the OED. Actually, I don't see how a propellor can be called a "mechanism". But it doesn't effect my analysis one jot even if it is. The question is whether the engine is machinery.

What corner?

Actually I don't think that a discussion of the semantics is very fruitful, but you seem to think that everything turns on the words "propelling machinery" and that an engine is not machinery, I was indulging you with a little discussion on why an engine is machinery and why its principal purpose is to propel the boat. But really I think that the semantics of these words is a bit of a side issue to the central point of interpreting the colregs.

 

[Guest]

Re: Not quite

"Likewise an engine in a boat can be discribed as an engine/propelling machinery or what ever, it can even be running but if its not driving the boat it isn't propelling it. Using your arguement, if I leave the engine in place but dis-connect the shaft, then start the engine I must be a power driven vessel"

We're going round in circles here a bit. I am glad that you agree that an engine can be described as "propelling machinery", which is what I was getting at. I have expressly said in earlier posts that it has to be connected to a prop shaft and propellor, so you can't say that using my argument if its disconnected from the shaft its still propelling machinery.

 

[Guest]

Re: Not quite

Well yes, you're absolutely right. It certainly is the skipper's/owner's job to make sure that the ship is seaworthy which includes making sure that vital equipment is in working order. Skipper/owner could be liable for failing to do so. That's rather stating the obvious, though.

 

[Guest]

Re: Not quite

Bollocks! Do you saw yours off? What stops it falling into the boat at the inboard end.

 

[Guest]

Re: The thrust of the matter

No, I would always have said that it forms part of the propulsion system. So what? Is that a question raised by the colregs? The only one that I am aware of is whether propelling machinery is being used.

And not another 100 posts, I'll say now that "mechanical propulsion" requires the propellor to be turning. But again, so what? Is the term "mechanical propulsion" used in Rule 3(c)???

 

[jimi]

Re: Not quite

A sail boat with a incapacitated engine is in most cases still a highly seaworthy boat, in most cases the engine is just there for convenience and manouvring in harbour to a mooring or marina berth. Witness the number of sailboats that have no engines at all!

Jim

 

[Guest]

Re: Not quite

Yes I agree that an engine connected through a gearbox / shaft/ and propellor can be discribed as "propelling machinery",but I maintain that if the engine is running but out of gear then it is not propelling the boat. So a boat in this condition is not by definition a vessel underpower, and must be discribed as a sailing vessel

 

[Guest]

Re: Not quite

My argument is that the definition of vessel under power has to be broadly viewed because a supertanker that is underway but has taken its engine out of gear cannot thereby cease to be a powered vessel. And the same interpretation of the definition should be extended to a sailing vessel that is running its engine but has taken it out of gear. I don't think that anyone here has yet tried to argue that such a supertanker is not a powered vessel. And my argument is that the same interpretation of the definition of powered vessel should be applied to a yacht.

Secondly, that is supported by the definition of sailing vessel only referring to the the machinery being "used".

 

[vyv_cox]

Ad infinitum

This discussion is fast approaching a waste of pixels. How long before we consider the situation of a yacht with sails up and a swimmer over the back kicking his legs? Or a ship of which one blade has fallen off the propeller? What about a rowing boat, a vessel under power - but without propelling machinery? How about those experimental yachts with a wind turbine and a propeller?

Perhaps Steve101 wasn't so bad after all.