What can happen when you cut off a ferry

[DeborahLee]

When I was flying size didn't matter. The big guy looked out for me and vice versa. We both knew it could be a bad day for both of us if we collided. Rules are there to be followed by both captains not just one and both Captains are licensed.

The most dangerous thing on a vessel is a schedule. It usually means there is no consideration toward the other guy.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by DeborahLee

When I was flying size didn't matter. The big guy looked out for me and vice versa. We both knew it could be a bad day for both of us if we collided. Rules are there to be followed by both captains not just one and both Captains are licensed.

The most dangerous thing on a vessel is a schedule. It usually means there is no consideration toward the other guy.

And if a 747 overtook you and ran over you, who would the FAA blame?

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Wraith_Mac

So what you are saying is that only a lawyer is qualified to judge whether another's comments are educated enough to make a comment at all or even quote regulations?

Are you a lawyer or politician or maybe just a retired English teacher?

BTW, I have never heard of any body, academic or otherwise regarding a basic law degree as an equivalent of a PhD, where would this equivalence take place?

Could you please clarify exactly how much sailing time you have in the waters and conditions where this accident took place that enable you to be so clear on who is at fault?

Thankyou,
Mac

Since you don't know a law degree is considered equivalent to a Ph.D. I can only assume there's a lot you don't know about the law. You stuck a lot of words and opinions in my mouth that I didn't actually say, and the rest was a bunch of put downs.

You have a nice day now.

[psneeld]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

excerpt...

Several first-professional degrees use the term “doctor” in their title, such as the Juris Doctor and the US version of the Doctor of Medicine, but these degrees do not contain an independent research component or require a dissertation (thesis) and should not be confused with PhD degrees or other research doctorates

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Doctorate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

excerpt...

Several first-professional degrees use the term “doctor” in their title, such as the Juris Doctor and the US version of the Doctor of Medicine, but these degrees do not contain an independent research component or require a dissertation (thesis) and should not be confused with PhD degrees or other research doctorates

Just for those who might not know, "juris doctor" is the law degree. It is three rigorous years of study, which is exactly what my niece, who went from BS straight to Ph.D., did. But you are correct in that JD's are not required to do an independent research paper as part of the graduation requirement, even though such a project is integral to the Ph.D., requiring a tremendous amount of time to complete.

This makes sense, because independent research of the type done in, say, biology or psychology isn't done in law. They do an entirely different type of research and write it up in an entirely different way. It takes special skill to *accurately* read scientific research, and it takes special skill to *accurately* read the law. However, people read both all the time, draw erroneous conclusions, and think they have understood what they read and that their conclusions are correct. The JD degree might technically be considered somewhere between a master's and a Ph.D., but the expectations, except for the fact that the scientific method isn't typically applied to law, makes it far closer to a Ph.D. than a master's degree. When it comes to pay scale, the law professor will be paid as much as someone with a Ph.D. in biology, all other things equal.

Scientific research is based on a speculation ("what if?") followed by a thorough search of the literature to see what research has already been done, followed by the careful formulation of a testable hypothesis. Law approaches research in an entirely different way and the scientific method is not used in legal research. Writing a legal thesis would not improve the quality of lawyers produced, as they do their form of legal research throughout their three year program. It's unnecessary and in fact would be a waste of time. But by the time one has that JD degree, that person knows as much about doing legal research as a newly minted Ph.D. knows about doing scientific research. They both are judged competent to continue research in their fields. At the master's level in a scientific field, the person with the master's degree would be generally considered competent to *participate* in research studies led by a Ph.D. Rarely will research done on the master's level get the respect that research done by someone with a Ph.D. would get, again, all other things being equal.

Scientific research aims toward generalities, while legal research does just the opposite.

I don't claim to be able to read and interpret law accurately. I do know how to read scientific research because I was methodically taught how to in graduate school. Things like standard error of measurement and statistical significance have no applicable use in legal research. People who don't understand those concepts misinterpret medical research all the time. People who aren't methodically trained to read law misinterpret what they read in laws all the time, absolutely convinced that they are right. Both scientific research and laws are more than they seem on the printed page.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And if a 747 overtook you and ran over you, who would the FAA blame?

Well just like Colregs for boats, it might depend on circumstances. If a Cessana 172 was flying in controlled airspace without a transponder, not in contact with ATC and there was a collision with a 747 then I think a lot of the blame would fall on the Cessna.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Well just like Colregs for boats, it might depend on circumstances. If a Cessana 172 was flying in controlled airspace without a transponder, not in contact with ATC and there was a collision with a 747 then I think a lot of the blame would fall on the Cessna.

I gather you don't have a pilot license?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I gather you don't have a pilot license?

No, never got my ticket but did a little flying about 30 years ago. So why? Did I say something stupid?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by skipmac

No, never got my ticket but did a little flying about 30 years ago. So why? Did I say something stupid?

Hardly stupid. Flying analogies to boating are just pretty imprecise. Planes, hot air balloons, or gliders can be toddling along without a functional transponder and if a 747 comes from behind and sucks them them into the engine it's a career ender for the heavy pilot. As this may be for the ferry captain.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Hardly stupid. Flying analogies to boating are just pretty imprecise. Planes, hot air balloons, or gliders can be toddling along without a functional transponder and if a 747 comes from behind and sucks them them into the engine it's a career ender for the heavy pilot. As this may be for the ferry captain.

Don't disagree that flying vs boating analogies fail pretty easily and don't know or remember enough about the FAA rules or commercial regs to offer any credible opinion on impact on a commercial pilots license. As I recall, like the captain of a ship (yes here's another boating analogy) the pilot is ultimately responsible for collision avoidance and must ignore any other rules including ATC orders if necessary to do it. So I guess on that basis the pilot of the heavy might loose his license. But my question wasl, would not the pilot of the small plane take a large share of the blame?

I was a passenger on a commercial flight a couple of years ago that came pretty close to a collision. I was looking out the window as we were on final to JAX when I saw a small plane in a steep climb coming up right in front of our plane. It was night and the lights on the small plane were pretty hard to see looking down against the lights of the city. Our plane did a pretty violent turn and climb to avoid and aborted the landing. Hard for me to think that the commercial pilot would have taken 100% of the blame if there had been a collision.

[goboatingnow]

The ferry came from behind and there is an onus to keep clear , in reduced visibility there is a requirement to adopt a safe speed. While the sailboat may bear some responsibly for not trying to avoid a collision, the vast bulk of the blame will fall on the ferry captain and rightly so

Dave

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Don't disagree that flying vs boating analogies fail pretty easily and don't know or remember enough about the FAA rules or commercial regs to offer any credible opinion on impact on a commercial pilots license. As I recall, like the captain of a ship (yes here's another boating analogy) the pilot is ultimately responsible for collision avoidance and must ignore any other rules including ATC orders if necessary to do it. So I guess on that basis the pilot of the heavy might loose his license. But my question wasl, would not the pilot of the small plane take a large share of the blame?

I was a passenger on a commercial flight a couple of years ago that came pretty close to a collision. I was looking out the window as we were on final to JAX when I saw a small plane in a steep climb coming up right in front of our plane. It was night and the lights on the small plane were pretty hard to see looking down against the lights of the city. Our plane did a pretty violent turn and climb to avoid and aborted the landing. Hard for me to think that the commercial pilot would have taken 100% of the blame if there had been a collision.

In that scenario I'm sure you're right. In the scenario where both planes were in straight and level flight and where your plane overtook and hit the smaller plane, not so much.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by TacomaSailor

"I also looked up Harney channel in washington on my official NOAA charts. I do not see any marked ferry routes on these charts. I looked at both the Raster and ENC charts. Am I looking at the wrong Harney channel?"

For those of you not familiar with Puget Sound and San Juan navigation and ferry traffic:

Washington State Ferries have NO, NO-NO-NO, fixed routes or paths.

Dashed lines on the charts are there ONLY to warn you that a ferry might be using that stretch of water in some ill-defined manner.

Much of WSF navigable waters have currents that frequently exceed five knots and reverse twice a day - e.g.:
Pt Defiance - Tallequah
Port Townsend - Keystone
Anacortes - anywhere in the San Juan Island
Bremerton - Seattle thru Rich Passage

The ferries will deviate as much as a mile to either side of their "dashed line" route in order to counter the effect of the currents and to properly line up the boat for a safe and soft landing.

And... just to make it easier for we sailors - the route/destination of a ferry is very difficult to discern from your boat on the water.

For Example:

Fauntleroy to Vashon to Southworth (south of seattle)

Some WSF boats go from the mainland (Fauntleroy) to Vashon and on to Southworth, others go direct from the mainland to Southworth, some go from Fauntleroy to Vashon and back to Fauntleroy. The same ferry on consecutive runs might do the following:
Fuantleroy - Vashon - Southworth - Fuantleroy
Fuantleroy - Southworth - Vashon - Fauntleroy
Fuantleroy - Vashon - Fauntleroy

All of those changes within a 3 hour period!

The route is served by two and sometimes three ferries and there are frequently two ferries underway at the same time, sometimes going the same direction and sometimes opposite directions.

When the ferry backs out of Vashon Island it is impossible to tell if it is going West to Southworth or East to Fauntleroy.

Another problem is that in the mid-sound off of Seattle you can not tell if a westbound ferry is headed for Eagle Harbor or for Bremerton until they get past Alki Point and head the appropriate direction.

And just to make it easier - WSF does a lot of maintenance on their boats and they run around Puget Sound and the San Juans following no particular route while they do their testing.

SO - never assume you know where that ferry is headed or what it will do next. In mid-channel/good weather those enormous boats do 17 - 19 knots and cover a lot of water very quickly.

I've found the bridge crews on the ferries to be easy to talk to on VHF, courteous, and helpful.

Just my opinion based on 30+ years sailing Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands.

+1! Just stay out of their way. They're at work with a lot of tonnage and windage.

You are recreating.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

+1! Just stay out of their way. They're at work with a lot of tonnage and windage.

You are recreating.

Yes but that does not absolve the ferries of their responsibilities

Dave

[senormechanico]

" I heard a loud crunch. Turning around I saw the ferry hull coming over my stern "

IOW, " I heard a loud crunch. I thought, time sure flies when you're farting around "testing" your electronics.

Gee, I guess I should have kept an eye on that ferry...