Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

You guys are killing me.

I never suggested that anyone was ignorant of any law.

To change the question from:

a) Will the higher trained person be held to a higher expectation of competence?

to...

b) Will ignorance of the law get someone incompetent off the hook?

...are two completely different questions.

Your argument posted in response to question a) is completely irrelevant.

In response to question b) it is, but that isn't the question I originally asked.

Therefore it is a "strawman".

You posted a response to a question that wasn't asked.

If you suggest that because one knew all of the laws in an accident, therefore hey are completely competent, we need to quit debating this right now.

Captain our shields are breaking up what shall we do?

Fire the Strawman torpedos!

[evm1024]

Hey Rod,

You have said that you have changed you mind but I am not sure when. Can I assume that it was somewhere in this thread? With 1128 posts I may have missed it.

Did you change your mind and now think that trying to pass aft of a 600' ship going 20 kts in a 90 degree crossing situation in your 40' boat doing 5 kts with a CPA of 180' is a really dumb idea?

Did you change your mind and now think that displaying a masthead tricolor light at the same time as deck level side lights and stern light is in violation of COLREGS and should not be done even if you think it might to advantageous to do so?

Did you change your mind and now think that boater education (such as PCOC) might increase boater safety enough to justify having said education as a requirement?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Sorry about that. Let me offer an apology for my countrymen.

If I recall right, Neah Bay is not a port of entry so I assume that the CG stationed there were (being jerks, em) bored.

As a side note - I once was attempting to come alongside the fuel dock in Neah Bay with a rather gusty wind blowing crosswise to the dock.

My father-in-law was at the shrouds looking like he was going to jump onto the dock. I was telling him to stay on the boat and to not jump in Russian. (he does not speak English)

Two Coast Guard personal were on the dock watching the whole thing. And as expected a gust came up and pushed us off the dock just before my father-in-law jumped.

Lucky(?) for him he held onto the shrouds with his legs in the water up to his knees as the boat weather vaned away from the dock.

I ended up reversing into the wind and brought our transom up to the fuel dock. Once the stern was tied off I was able to help him back on board and then take a line from the bow to winch the boat alongside the dock.

All the while the Coast Guard just watched us and then walked away once we were tied up.

But I digress.

This was a compulsory inspection after we had a CG intervention after a Jayhawk helicopter dropped a water pump to us as we were taking on water coming back from Maui. (long story) They know we were coming into Neah Bay in the dark to to refresh and refuel. I was somewhat stressed and a lot tired and testy.

https://youtu.be/_NJsE-ztaTM

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This was a compulsory inspection after we had a CG intervention after a Jayhawk helicopter dropped a water pump to us as we were taking on water coming back from Maui. (long story) They know we were coming into Neah Bay in the dark to to refresh and refuel. I was somewhat stressed and a lot tired and testy.

https://youtu.be/_NJsE-ztaTM

Ah.... That explains it.

Glad it worked out OK (assuming no major injuries).

"tired and testy" that is an understatement for sure.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

You guys are killing me.

I never suggested that anyone was ignorant of any law.

To change the question from:

a) Will the higher trained person be held to a higher expectation of competence?

to...

b) Will ignorance of the law get someone incompetent off the hook?

...are two completely different questions.

Your argument posted in response to question a) is completely irrelevant.

In response to question b) it is, but that isn't the question I originally asked.

Therefore it is a "strawman".

You posted a response to a question that wasn't asked.

If you suggest that because one knew all of the laws in an accident, therefore hey are completely competent, we need to quit debating this right now.

The answer to both a) and b) is NO.

Does this cover it or do you have any other questions that your many strawmen can answer for you?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This was a compulsory inspection after we had a CG intervention after a Jayhawk helicopter dropped a water pump to us as we were taking on water coming back from Maui. (long story) They know we were coming into Neah Bay in the dark to to refresh and refuel. I was somewhat stressed and a lot tired and testy.

https://youtu.be/_NJsE-ztaTM

I was expecting the vid where a crew member had to be taken off due to a medical emergency. You certainly have had your share of "adventures" delivering boats! The conditions looked cold, windy & rough, and obviously the boat was taking on water. Glad you guys made it back ok.

The Coasties were probably just disappointed you didn't have expired flares. All of my offshore pfd's are Mustangs as well, the ones with built-in harnesses. Can't imagine what the problem might be with those unless the CO2 kit was expired perhaps.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I was expecting the vid where a crew member had to be taken off due to a medical emergency. You certainly have had your share of "adventures" delivering boats! The conditions looked cold, windy & rough, and obviously the boat was taking on water. Glad you guys made it back ok.

The Coasties were probably just disappointed you didn't have expired flares. All of my offshore pfd's are Mustangs as well, the ones with built-in harnesses. Can't imagine what the problem might be with those unless the CO2 kit was expired perhaps.

Long periods of tedium, punctuated by episodes of terror. I have had some benign deliveries.

The label did not have a USCG approval. It was hard to read, but the label did have Canadian approval. Mustang actually replaced the pdf, because the label was so hard to read. They have a very loyal customer.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by evm1024

OK so far we have just changed the argument to "killed in a rec vessel collision". That is misrepresented version of the position of the argument. Which is a key feature of a Strawman argument.

All of these are true no doubt but they are Red Herrings and Avoiding the Issue.

Another misrepresentation for the position of the argument. Strawman again.

Not to speak of the Nirvana Fallacy.

Of course there are formal definitions for each of the logical fallacies. And in a logical debate where there are strict rules of engagement that is fine.

However, in a more open conversation such as here on CF we do not need to adhere strictly to the laws of logic. We are allowed to be somewhat more relaxed. Which gives rise to a Double Standard. Which is where on person claims that the other is breaking the laws of logic all the while not holding themselves to the same standard.

WTF are you talking about?

I said there were far more important things to be addressed that would benefit boaters (and everyone) than additional training and licensing (with unmentioned reference to the level Dockhead was suggesting.)

Someone asked what that might be.

I cited some examples.

Not a strawman argument.

Direct and relevant response to a question based correctly on a prior post.

Now I see the problem.

Even though the definition of a strawman argument has been posted and repeated several times in this thread; and you claim to understand what a strawman argument is, I don't believe you really do.

A strawman argument, (for the last time, this definition in my own words) is when someone incorrectly presents the position of another, so that they can make an excellent argument against it.

They might do this, because they can't really make a good argument or defend their position well against what the poster's position really was.

I have not suggested anything that would represent a Nirvana Fallacy (assumption of a perfect solution being possible). Those who seem to be implying that additional training on collision avoidance to the level conducted on large commercial ships, will solve boater problems, are (IMHO). I claim it won't, and will actually create other problems (accessibility for one). That is exactly the opposite of a Nirvanna Fallacy.

In fact I believe I may have posted somewhere in this thread, (or maybe it was another one) that I firmly believe that any solution man can come up with to solve a problem, will necessarily create another problem. Again exactly the opposite of the Nirvanna Fallacy.

Anyway, you either have to come up with valid arguments that have some sort of sense and relevance to them, or I will have to assume you are unworthy of debating, and will disengage with you.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

WTF are you talking about?

I said there were far more important things to be addressed that would benefit boaters (and everyone) than additional training and licensing (with unmentioned reference to the level Dockhead was suggesting.)

Someone asked what that might be.

I cited some examples.

Not a strawman argument.

Direct and relevant response to a question based correctly on a prior post.

Now I see the problem.

Even though the definition of a strawman argument has been posted and repeated several times in this thread; and you claim to understand what a strawman argument is, I don't believe you really do.

A strawman argument, (for the last time, this definition in my own words) is when someone incorrectly presents the position of another, so that they can make an excellent argument against it.

They might do this, because they can't really make a good argument or defend their position well against what the poster's position really was.

I have not suggested anything that would represent a Nirvana Fallacy (assumption of a perfect solution being possible). Those who seem to be implying that additional training on collision avoidance to the level conducted on large commercial ships, will solve boater problems, are (IMHO). I claim it won't, and will actually create other problems (accessibility for one). That is exactly the opposite of a Nirvanna Fallacy.

In fact I believe I may have posted somewhere in this thread, (or maybe it was another one) that I firmly believe that any solution man can come up with to solve a problem, will necessarily create another problem. Again exactly the opposite of the Nirvanna Fallacy.

Anyway, you either have to come up with valid arguments that have some sort of sense and relevance to them, or I will have to assume you are unworthy of debating, and will disengage with you.

You forgot that I said the rules were that we were not using strict rules of logic.

Let me say it more clearly. In order to be a strawman one only needs to have a few elements of the Fallacy to be that fallacy.

Skipping over a lot of non-relevant verbiage....

It is quite easy to disregard another's opinion as non-relevant and just skip over thinking about what their meaning is. It takes a bit more effort to see their meaning and evaluate it. And then again it takes a lot of effort to actually listen to another person's opinion and try to see what you can learn from it.

Worthy, unworthy??? I cannot for the life of me see where anyone on CF has an opinion that is unworthy.

Or did you mean unworthy as in "not deserving effort, attention, or respect."?

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Hey Rod,

You have said that you have changed you mind but I am not sure when. Can I assume that it was somewhere in this thread? With 1128 posts I may have missed it.

Did you change your mind and now think that trying to pass aft of a 600' ship going 20 kts in a 90 degree crossing situation in your 40' boat doing 5 kts with a CPA of 180' is a really dumb idea?

No.

I have always felt this would not be a good idea, and posted same.

However, I proposed a scenario where it would be a better than leaving more distance (especially 2 to 3 cables) and being closer to a following ship, and proved it.

Others then said it wasn't possible to do in reality, even with sophisticated instrumentation and high level solution plotting capabilities, and I described how it could be done, using basic sailing skills, without any instruments at all.

So know, I have not changed my position on this.

Did you change your mind and now think that displaying a masthead tricolor light at the same time as deck level side lights and stern light is in violation of COLREGS and should not be done even if you think it might to advantageous to do so?

No.

I have known for quite some time that it wasn't considered good practice to have both on at the same time.

I asked the forum if it was specifically prohibited by Colregs.

Some indicated it was.

However, no where in Colregs does it state specifically that, "deck level sidelights and mast mounted trilights shall not be shown at the same time".

Whereas it does state that a trilight and red over green vertical lights shall not be shown at the same time.

That is a specific prohibition.

Some posted that it is prohibited by Colregs because it could possibly be confused with other prescribed lighting.

This is not a specific prohibition.

I am not sure if they are really prohibited by this umbrella provision.

Some claim so because "they" could confuse them, but I have encountered folks who could confuse anything, so I don't know if their personal confusion represents normal confusion.

Someone could claim they saw pink elephants if they thought it would help them get off the hook or win an argument. (BTW that is not likely to work. ;-)

So no, I haven't changed my mind on this.

Did you change your mind and now think that boater education (such as PCOC) might increase boater safety enough to justify having said education as a requirement?

No.

I have always felt that boater education such as for a PCOC is valuable.

I don't believe it actually proves that a boater is competent.

But it does indicate that they passed a boating related test at some time in their life, which I expect is better than nothing.

But that was not the subject of the debate.

The debate was if training and licensing to perform collision avoidance to the level performed on the bridge of large commercial vessels is necessary for rec boaters.

I don't believe it is; others disagreed.

OK, question and answer recap period over.

New question.

Are you intentionally making all of these mistakes, regarding my position on the various subjects discussed throughout this thread?

If so, please stop.

If not, it may be wise to consult your physician.

Seriously.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

No.

I have always felt this would not be a good idea, and posted same.

However, I proposed a scenario where it would be a better than leaving more distance (especially 2 to 3 cables) and being closer to a following ship, and proved it.

Others then said it wasn't possible to do in reality, even with sophisticated instrumentation and high level solution plotting capabilities, and I described how it could be done, using basic sailing skills, without any instruments at all.

So know, I have not changed my position on this.



No.

I have known for quite some time that it wasn't considered good practice to have both on at the same time.

I asked the forum if it was specifically prohibited by Colregs.

Some indicated it was.

However, no where in Colregs does it state specifically that, "deck level sidelights and mast mounted trilights shall not be shown at the same time".

Whereas it does state that a trilight and red over green vertical lights shall not be shown at the same time.

That is a specific prohibition.

Some posted that it is prohibited by Colregs because it could possibly be confused with other prescribed lighting.

This is not a specific prohibition.

I am not sure if they are really prohibited by this umbrella provision.

Some claim so because "they" could confuse them, but I have encountered folks who could confuse anything, so I don't know if their personal confusion represents normal confusion.

Someone could claim they saw pink elephants if they thought it would help them get off the hook or win an argument. (BTW that is not likely to work. ;-)

So no, I haven't changed my mind on this.



No.

I have always felt that boater education such as for a PCOC is valuable.

I don't believe it actually proves that a boater is competent.

But it does indicate that they passed a boating related test at some time in their life, which I expect is better than nothing.

But that was not the subject of the debate.

The debate was if training and licensing to perform collision avoidance to the level performed on the bridge of large commercial vessels is necessary for rec boaters.

I don't believe it is; others disagreed.

OK, question and answer recap period over.

New question.

Are you intentionally making all of these mistakes, regarding my position on the various subjects discussed throughout this thread?

If so, please stop.

If not, it may be wise to consult your physician.

Seriously.

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to answer those questions in good faith.

I assume that your suggestion that I consult my physician is a joke in the same vein an my joke that Captain Rod said "fire the strawman torpedos". At least I hope so.

To answer your question: You might think that I am making mistakes but then again I do not think so. I'll leave it up to others to point it out as they see fit.

In regards to your 50 ships in a line - that was pure (OMO) pure slight of hand and distraction to lead people away from the idea that if your balls were big enough (oh pardon, pucker factor) you could pass CPA 180' behind a 600' ship doing 20 kts.

I suspect that you project your experiences in sailing near a shipping channel and then turning to quickly pass behind a ship in that channel to standing on to a crossing in open water. Open water and shipping channel are far different.

Slight of hand and evasion but it served a distinct function. The topic of the thread was "Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA" and we have not really talked much about that. But as Dockhead said, your opinions have caused the thread to thrive and for a number of people to come to a greater understanding of crossings.

I would love to get back to Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

we need to quit debating this right now.

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I will have to assume you are unworthy of debating, and will disengage with you.

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

With all due respect, I am going to disengage with you,

Promises, promises [fingers crossed].

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evm1024
Hey Rod,

You have said that you have changed you mind but I am not sure when. Can I assume that it was somewhere in this thread? With 1128 posts I may have missed it.

Did you change your mind and now think that trying to pass aft of a 600' ship going 20 kts in a 90 degree crossing situation in your 40' boat doing 5 kts with a CPA of 180' is a really dumb idea?

No.

I have always felt this would not be a good idea, and posted same.

Hmmm, seems to me you posted the exact opposite and that was what prompted this thread.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2461106

> I don't understand. It is not an issue of who can get further away from whom faster. 180 ft is plenty of distance from any size vessel side or stern.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2461734

> Altering course from 5 nm away by 1 degree to pass the stern of a vessel by 180 ft or more is a non-issue.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

There are a few exceptions to requiring a PCOC:

Boats without an engine.

Boats operated in Nunavut or NWT.

Rental boats ... there is some half-baked system of the rental agency being able to sign you off as competent without documentation.

Foreign boats visiting Canada for less than 45 days are exempt, but after that they need to have either a PCOC or something equivalent issued by their own country/state.

None of them seem to apply to a privately owned recreational vessel sailed on Lake Ontario.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Seriously dude, I think you may need help.

Seriously.

With all due respect, I am going to disengage with you, because I am concerned for your well being.

As you wish. But before you go consider this:

I know that humility appears to be difficult for you and I do not really expect it. Strong egos get things done and are valuable as such.

But I think that if one acts as if they were the sole arbiter of the rules, truth and such that there will be a bit of push back. And we have seen that in this thread.

I am willing to engage with you with grace and as an equal. Can you do the same?

The one thing that I would like from you is the concession that: Attempting to pass 180' CPA behind a 600' ship doing 20 kts in open water is F***ing nuts and highly dangerous regardless of your tolerance to the pucker factor.

You would not need to concede this to me. Just concede without any buts or exceptions. Not to put words in your mouth but something like this:

"Folks, on further consideration there is no way to safely pass 180 CPA behind a ship doing 20 kts."

Kind regards