Seamanship in general

[oldharry]

[ QUOTE ]


Sometimes I think people get drawn into debate because a mischevious poster has started something silly.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Or did I not put tongue firmly enough in cheek when I replied...hmm? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Shuggy]

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Or did I not put tongue firmly enough in cheek when I replied...hmm? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


OK, OK - I'm away back down my hole! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Your reply was obviously the more sensible way of dealing with it than mine. I believe that trolling ruins forums and like you, I still think that this was a troll. I'll think we'll all find that 'futtocks' is someone from another forum trying to wind us all up & have a bit of a laugh. A moderator with the ability to look at IP addresses would probably be able to match it to some wag elsewhere in here.

And as I look ironically at my own posts, I realise that now would be a good time to shut up on this subject(!)

Bye bye for good on this thread...

 

[Sneds]

Serious or not it still started a good debate, ................. better get back to the mobo forum now /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Sneds]

and no, I'm not Futtucks!

 

[Searush]

"If not duffers, won't drown"

Never taken a sailing course in my life, but read a lot, asked a lot of questions - and listened to the answers.

So in 40 years of coastal sailing (including trips across Channel, Irish Sea and Scottish Western Islands, I haven't yet got into a scrape I couldn't get out of. But there have been a few scrapes tho'!

Training is better than ignorance, but not as good as LEARNING. Trolls is fun anyway - why take things too seriously? /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Lakesailor]

[ QUOTE ]
"If not duffers, won't drown"


[/ QUOTE ] If you're in the Lakes go to Bankground Farm on the East side of Coniston (Holly Howe in Swallows and Amazons)) for afternoon tea.

An "interesting" experience. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Seagreen]

Just to reply to Oldharry's tirade, I feel the general level of common-sense is a lot worse than it was. I've nothing against shiny new gadgets, only I've no budget or tolerance for shiny gadgets that are hardly better than a bit of elbow grease and applied common sense (seamanship) and a low tolerance threshold for "johnny New-gear-no-idea". Does this make me old fashioned? Or does the coal fired laptop give me away?

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[alan006]

I find your comments interesting about not going on training courses. From what I've read by you in the past you certainly know your stuff but I'm a great believer in training courses. The reason I say this is that I think one of the most important things about doing the relevent courses is that even more experienced people can find there is some small section of theory they have not come accross.
A friend of mine (who is a bright chap) has been cruising for about 30 years is self taught and when I was doing a passage planning with him I was very surprised to find there were some things in this he was completely unaware of. By doing a training course he would have found 90% of it a piece of cake but been made aware of the bits that he needed to find out about.
I'm in no way trying to reduce the value of being self taught but beware of having small blank areas. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[yellowberd]

So Im a troll am I?
Interesting.
I am genuine and wanted to se what people thought about my point of view, I didnt realise that Id stumbled into a WafI clique.
Next question:
Should we change the IRPCS Rule 12 ?, if so why?
Comments please shipmates!

 

[ricky_s]

[ QUOTE ]

Should we change the IRPCS Rule 12 ?, if so why?
Comments please shipmates!

[/ QUOTE ]

Think both sailing vessels should do an about face, probably the only way to avoid a collision. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[oldharry]

[ QUOTE ]
J I've no budget or tolerance for shiny gadgets that are hardly better than a bit of elbow grease and applied common sense (seamanship) and a low tolerance threshold for "johnny New-gear-no-idea". Does this make me old fashioned? Or does the coal fired laptop give me away?

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and I get as impatient as you when some newby spoils my day by doing something covered on the first page of any book about sailing.

But for every example of low standards, discourtesy, or downright hooliganism, there are dozens of other examples courteous, knowledgeable and seamanlike skippers.

My argument is that in every 100 skippers there will be 1 or 2 who are 'duffers'

If theres only a hundred boats in your locality, the duffers only show up when they make spectacular mistakes.

If, as in Chi harbour there are 8000 boats, then there are going to be 1000 or more duffers; and if half of them turn out one fine saturday afternoon...... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[Searush]

[ QUOTE ]
(cut)I'm in no way trying to reduce the value of being self taught but beware of having small blank areas. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! I completely agree. I learn on these threads (& other fora) pretty well every day - and every time & go out on a boat (including ferry trips!).

What I was trying to point out was that attending/ passing a course is only a starting point - not the end of the road. I believe that sailing, like life, is about LEARNING all the time. Incidentally, I was in senior management development in a former life!

By the way, thank you for the compliment, or have I just reached the point where I can fool some of the people some of the time?
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[yellowberd]

Well its gone a bit quiet ref rule 12,
You all seem like intelligent fellows so come on lets hear your thoughts.
By the way I'm Paul

 

[tillergirl]

On a strict point of order, this is the Classic Boat forum. The only itemised Rules we follow are:

Rule A We don't know the Collision Regs by their numbers here. That's for pendants. If you were to say should we change the Rules pertaining to Sailing Vessels, then we know what you are talking about and would say Rule B applies.

Rule B On this forum, we appreciate that those parts of the Collison Regs are for those situations where the risk of collison is likely to exist. Given the inordinate level of responsibility applying to the custodianship of a classic yacht (aka MAB), we avoid creating the risk of collision thereby rendering the Rules to an issue of secondary consideration. This is unlike other forums, such as the MOBO people who, because there is nothing else to do, spend a quite inordinant time worrying about whether they are stand-on or not or whether if they do nothing they will clear the bows of the Emma Mersk with 15 feet to spare, when a simple 2 degree course shift 50 litres of diesel earlier - um no sorry that's a bit close, 100 litres of diesel (that's about half a mile init?) could have allowed them to pass behind (Oh dear must never do that, think of the loss of face) and then enjoy their time au water. Should, however, reverting to the first sentence, you persist in wanting a view then Rule C will apply on this forum

Rule C If it ain't broke, don't fix it

There is one final Rule

Rule D If something looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, seems like a troll and issues denials, then there is a least a chance that it is a troll.

 

[Coomkeen]

HiYa Paul.

Now 12 I can understand.
No problem there, comes after 11, integer-increment-wise.

But 'rule', well that's got me foxed.
Sorry.

Ron

 

[yellowberd]

None of you are getting the point.......
That is to say, Rule (pertaining to sailing vessels) was written many years ago and really did not take into account small highly manoeverable yachts.
However these little terrors continue to get themselves run down like lemmings.
Why?, because they only really read that rule and not the whole book. or they were below making tea. " Safe navigational watch doesn't apply to me, I'm only out for the day"
I'm not a troll, but am a bit concerned about the general attitude I'm seeing.
Over to you.......

 

[tillergirl]

If you want a serious debate, you'll get one but you don't get it without actually making some attempt to make a point. Simply saying do you think we should change the rules and if so why isn't, in my view, a way of starting a useful debate. Your last does at least hint at what you're getting at. So to give you something - I don't really think the manoeverability of yachts is relevant. I also don't think there is any evidence that people get run down because they haven't read the whole book - that might be the case but where's the evidence? Isn't it just as likely that collisions have happened because of errors of judgment as well as poor watchkeeping. People have accidents on the road because of poor lookout - it doesn't mean they haven't read the rules or that the rules are inadequate; it means they made a mistake.

 

[Lakesailor]

Judging by some recent "accidents" it's the professional seamen who are more at fault.

 

[yellowberd]

I was trying to get you to think about why the rule should be amended but I was obviously being to subtle.
Shall we talk about somthing else?

 

[yellowberd]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want a serious debate, you'll get one but you don't get it without actually making some attempt to make a point. Simply saying do you think we should change the rules and if so why isn't, in my view, a way of starting a useful debate. Your last does at least hint at what you're getting at. So to give you something - I don't really think the manoeverability of yachts is relevant. I also don't think there is any evidence that people get run down because they haven't read the whole book - that might be the case but where's the evidence? Isn't it just as likely that collisions have happened because of errors of judgment as well as poor watchkeeping. People have accidents on the road because of poor lookout - it doesn't mean they haven't read the rules or that the rules are inadequate; it means they made a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a scientific proven fact that women at sea are unlucky
so there