tcm
...
Re: calm down calm donw= plymouth error
hah! i knew someobody would gettim eventually....
hah! i knew someobody would gettim eventually....
Power gives way to sail?
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
Mike21
Well-Known Member
Seems that tacking up a channel and forcing an overtaking or a vessel coming towards you to take avoiding action is a raggies right, yet there is nothing that I can see in the colregs that give you that right, you may alter course or reduce speed to avoid danger, but to change course by 90 degrees because it's convenient, would I would have thought breach the overtaking rule plus breach as you suggested rule 2
Also since you are supposed to stay as close as possible to the channel marks on your starboard side, tacking from side to side using the full fairway would breach that rule as well
Many seem to be questioning Brendans actions and trying to defend the raggie in question,
IMHO Brendan was stand-on vessel as according to local byelaws, he was as close to starboard as possible, the yacht was entering the fairway.
If a yacht tacks outside the fairway on the Hamble, then he is immediately the giveway vessel when he wishes to re-enter on the next leg off his tack.
One occassion when sail always gives way to power /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Also since you are supposed to stay as close as possible to the channel marks on your starboard side, tacking from side to side using the full fairway would breach that rule as well
Many seem to be questioning Brendans actions and trying to defend the raggie in question,
IMHO Brendan was stand-on vessel as according to local byelaws, he was as close to starboard as possible, the yacht was entering the fairway.
If a yacht tacks outside the fairway on the Hamble, then he is immediately the giveway vessel when he wishes to re-enter on the next leg off his tack.
One occassion when sail always gives way to power /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
bedouin
Well-Known Member
This is a wind up - right?
I can't comment on Hamble by-laws - but as far as Colregs are concerned you are seriously mistaken on several grounds
(a) Colregs do give the stand on vessel the right to change course if that is a navigational necessity - which includes tacking.
(b) Neither the presence nor extent of a channel or fairway is automatically defined by buoys.
(c) The requirement to stay as near to the stbd side as possible does not preclude tacking.
(d) As a sailing vessel if you are close-hauled and approaching the edge of the fairway you usually have no option but to tack. Bearing away would just bring you closer to the hazard, slowing down or luffing would be disasterous since if you lose steerage way in a sailing boat you have no control.
I'm not trying to defend anyone tacking up the Hamble - I wouldn't do it unless my engine were O/S. But (a) I don't know why this chap was tacking - he may have had a good reason and (b) even though he was stand on vessel (or had good cause to think he was) he managed to take avoiding action.
I'm not actually sure what your point is - even if Brendan were stand on vessel, ths sailing boat took successful avoiding action.
I can't comment on Hamble by-laws - but as far as Colregs are concerned you are seriously mistaken on several grounds
(a) Colregs do give the stand on vessel the right to change course if that is a navigational necessity - which includes tacking.
(b) Neither the presence nor extent of a channel or fairway is automatically defined by buoys.
(c) The requirement to stay as near to the stbd side as possible does not preclude tacking.
(d) As a sailing vessel if you are close-hauled and approaching the edge of the fairway you usually have no option but to tack. Bearing away would just bring you closer to the hazard, slowing down or luffing would be disasterous since if you lose steerage way in a sailing boat you have no control.
I'm not trying to defend anyone tacking up the Hamble - I wouldn't do it unless my engine were O/S. But (a) I don't know why this chap was tacking - he may have had a good reason and (b) even though he was stand on vessel (or had good cause to think he was) he managed to take avoiding action.
I'm not actually sure what your point is - even if Brendan were stand on vessel, ths sailing boat took successful avoiding action.
Ships_Cat
Well-Known Member
It is surprising that you are still around unless you are a very good swimmer, you actually own the water and have everyone else shooed away before you enter it, or else you do not practice what you say /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.
You have a very narrow and selective view as well as an inconsiderate one IF you act according to your post. Suggest you also consider the clauses covering narrow channels and avoidance of collision.
John
You have a very narrow and selective view as well as an inconsiderate one IF you act according to your post. Suggest you also consider the clauses covering narrow channels and avoidance of collision.
John
Athene V30
Well-Known Member
Could sound 'D' on fog horn - I am manouvering with difficulty or Fly flag D
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
It's good that we all know the rules and our responsibilites and can act in a fair and safe manner when on the water.
In view of the length and diversity of opinion in this post, from reasonable to intransigent, I will continue to assess the situation and take early avoiding action so that my intentions are clear, even if I am the stand on vessel.
What's the point in standing in your cockpit, that is filling with water, arguing the toss about collision regs?
In view of the length and diversity of opinion in this post, from reasonable to intransigent, I will continue to assess the situation and take early avoiding action so that my intentions are clear, even if I am the stand on vessel.
What's the point in standing in your cockpit, that is filling with water, arguing the toss about collision regs?
Mike21
Well-Known Member
Simple solution is I'll hang a couple of fishing rods of the back of the boat, display the day shapes for fishing and can just barge through and you'll just have to get out off my way(rule 18(b) (iii) )
Off course that using the same interpretation of the rules that many seem to have that colregs give you rights to behave in such a manner, although personally it would seem to me to be rather stupid interpretation
Off course that using the same interpretation of the rules that many seem to have that colregs give you rights to behave in such a manner, although personally it would seem to me to be rather stupid interpretation
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
mmmmm - thats trolling ...... what does it say about trolling ?(3d)
Mike21
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
mmmmm - thats trolling ...... what does it say about trolling ?(3d)
[/ QUOTE ]
Giveway to Billy Goats? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
mmmmm - thats trolling ...... what does it say about trolling ?(3d)
[/ QUOTE ]
Giveway to Billy Goats? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
ghost
Well-Known Member
trolling ?
keep away from the trolls, they have bad tempers, bad breath, bad hygene and long arms with clubs on the end. leave them to the elves
keep away from the trolls, they have bad tempers, bad breath, bad hygene and long arms with clubs on the end. leave them to the elves
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
the clue is the (3d) bit, unambigous directive in the colregs
bedouin
Well-Known Member
That is an unnecessarily offensive post and has earned you the distinction of being the first person I've "killfiled" on this group.
I have already said that I would not do it myself - but have given my opinion of how the rules apply to the situation (not how others might want those rules to apply).
You are not engaging in a rational discussion but rather prefer to descend to the purile and gratuitous offensiveness to those who disagree with you that has become one of the unpleasant characteristics of this group recently.
I have already said that I would not do it myself - but have given my opinion of how the rules apply to the situation (not how others might want those rules to apply).
You are not engaging in a rational discussion but rather prefer to descend to the purile and gratuitous offensiveness to those who disagree with you that has become one of the unpleasant characteristics of this group recently.
Mike21
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I have already said that I would not do it myself - but have given my opinion of how the rules apply to the situation (not how others might want those rules to apply).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you aren't being arrogant.
Think you meant you had given your interpretation of how the rules apply as opposed to the interpretation of others
Colregs are designed to prevent collisions with everyone holding some of the responsibilty to prevent them.
You have said you do take on your obligation under the regs to try and prevent a collision, which is fine, where I pernsonally disagree with you is that you still maintain it is your right to ignore the ones that don't suit, but comply with the ones that you feel gives you rights.
Nowhere do the colreg give anyone right of way as even the stand-on vessel is expected to take action to prevent a collision if necessary.
If everyone only picked the rules that suited them and ignored the rest, then there would be no point in having them .
You should also read rule 17 a responsibilities of stand-on vessel, doesn,t say anything about changing course for navigational reasons, only if it becomes necessary to avoid a collision.
I have already said that I would not do it myself - but have given my opinion of how the rules apply to the situation (not how others might want those rules to apply).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you aren't being arrogant.
Think you meant you had given your interpretation of how the rules apply as opposed to the interpretation of others
Colregs are designed to prevent collisions with everyone holding some of the responsibilty to prevent them.
You have said you do take on your obligation under the regs to try and prevent a collision, which is fine, where I pernsonally disagree with you is that you still maintain it is your right to ignore the ones that don't suit, but comply with the ones that you feel gives you rights.
Nowhere do the colreg give anyone right of way as even the stand-on vessel is expected to take action to prevent a collision if necessary.
If everyone only picked the rules that suited them and ignored the rest, then there would be no point in having them .
You should also read rule 17 a responsibilities of stand-on vessel, doesn,t say anything about changing course for navigational reasons, only if it becomes necessary to avoid a collision.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you aren't being arrogant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks! I was not being arrogant, but getting annoyed by someone who seemed to think that I was advocating doing something I and explicitly said I would not do.
[ QUOTE ]
Think you meant you had given your interpretation of how the rules apply as opposed to the interpretation of others
Colregs are designed to prevent collisions with everyone holding some of the responsibilty to prevent them.
You have said you do take on your obligation under the regs to try and prevent a collision, which is fine, where I pernsonally disagree with you is that you still maintain it is your right to ignore the ones that don't suit, but comply with the ones that you feel gives you rights.
Nowhere do the colreg give anyone right of way as even the stand-on vessel is expected to take action to prevent a collision if necessary.
If everyone only picked the rules that suited them and ignored the rest, then there would be no point in having them .
You should also read rule 17 a responsibilities of stand-on vessel, doesn,t say anything about changing course for navigational reasons, only if it becomes necessary to avoid a collision.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ultimately the interpretation of Colregs lies with the courts - they have consistently maintained the responsibility of the stand on vessel is to continue to carry out her obvious navigational intentions. You are unlikely to take my word for that - but try looking it up in a good professional guide to Colregs (e.g. Cockroft & Lameijer)
Kindly explain which rule I have ignored? The requirement "not to impede" really doesn't apply here for a number of reasons - but even if it did it would be a mutual obligation on both vessels. Furthermore being required "not to impede" another vessel does not make you give way vessel - that much IS explicitly stated in Colregs
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you aren't being arrogant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks! I was not being arrogant, but getting annoyed by someone who seemed to think that I was advocating doing something I and explicitly said I would not do.
[ QUOTE ]
Think you meant you had given your interpretation of how the rules apply as opposed to the interpretation of others
Colregs are designed to prevent collisions with everyone holding some of the responsibilty to prevent them.
You have said you do take on your obligation under the regs to try and prevent a collision, which is fine, where I pernsonally disagree with you is that you still maintain it is your right to ignore the ones that don't suit, but comply with the ones that you feel gives you rights.
Nowhere do the colreg give anyone right of way as even the stand-on vessel is expected to take action to prevent a collision if necessary.
If everyone only picked the rules that suited them and ignored the rest, then there would be no point in having them .
You should also read rule 17 a responsibilities of stand-on vessel, doesn,t say anything about changing course for navigational reasons, only if it becomes necessary to avoid a collision.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ultimately the interpretation of Colregs lies with the courts - they have consistently maintained the responsibility of the stand on vessel is to continue to carry out her obvious navigational intentions. You are unlikely to take my word for that - but try looking it up in a good professional guide to Colregs (e.g. Cockroft & Lameijer)
Kindly explain which rule I have ignored? The requirement "not to impede" really doesn't apply here for a number of reasons - but even if it did it would be a mutual obligation on both vessels. Furthermore being required "not to impede" another vessel does not make you give way vessel - that much IS explicitly stated in Colregs
Mike21
Well-Known Member
Do have a professional guide /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Don't remember mentioning anything about impeding?
As for obvious navigational intentions, think that bit difficult as what is obvious to the person carrying out his navigational intentions , may not be obvious to someone else
Don't remember mentioning anything about impeding?
As for obvious navigational intentions, think that bit difficult as what is obvious to the person carrying out his navigational intentions , may not be obvious to someone else
hlb
RIP
In the 8 years or so that I've been on these forums I am still amazed by the arragance, stupidity or ignorance of some raggies. It does not seem to matter what the situation is or the gravity. They always can find a rule that makes them stand on vessel and wobetied anyone who suggests that they actually steer the thing or use the engine. Course the engine will have been running for the last hour. Some how they think only them knows.
So to get down to brass tacks.
Theres Brendan here in his liitle 20ft boat, helping some one out. Ok he aint got all the parafinalia. But then the law says he dont need it anyway.
Yet you carry on and bend any rules you can find to insist on traveling in a straight line and Brendan had to call on the assistance of a couple of mobo's to stop you idiots ramming him or his tow. Been there seen it, got the tee shirt, grow up!!!
So to get down to brass tacks.
Theres Brendan here in his liitle 20ft boat, helping some one out. Ok he aint got all the parafinalia. But then the law says he dont need it anyway.
Yet you carry on and bend any rules you can find to insist on traveling in a straight line and Brendan had to call on the assistance of a couple of mobo's to stop you idiots ramming him or his tow. Been there seen it, got the tee shirt, grow up!!!
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
ahah hlb,
dont fall into the trap of painting all the 'raggies' and other interested 'posters' with the same brush, only one yacht was involved ....... not too bad considering.
I suspect that the chances of actually ramming brendan were minimal, as we all know the closer you get to an object the larger it gets, and so the tow rope would have become more obvious in time.
so - as again we all know, a yacht can turn on a sixpence, the whole issue, IMHO, is a fart in a gale, prolonged by a mixture of shaudenfroid and mischief making.
dont take it so seriously ...... and why agitate by calling ppl idiots ? not really helpful in any discussion, and you loose the high ground immediatly.
[no thanks] happens at sea - roll with it cos you cant plan for everything
dont fall into the trap of painting all the 'raggies' and other interested 'posters' with the same brush, only one yacht was involved ....... not too bad considering.
I suspect that the chances of actually ramming brendan were minimal, as we all know the closer you get to an object the larger it gets, and so the tow rope would have become more obvious in time.
so - as again we all know, a yacht can turn on a sixpence, the whole issue, IMHO, is a fart in a gale, prolonged by a mixture of shaudenfroid and mischief making.
dont take it so seriously ...... and why agitate by calling ppl idiots ? not really helpful in any discussion, and you loose the high ground immediatly.
[no thanks] happens at sea - roll with it cos you cant plan for everything
hlb
RIP
It's not so funny. I've had a yacht attack me from three miles a stern whilst fishing at two knots. [no thanks] nearly rammed me up the arse, with a five mile radious of water round me. Well about 90 miles to one side. I know some of them have brains, just cant figgure out which ones. Or what there teaching the lurkers!
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
maybe he approached you to wish you good day, or thought you were broken down and needed assistance - cos when else to mobos trickle on at 2 kts.
apart from that, unless your were trawling and had the correct shapes up you were the give way vessel, you gave way and no harm was done.
so all in all I would say it was an uneventful day on the water ..... did you catch any fish ?
apart from that, unless your were trawling and had the correct shapes up you were the give way vessel, you gave way and no harm was done.
so all in all I would say it was an uneventful day on the water ..... did you catch any fish ?
Ships_Cat
Well-Known Member
The raggies that promote politeness on the water apparently get the distinction of being the first person I've "killfiled" on this group because they are considered impolite on the forum /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.
Have every sympathy with you. I think that part of it is that they have a sense of insecurity and need to be close to others. Sort of like the car that doesn't want to pass but insists on riding on your rear bumper, or you are the only boat in an anchorage and someone comes along and anchors 2 boat lengths away and you either have to move or spend all night waiting for the bump.
John
Have every sympathy with you. I think that part of it is that they have a sense of insecurity and need to be close to others. Sort of like the car that doesn't want to pass but insists on riding on your rear bumper, or you are the only boat in an anchorage and someone comes along and anchors 2 boat lengths away and you either have to move or spend all night waiting for the bump.
John