Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 31-08-2017, 08:42   #91
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 9,170
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

I think its great to have our COLREG assumptions challenged and thank Dockhead for shepherding us thru these friendly but lively discussions.
Pelagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:06   #92
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelagic View Post
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

I think its great to have our COLREG assumptions challenged and thank Dockhead for shepherding us thru these friendly but lively discussions.
What he said.
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:11   #93
cruiser

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Ontario
Boat: Ontario 38 / Douglas 32 Mk II
Posts: 3,250
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
OK, well, so that you know, I don't think that too many people on here argue for correct terminology in order to "feel superior by 'correcting'" other people. So that you know -- the term we've been discussing here bothers some of us simply because it expresses a persistent and widespread misunderstanding -- not one you suffer from! But many do. Believe it or not, some people just genuinely want to share knowledge and help others understand something better, with no other motive than that.
Please, many devote countless hours to the education of the boating public, myself included.

Now lets knock down this prolonged "strawman argument".

Who exactly are all these people your are referring to, who understand colregs, and yet when told they have "right of way", do anything but "stand on"?

In my opinion, there probably isn't any, not one.

If they understand colregs (and adhere to them), and the conditions exist, they will stand on, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If they do not understand colregs (or do not adhere to them) their actions will be unpredictable, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If someone is in a maritime hearing and knows their @$$ is in a sling, they may try any tactic to get out of it, including claiming they had some kind of "right" to justify their action, because someone happened to use the word "right" in part of the communication.

When my wife (a very capable sailor) is taking over the helm, I may advise the intended destination, course I've been holding, and tell her to "keep the red markers to the right".

I may say "right" instead of "starboard", because in that context, IT MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. She is not going to jump to the conclusion that I meant from a different perspective than looking toward the bow and take then down the left, just as she will not assume I referred to her right to a fair trail, right to free speech, right of freedom of religion, or any other of a number of "rights" she may have in a different context.

"Stand-on" or "right of way", in the context of "burden vs privilege", with respect to collision avoidance , to anyone with any business being in control of a vessel is understood to mean exactly the same thing.

Show me one person to whom it doesn't.

Anybody here?

Speak up now or forever hold your peace.

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

It is unreasonable to believe that everyone on this forum would understand them to mean exactly the same thing, but all, most, many, or even any competent boaters elsewhere, wouldn't.

Again, incompetent boaters get in collisions because they don't know what the %$^ they are doing, or simply don't care about the regulations, not because somebody used a synonymous term in proper context. To even claim such a thing is to admit total ignorance, or just a weak tactic to attempt to weasel out of responsibility to adhere to colregs.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:16   #94
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 151
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Rod you are wasting your time arguing with a Lawyer who knows best !! I thought the whole idea here was to help sailors avoid collisions not spend hours of nit picking over words to prove "superior knowledge" If you are teaching sailing or should it be boating that any one who uses words other than those written in the rules to explain the meaning of those rules should be applauded for understanding that their students may grasp the principle far quicker and more to the point Remember the rule more easily. To suggest that the teacher is talking down to the students and insulting them is pathetic. Were I to talk to you on a subject of which you had no knowledge using words you were not familiar with would you be insulted, or if I by using other words you were familiar with made it easier to understand? I posed a question to you some while back about the dreaded phrase "right of way" which you declined to answer on the basis that my question did not fall within the scope of the cregs but was a local Port issue. Where exactly is the line drawn between the 2.? As I recall you were interested in writing a book to help define the c regs better to help sailors avoid collisions. My request would fall into that scenario surely. In another (to me baffling response) regarding understanding stand on/give way situation you refer to the give way vessel being in control over the stand on vessel. Any poor soul who reads the rules is bound to be utterly confused, but you of course will say that you qualify this statement by continuing to explain your logic. What is the difference between that and saying "right of way" in an explanation of a less obvious term "stand on"? Please do not come back to me with the usual kind of response which ignores the question in favour of comments like spelling mistakes and wrong meaning words/grammar.
As a separate issue, for those who seem to feel electronics are the answer to collision avoidance bear in mind the US Navy have now recovered the bodies of the 10 seamen lost in the collision between a tanker and their warship. secondly I have just finished a book by Abby Sunderland on her attempt to sail non stop solo without assistance around the world. She suffered a loss of power to feed all her electronics early in her attempt and had to put into port. Later going round the Horn her auto pilot went a little crazy, followed by her standby autopilot a short time later.All these systems were brand new and part of a complete refit for her round the world attempt. Lastly back in the 70's I was working for the oil industry, and our ship had KH radar,which I thought was a really good piece of equipment. Over winter we would get a lot of force 5 weather and regular 8 to 9 gales. It was a little disconcerting to discover just how easy it was to in reducing clutter,wipe out existing small boats.
robbievardon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:25   #95
cruiser

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Probably in an anchorage or a boatyard..
Boat: Ebbtide 33' steel cutter
Posts: 5,031
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelagic View Post
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!

I think its great to have our COLREG assumptions challenged and thank Dockhead for shepherding us thru these friendly but lively discussions.
Agree

And wouldn't it be nice to stick to the subject, IPRCS & what we do in the real world.
If people like to use terms not in the IRPCS to get something across or for teaching then fair enough, but such discussions are just added noise on a thread like this, would be nice to stay on track which is best done sticking to the current IPRCS text.IMHO

Please
conachair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:42   #96
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
First, I object to the person ("standing on" when advised they have right of way) being referred to as "hypothetical", any more so than the one, when told "right-of-way" would do anything different but "stand on", and suddenly start evoking "rights" they clearly don't have.

Again, in my experience, if someone knows colregs, and is told they have "right-of-way" on starboard tack, they would know that to mean the same thing as "stand-on", and that is exactly what they would do.

Being told they have "right-of-way" to someone who knows colregs, does not invoke some crazy knee jerk reaction to start exercising "rights" they don't have.

Similarly, if someone is at the wheel who does not know colregs, it doesn't matter whether they are told to "stand-on" or they have "right-of-way", THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. The immediate reaction is, "What does that mean?" They will not start making guesses with someone's expensive vessel and crews safety in their hands.

If they are that ignorant to colregs, it would be wise for the person advising to ensure they know what either term means in that situation.

Using the regulation defined term "Stand-On", with someone who does not understand the underlying regulation, means absolutely nothing to them.

I completely disagree that anyone in their right mind, would suddenly start trying to invoke any kind of real or fictitious land right or suddenly turn toward someone trying to avoid them, because the other does not have "right-of-way". This is the most flagrant "strawman" argument of this whole discussion.

I agree that when teaching the regulations or writing an exam, it is best to use the most proper terms.

However, when talking with buds, who know the regs, one can use "stand-on" and "right-of-way" synonymously, and it makes no freaking difference whatsoever.

The next discussion will use one of about 1000 different terms to represent the attractive single lady at the end of the bar, and everyone will know that to mean "unwed female homo sapien". To insist they use that term, instead of any of the others that mean the exact same thing to everyone, is ludicrous.

We could get grammar police in here to jump all over everyone who doesn't apply it perfectly (according to them). Wouldn't that be fun?

Again, nitpicking on the words commonly used, because they are not the specific words used in the regulations, when applied in a context that we all know what it means, is just a waste of bandwidth.

When on a starboard tack, anyone who does not know what to do, with respect to a port tack boat on a collision course, should not be in control of the vessel. If they should be in control of the vessel, either term may be used synonymously, without detrimental effect.

To insist others use the exact term defined in the regulations every reference to the situation, in a cruisers forum, is just someone with too much time on their hands, attempting to make themselves feel superior by "correcting" (belittling) others, IMHO.
Well, someone with the motivations you ascribe to them in your last para. would need to have the reader actually feel "belittled" by the "nitpicking," no? And how is a forum poster supposed to know if a reader is, like you, knowledgeable about the Colregs or, as so many posts in these types of threads reveal, confused by "right of way" vs. "stand on?" I, for one, appreciate what you call "nitpicking" because it furthers my understanding, but I probably don't have as much experience on the water as you. But when I hopefully accrue a higher level of experience, I can't imagine ever feeling "belittled" over someone correcting me on just about anything, provided the correction had merit that is.

It's not unlike Stu & others with a lot of know-how correcting posters who misstate "amps" vs. "amp hours" when trying to resolve an electrical problem. For someone like me still struggling to learn my own boat's electrical system, confusing the two terms usually screws me up, and the "nitpicking," i.e. the appropriate correction, always helps me follow the discussion and maybe learn something.

With respect Rod, there are all sorts of people with different levels of experience & knowledge who frequent these forums to learn more about the Colregs, and it extends far beyond the crowd of frequent posters who are generally well seasoned sailors. You are absolutely correct that such people are unlikely to confuse the terms, but I can speak from my own experience as well as frequent posts I read that people more accustomed to what "right of way" means on the road will often misinterpret what "stand on" means on the water. In fact I just read an example of this on another thread. So what's the big deal?
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:46   #97
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelagic View Post
Instructors who teach at Marine Colleges tell me that the "Rules of the Road" classes bring out the most heated and engaged discussions as each student painfully comes to the conclusion that these " Rules" are not simply black and white, but often a dirty grey!
Maybe it'll help if the classes aren't referred to as "Rules of the ROAD!" Only kidding, but the "on the road" mindset does seem to be a chronic source of confusion.
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 09:54   #98
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 151
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

In another post I mentioned regarding "right of way" and a trip on a cargo vessel up a river which could only be made during spring tides and entailed intentionally running aground and then waiting for the tide to refloat us before repeating the exercise. I would love to hear views as to whether any "right of way" existed or not and what signals should be displayed. For those who argue about the correct use of words, comment on this. Same ship, same Captain came to lie at anchor awaiting tide and whilst waiting he mentioned it had been a rough passage to such an extent that he had lost his cargo crane from the main deck. He then jovially corrected himself by saying he had not actually lost it as he knew where it was, so many fathoms down in the North Sea at location X by X Should sailors be regarded as "Lost at sea" if the place of demise is known?
robbievardon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 10:48   #99
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 9,170
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Maybe it'll help if the classes aren't referred to as "Rules of the ROAD!" Only kidding, but the "on the road" mindset does seem to be a chronic source of confusion.
Exactly!.... I expect that originated from IMO fighting with stubborn Navy types when first trying to create some form of order as marine trade got busy and faster
Pelagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 10:53   #100
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Please, many devote countless hours to the education of the boating public, myself included.

Now lets knock down this prolonged "strawman argument".

Who exactly are all these people your are referring to, who understand colregs, and yet when told they have "right of way", do anything but "stand on"?

In my opinion, there probably isn't any, not one.

If they understand colregs (and adhere to them), and the conditions exist, they will stand on, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If they do not understand colregs (or do not adhere to them) their actions will be unpredictable, regardless what anyone else calls it.

If someone is in a maritime hearing and knows their @$$ is in a sling, they may try any tactic to get out of it, including claiming they had some kind of "right" to justify their action, because someone happened to use the word "right" in part of the communication.

When my wife (a very capable sailor) is taking over the helm, I may advise the intended destination, course I've been holding, and tell her to "keep the red markers to the right".

I may say "right" instead of "starboard", because in that context, IT MEANS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. She is not going to jump to the conclusion that I meant from a different perspective than looking toward the bow and take then down the left, just as she will not assume I referred to her right to a fair trail, right to free speech, right of freedom of religion, or any other of a number of "rights" she may have in a different context.

"Stand-on" or "right of way", in the context of "burden vs privilege", with respect to collision avoidance , to anyone with any business being in control of a vessel is understood to mean exactly the same thing.

Show me one person to whom it doesn't.

Anybody here?

Speak up now or forever hold your peace.

Anybody?

I didn't think so.

It is unreasonable to believe that everyone on this forum would understand them to mean exactly the same thing, but all, most, many, or even any competent boaters elsewhere, wouldn't.

Again, incompetent boaters get in collisions because they don't know what the %$^ they are doing, or simply don't care about the regulations, not because somebody used a synonymous term in proper context. To even claim such a thing is to admit total ignorance, or just a weak tactic to attempt to weasel out of responsibility to adhere to colregs.
I know lots and lots and lots of sailors, even some pretty experienced ones, who either don't know anything about the Rules, or who don't think the Rules apply to them, or who follow purely invented schemes of maneuvering, contrary to the Rules, and based on some fantasies about which vessels are "more burdened" or "more maneuverable" than others, and I could go on and on. So this "person" is absolutely not a "straw man", and is not even rare.

I am not really a "terminology nazi" -- people using the word "right" instead of "starboard" doesn't bother me all that much (although it's not exactly the same thing), I don't say "head" instead of "toilet" (I believe it really means the room, not the fixture), I use the word "rope". But "right of way" bothers me, for the reasons stated by various people. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine -- to each his own.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 11:00   #101
Registered User
 
daletournier's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Seychelles
Boat: Catalina 470
Posts: 4,618
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

I've been off line for nearly four weeks, I see CF is still entertaining. How we manage to complicate these issue's is amazing..lol.
Modern technology the ais is number one, if in open water a ship is going to pass within 3/4nm sometimes 1nm of me I radio him. I greet him with good evening/morning sir and ask him to acknowledge that he has seen me, I let him know that I will do my best to maintain my current course and speed as best I can subject to conditions, are you happy with this? If conditions are tuff I let him know. Never not had a ship answer my calls when called by name.
Never had a problem, I then keep an eye on the ais and the stanchion method if possible. I've had many ships change course to be accomodating.

Ive literally passed dozens of ships in the last several weeks, and maybe a couple if 100 over the years? they have all been obliging, in fact several are curious about the idiot bobbing around in the middle of no where and want to chat.

Regarding right of way, they are bigger faster and can kill you, I show respect, that's my colreg.
daletournier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 11:15   #102
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 151
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Rod, apologies my post #94, question was supposed to be for Dockhead , first sentence for you.
robbievardon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 11:22   #103
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
In another post I mentioned regarding "right of way" and a trip on a cargo vessel up a river which could only be made during spring tides and entailed intentionally running aground and then waiting for the tide to refloat us before repeating the exercise. I would love to hear views as to whether any "right of way" existed or not and what signals should be displayed.
"Right of way" absolutely exists on rivers, both in concept (you have the right to go ahead and maneuver as you like) and in terminology. Explained well by the U.S. Coast Guard:

"5. Who has the "right of way" on the water? The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)). Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10). The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances"

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ#0.3_5

That's the official U.S. Coast Guard information site.



Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
For those who argue about the correct use of words, comment on this. Same ship, same Captain came to lie at anchor awaiting tide and whilst waiting he mentioned it had been a rough passage to such an extent that he had lost his cargo crane from the main deck. He then jovially corrected himself by saying he had not actually lost it as he knew where it was, so many fathoms down in the North Sea at location X by X Should sailors be regarded as "Lost at sea" if the place of demise is known?
I'm glad someone thinks that terminology can also be FUN!

My answer to this would be that "lost" does not only mean "can't be located". It also means "can't be recovered". Both meanings are absolutely correct. If for example we talk about my "lost youth" -- well, I know where it is . . . But it's still "lost".

Like your captain, I've also "lost" gear in the North Sea. I know where it is, too. But it's still lost.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 11:35   #104
cruiser

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Ontario
Boat: Ontario 38 / Douglas 32 Mk II
Posts: 3,250
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post

I am not really a "terminology nazi" -- people using the word "right" instead of "starboard" doesn't bother me all that much (although it's not exactly the same thing)...
I rest my case!

Move to dismiss!

;-)
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2017, 11:36   #105
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbievardon View Post
Rod you are wasting your time arguing with a Lawyer who knows best !! I thought the whole idea here was to help sailors avoid collisions not spend hours of nit picking over words to prove "superior knowledge" If you are teaching sailing or should it be boating that any one who uses words other than those written in the rules to explain the meaning of those rules should be applauded for understanding that their students may grasp the principle far quicker and more to the point Remember the rule more easily. To suggest that the teacher is talking down to the students and insulting them is pathetic. Were I to talk to you on a subject of which you had no knowledge using words you were not familiar with would you be insulted, or if I by using other words you were familiar with made it easier to understand? I posed a question to you some while back about the dreaded phrase "right of way" which you declined to answer on the basis that my question did not fall within the scope of the cregs but was a local Port issue. Where exactly is the line drawn between the 2.? As I recall you were interested in writing a book to help define the c regs better to help sailors avoid collisions. My request would fall into that scenario surely. In another (to me baffling response) regarding understanding stand on/give way situation you refer to the give way vessel being in control over the stand on vessel. Any poor soul who reads the rules is bound to be utterly confused, but you of course will say that you qualify this statement by continuing to explain your logic. What is the difference between that and saying "right of way" in an explanation of a less obvious term "stand on"? Please do not come back to me with the usual kind of response which ignores the question in favour of comments like spelling mistakes and wrong meaning words/grammar. .
. .
I can't quite perceive what the question is here -- sorry. Are you asking why I think that the Rules should be taught to inexperienced people using the right terminology?

Well, I think that's a pretty standard approach to teaching anything, isn't it? You try to introduce the students to the terminology in parallel with introducing them to the concepts. Unfamiliar terms become familiar as part of the process of learning, together with unfamiliar concepts. In fact in my opinion, it would be weird to teach something like, say electronics, and avoid terms like anodes and cathodes just because the students start the class not knowing what they are.

So "Were I to talk to you on a subject of which you had no knowledge using words you were not familiar with would you be insulted, or if I by using other words you were familiar with made it easier to understand?" Well, actually, I would appreciate it, if I'm learning something unfamiliar from you, if you would not talk down to me. If I want to learn a new subject, I will really want to learn the correct terminology, and I will stop and ask you if I don't understand something. Certainly I would never be insulted. On the contrary, I would be grateful to you for explaining. That's just me, but I am trying to directly answer your question.

If there were other questions which I didn't understand, please ask them and I will answer.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
collision

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Challenge: Collision Avoidance! Pelagic Challenges 53 18-08-2017 19:54
CARD Collision Avoidance Radar Detector multihullsailor6 Marine Electronics 12 27-12-2015 21:12
Collision Avoidance - Tsunami Debris rreeves Health, Safety & Related Gear 22 03-05-2012 07:23
Collision Avoidance in Mexico: AIS or Radar or ? no_bad_days Pacific & South China Sea 27 19-09-2011 15:40
Distance to Horizon & Collision Avoidance GordMay General Sailing Forum 7 19-06-2009 00:18

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:16.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.