David vs Goliath

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

Whatever the rights or not under the ColRegs the skipper of the small vessel was very foolish to get himself into the position he ended up in against a much larger and less manoeuvrable vessel (even if it should turn out to be that the small vessel was the stand on vessel).

This foolishness has been made an offence here in NZ (at least) by legislation requiring all vessels under 500gt not to impede any vessel that is greater than 500gt while in harbour limits (which generally extend quite a ways out to sea). A very sensible piece of legislation in my view, but is sad that it is found to be necessary.

I totally agree Midland….very sensible and a legal reminder to those captain minnows, not to impede large ships in confined waters.

Most on here see that as just common sense, but a few are bound up in technical interpretations of the rules and forget the basic rule of seamanship…. “Be prepared to stay out of harms way!”

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

I once had a large ferry try to run me over in the fog. I kept turning starboard to go port-to-port--eventually turning 90 degrees from my original bearing, and that SOB kept turning port into me.

SB was piloted by idiots.

So you turned to starboard while a large ship turned port into you.
Stand By turned to starboard while Maltese Falcon turned port into them.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I totally agree Midland….very sensible and a legal reminder to those captain minnows, not to impede large ships in confined waters.

Most on here see that as just common sense, but a few are bound up in technical interpretations of the rules and forget the basic rule of seamanship…. “Be prepared to stay out of harms way!”

I don't understand if you're saying we don't need rules as common sense should prevail, or if you're suggesting we need more rules. Rules already exist to keep small vessels from impeding large vessels in confined waters. Tell me why "captain minnows" will follow another rule if they're going to ignore Colregs (specifically rules 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18)?

[Christian Van H]

Lodesman - ANY sailor worth his salt knows that ABOVE ALL ELSE, you must keep your ship and all her souls out of harms way. It is the PRIME DIRECTIVE in your beloved COLREGS.

[Lodesman]

Christian,

Are they not your beloved Colregs too? Or are you of the "colregs be damned" school-of-thought?

Since you like giving me your opinion, won't you please have a look at my hypothetical situation and answer the questions I've posed.

I'll pose another - what if Stand By had done a 17(a)(ii) alteration to starboard to "keep out of harm's way" before Maltese Falcon altered to port and only after she was basically a sitting duck heading into the wind, Maltese Falcon altered to port across her bow?

[Christian Van H]

Lodesman, I believe it is quite possible that you read my entire opinion in my last posting before it was edited. If not I am truly sorry. I have been informed of the rules of this forum, and have no intention of ever posting anything illegal again. May we one day meet, both out cruising... me on my beloved ketch, and you on your beloved SB. Thanks for everything, Christian Van Horn

[BassAckwards]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So you turned to starboard while a large ship turned port into you.
Stand By turned to starboard while Maltese Falcon turned port into them.
If SB was piloted by idiots, what was your boat piloted by?

No need to be so abrasive. Who would you rather sail with, the skipper of SB or Hiracer? Though you favor rhetoric over logic, logic indicates that Hiracer is capable of avoiding a collision in adverse conditions. Regardless of what you advocate, the SB skipper has proven otherwise.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by BassAckwards

Regardless of what you advocate, the SB skipper has proven otherwise.

I have not advocated otherwise. I have simply pointed out the skipper of the MF also failed to avoid a collision, but you and so many others would seemingly overlook that. I presented a hypothesis - I haven't seen your logical argument against it. Who favours rhetoric over logic, then?

[Chief Engineer]

Sheesh.....get out the keys and lock this puppy down

just my 2 cents

[swagman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I have not advocated otherwise. I have simply pointed out the skipper of the MF also failed to avoid a collision, but you and so many others would seemingly overlook that. I presented a hypothesis - I haven't seen your logical argument against it. Who favours rhetoric over logic, then?

Kevin,
With respect. You were not there. You seem to continue this argument making positive assumptions in favour of the smaller yacht, and negative assumptions against the larger yacht. Why not give everyone a break and wait for the results of an inquiry?
JOHN

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I don't understand if you're saying we don't need rules as common sense should prevail, or if you're suggesting we need more rules. Rules already exist to keep small vessels from impeding large vessels in confined waters. Tell me why "captain minnows" will follow another rule if they're going to ignore Colregs (specifically rules 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18)?

Lodesman, of course we need collision avoidance rules and as a professional I can still quote Colregs verbatim and cite a number of legal case studies to emphasize the nuances of each.

However, the point most of us are making and the NZ government is emphasizing with their use under Rule 1 of a simple directive to small boats, is what most of us would agree is “Common Sense”

They are not mutually exclusive!

Rule 1(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbors, rivers, lakes, or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by swagman

Kevin,
With respect. You were not there. You seem to continue this argument making positive assumptions in favour of the smaller yacht, and negative assumptions against the larger yacht. Why not give everyone a break and wait for the results of an inquiry?
JOHN

John,

With respect, you too, were not there. You continually challenge my opinion, but don't seem to challenge the new posters making positive assumptions in favour of the larger yacht and negative assumptions against the smaller yacht. If you need a break from this thread, you needn't feel compelled to participate in it. On the other hand, while we wait for the results of the inquiry (if there is one), I posted a hypothetical scenario and several questions (which have largely gone unanswered) that you are invited to comment on.

Kevin

[Christian Van H]

After careful consideration of all presented "facts", a study of the accidents geometry ,temporal analysis from all available time sources, careful consideration of the COLREGS, and a holographic real time reconstruction by a team from the University of Connecticut (GO HUSKIES!) it has been determined that the actual cause of the collision between SB and MF was simply GLARE! The competent sailors aboard SB were simply blinded by our solar orbs reflections off a really nice LP paint job on MF's hull!

[Lodesman]

Pelagic,

You haven't answered the question. Commonsense does need to be legislated twice; it's already in Colregs - and you either have it, or you don't. A skipper that doesn't have the sense to follow the existing rules is hardly likely to follow another rule that says "use common sense".

I don't wish to debate the NZ 500-ton rule with you here as it's not pertinent to the topic - if you want to start another thread or discuss it privately, then we can debate whether or not it meets the requirements of Rule 1, specifically "Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules."

The point I have been trying to make is that the Rules, when followed by everyone, provide predictability that prevents collisions. Simply telling all small boats to stay away from all large boats is an over-simplification that won't necessarily prevent collisions - after all, you can't out-run a faster vessel that is bound and determined to run you down.

Kevin

[swagman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

John,

With respect, you too, were not there. You continually challenge my opinion, but don't seem to challenge the new posters making positive assumptions in favour of the larger yacht and negative assumptions against the smaller yacht. If you need a break from this thread, you needn't feel compelled to participate in it. On the other hand, while we wait for the results of the inquiry (if there is one), I posted a hypothetical scenario and several questions (which have largely gone unanswered) that you are invited to comment on.

Kevin

Kevin,
This is beginning to remind me of the one chap swinging his arms in the opposite rythm to all others on the parade ground.
He too always argued he was the one who is right.
You keep on with the discussion, the hypothetical scenarios. I'll wait for the inquiry.
Enjoy
JOHN
JOHN
Without wishing to state the obvious, from the very limited info available to all of us, I like the obvious majority , ound rude, the reason I don't challenge those people who are mamki