Cone poll

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Not required under inland rules.

Rule 25: Lights and shapes.
—INLAND—
Lights and Shapes
RULE 25
(e) A vessel proceeding under sail when also being propelled by
machinery shall exhibit forward where it can best be seen a conical shape,
apex downward. A vessel of less than 12 meters in length is not required to
exhibit this shape, but may do so.

The newer Inland Rules [1980] exempt a sailing vessel of less than 12 meters from the requirement to carry a day shape (cone, apex down) when also being propelled by machinery.

-This rule adopts the conical shape (apex down) instead of the previous single black ball dayshape to indicate a sailing vessel propelled by both sail and power. This change to a use of a cone pointed down reduces the confusion of a black ball indicating at anchor.



Rule 30: Anchored Vessels and Vessels Aground

—INLAND—
Lights and Shapes
RULE 30
Anchored Vessels and Vessels Aground
(a) A vessel at anchor shall exhibit where it can best be seen:
(i) in the fore part, an all-round white light or one ball; and
(ii) at or near the stern and at a lower level than the light prescribed in
subparagraph (i), an all-round white light.
(b) A vessel of less than 50 meters in length may exhibit an all-round white
light where it can best be seen instead of the lights prescribed in paragraph
(a) of this Rule.
(c) A vessel at anchor may, and a vessel of 100 meters or more in length
shall, also use the available working or equivalent lights to illuminate her
decks.

-The dayshapes and lights prescribed for anchoring are not required in the new Inland version for vessels less than 20 meters long when "…at anchor in a special anchorage area designated by the Secretary [of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating]." That means they are required when not is a special anchorage area designate by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

-The lights and shapes prescribed for vessels aground are not required of vessels less than 12 meters in length under the new Inland Rules (less than 7 meters in the International Rules).

-Only significant difference is the requirement for vessels longer than 100 meters to use working lights to illuminate their decks.

Reference: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...and-rules-road

Part C: Lights and Shapes Rule 25.

"Most foreign nations use the International Rules for their internal waters, but the United States has maintained its own set of regulations, in fact, until 24 December 1980, three sets of rules govern U. S. internal waters—the Inland, Great Lakes, and Western Rivers rules.

These U. S. internal rules have variations among them and significant differences with the International Rules of the Road. Conflicts between the international and U. S. internal rules became pronounced when the new International Rules went into effect in 1977. The 72 COLREGS, having the status of a binding treaty rather than merely of an international agreement, provide in Rule 1 that a nation tan have "special rules" for "roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes, or inland waterways." They contain a specific binding requirement that "such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these [72 COLREGS] Rules." Thus, the modernization and consolidation of the three sets of U. S. internal rules became mandatory.

Another consequence of the 72 COLREGS is the replacement of the previous "boundary lines" which had separated waters governed by inland and international rules. Generally, the 72 COLREGS demarcation lines are closer inshore than the old ones. This is necessary to prevent the intrusion of non-complying U. S. rules into international waters.

On 24 December 1980, then-President Jimmy Carter signed PL 96-591, The Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980. These new internal rules will become effective on the 24th of this month for all U. S. waters, except the Great Lakes where an effective date will be separately promulgated following coordination with Canada.

The format of the new U. S. Inland Navigational Rules follows that of the 72 COLREGS, even to the extent of omitting Rule 28. Major changes from the old internal rules were necessary to bring the U. S. internal rules into close conformity with the international rules.

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

Seriously? Wow. Then read it again. That's not what I'm stating at all.

I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I think it was perhaps the surprise you indicated that there was such a thing as a cone in the first place. It is certainly part of RYA Day Skipper in the UK, but I guess a navigation course isn’t concentrating on quite the same things.

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

I'm saying that whether I fly a flag, see a flag, or not, this would likely be the mindset of the people who don't, ...because it makes sense, ....and I follow the colregs.

No you don’t (Sorry, couldn’t resist that). But surely a motorsailer is pretty much built to fly a cone, isn’t it? I thought that was what they were for.

You mention that we generally know when we’re about to hit someone. Most of the time we do, for sure. But I doubt that many of those result in collisions. The times I’m worried are when one (or both) of us aren’t aware of a possible collision situation. In those cases the one who is paying attention could use as much information as possible. A cone is a very significant piece of information in a potential collision situation.

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

To make it perfectly clear:

Be forewarned, a flag will not protect you!

Get it now?

That’s kind of how I read your first post. It reads from here as if, since a flag won’t protect you, there is no point in it (and thus it’s irrelevant whether anyone has one or uses it). That’s definitely not the case.

A flag WILL protect you, but not in every situation or when there are sufficient idiots around. Neither can it be relied upon instead of good seamanship. It’s not a guarantee of anything (and neither is a cone). But flying it is not only required, it’s very likely to help to protect you.

[CptCrunchie]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

That’s kind of how I read your first post. It reads from here as if, since a flag won’t protect you, there is no point in it (and thus it’s irrelevant whether anyone has one or uses it). That’s definitely not the case.

I can't believe we are having this as a discussion.

That's only how you are reading it. Example: Dive flags run about 50/50; 50% of the time, people follow the colregs and stay the limit away, and 50% of the time, they infringe, to the point where lives are put in jeopardy. There is no colregs that say I need someone to stay on watch, yet I do. A flag sheds liability, but that is all. Still, that is enough reason to use them, but not to rely on them.

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

A flag WILL protect you, but not in every situation or when there are sufficient idiots around. Neither can it be relied upon instead of good seamanship. It’s not a guarantee of anything (and neither is a cone). But flying it is not only required, it’s very likely to help to protect you.

Use it? Absolutely! But if a flag doesn't protect you in every situation, then it simply doesn't protect you, ...so don't rely on it. What's hard about that to understand?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

...
There is no colregs that say I need someone to stay on watch, yet I do.
...

Rule 5:
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing ...

[CptCrunchie]

Originally Posted by StuM

Rule 5:
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing ...

Oh, please. If you want to quote regs to make a point, at least read the headings first.



I'm at anchor, with divers in the water. I don't need someone onboard, but I do because of people not understanding or abiding a dive flag.

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

Use it? Absolutely! But if a flag doesn't protect you in every situation, then it simply doesn't protect you, ...so don't rely on it. What's hard about that to understand?

I understand what you're saying now. It's just a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'protect'. I protect my wife and kids, but I can't guarantee they won't be killed by an earthquake or road accident or terminal disease. I am still protecting them, even though I cannot give a cast iron guarantee that they will never be harmed. I am confident that they are substantially safer than, for example, if they were living in a house I hadn't over-engineered to stand up well in an earthquake.

It seems that you are using the word 'protect' to mean something substantially more certain "in every situation".

I'm not going to "rely" exclusively on a flag nor a cone. I never suggested that anyone should. But I will fly them as appropriate, both for my safety and because it's required.

[CptCrunchie]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

It seems that you are using the word 'protect' to mean something substantially more certain "in every situation"

Nope.

So, let's try this.

You are out moose hunting. For protection and to kill the moose, you are carrying a big powerful rifle.

You see a moose. He sees you. He starts to charge you. You raise your rifle and pull the trigger. But the rifle doesn't fire. "What the ....heck? This is a rifle! It's supposed to protect me! Doesn't the moose see it is a rifle?"

A thousand times, the rifle has worked, and the one time it doesn't, .....you die. And sadly, the level of intelligence between the two scenarios is identical.

Now tell me how you will protect yourself.

I will always carry a big powerful rifle when I go moose hunting, but I'm sure not going to rely on it for protection. That is, was, and will always be my point.

The main reason for flying a ball, cone or flag - especially if it is misunderstood, ignored or obstinance sets in - is to shield ourselves from the liability in the event something happens. That is the only protection there is.

In post 15 you wrote:
"Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t bother flying it because there are idiots around who don’t recognize it?"

What a F**ing ridiculous thing to post! I never stated that, nor suggested it, not even remotely. In fact, you brought it up. I said I used them, and I referenced a dive flag as an example. Then I criticized people who don't abide them, so as to put people in danger, to the point where I questioned how much weight the flag actually had, ....especially if I was dead. The liability, sure, but otherwise? None.

I admitted that I didn't know what a cone was, even though we had a motorsailer. And if I didn't know, I wondered how many others didn't know either.

This is what prompted the poll. And looking at the numbers - given this is a poll of 33 people - there really is only 2 answers; either you use one or you don't. And out of the 33 people who responded, 7 said they did. That's a little over 20%, or 1 in 5! And only 6 out of 33 didn't know what one was, but ...the rest - some 81% - did.

While this is a mere sampling, the results are substantive. If we applied those same numbers to other flags and markers - like the dive flag - we are all in serious kaka, especially us divers.

I believe you made more out of this than I did, but I'm done with it now. I hope you are too.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

Oh, please. If you want to quote regs to make a point, at least read the headings first.

Attachment 188263

I'm at anchor, with divers in the water. I don't need someone onboard, but I do because of people not understanding or abiding a dive flag.

Thank you, but I will defer to the opinion of AN Cockcroft and NF Lameijer , as expressed in "A Guide To The Collision Avoidance Rules", before yours.



"The duty to keep a proper look-out applies also when a vessel is at anchor, especially if there is a strong tide running, or if other vessels are likely to be passing by/"

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

This is what prompted the poll. And looking at the numbers - given this is a poll of 33 people - there really is only 2 answers; either you use one or you don't. And out of the 33 people who responded, 7 said they did. That's a little over 20%, or 1 in 5! And only 6 out of 33 didn't know what one was, but ...the rest - some 81% - did.

The poll is missing the two most obvious answers: "I use a cone when it is appropriate because I adhere to colregs" and "I don't use a cone because I don't have both sails and a motor".

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

I believe you made more out of this than I did, but I'm done with it now. I hope you are too.

I don't think I resorted to swearing, to be fair, nor to suggesting that the reason one might take a rifle when hunting moose be anything to do with the moose recognising the rifle. What's that about?

But you did leave one useful point -- there are people out there who don't know what a cone is (or perhaps who do but can't be bothered using one).

[Montanan]

I am fond of both cones and balls.

And I do properly position the cone with the apex down, but prefer to have more than just one ball positioned above the cone.

And of course there is the typical debate as to whether one should use waffle or cake cones; to utilize soft swirl or hard scoop; and which flavors and / or toppings, e.g., dark chocolate dipping.

Ice cream beats screaming about COLREGs.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by CptCrunchie

Oh, please. If you want to quote regs to make a point, at least read the headings first.

Attachment 188263

I'm at anchor, with divers in the water. I don't need someone onboard, but I do because of people not understanding or abiding a dive flag.

Case law supports the position that a watch is required even at anchor for commercial vessels.

[Montanan]

Reference: Anchor Balls and Inverted Cones ? [Sitemap] - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

In the thread above there is a post regarding a cruise ship that lost control in the Virgin Islands and destroyed a number of boats at anchor. The post indicates that only the one boat that was flying the at anchor day signal black ball was compensated for the loss.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Case law supports the position that a watch is required even at anchor for commercial vessels.

Would a commercial dive boat qualify as such a vessel?

Of keen issue is whether the dive master is also the skipper and there aren't other charter crew to assign watch. But then perhaps it is appropriate that the dive boat charter provide for adequate crew, including a watchkeeper.

When we have persons swim from our boats, we always mandate that at least one adult that has some competency at boating remain on board while the remainder can swim.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Would a commercial dive boat qualify as such a vessel?

Of keen issue is whether the dive master is also the skipper and there aren't other charter crew to assign watch. But then perhaps it is appropriate that the dive boat charter provide for adequate crew, including a watchkeeper.

When we have persons swim from our boats, we always mandate that at least one adult that has some competency at boating remain on board while the remainder can swim.

IMNSHO, regardless of Rule 5, Rule 2 (a) applies.


If you are anchored with divers in the water in an area where you are likely to encounter other vessels, a lookout would be a "required precaution" for any number of reasons.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Would a commercial dive boat qualify as such a vessel?

Of keen issue is whether the dive master is also the skipper and there aren't other charter crew to assign watch. But then perhaps it is appropriate that the dive boat charter provide for adequate crew, including a watchkeeper.

When we have persons swim from our boats, we always mandate that at least one adult that has some competency at boating remain on board while the remainder can swim.

The USCG has made it clear that commercial dive operators are required to have a qualified person capable of operating the boat aboard while there are divers down.