• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content count

    421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TJSoCal

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. When I was a JO in the late 80s, I remember VADM Joe Metcalf (then DCNO for Surface Warfare) doing a lot to try to instill more of a sense of professionalism and esprit in the SWO community. I think it's good that at least it's no longer a "dumping ground" for folks that flunk out of other warfare specialties. But it does sound like they fell down on basic SWO training in the 2000s and are reaping the results now. I agree with Crash, it's embarrassing and horrifying. And makes me wonder if they'd be interested in having me back as a navigation & seamanship instructor... Recently I found this quote in a "Popular Mechanics" article circa 1988 on the "Battlecruiser 2000": "The bridge," Metcalf contends, "has no relevance to the modern warship. It's a glaring anachronism. It was originally designed in Adm Dewey's day to allow the captain to watch the fall of his shot, but the vast expansion of battle space has rendered it obsolete." Many of the command functions traditionally conducted from the bridge have already been transferred to a sophisticated electronic nerve center called the Combat Information Center , or CIC. Because of the need to colocate the CIC with the bridge, it is currently situated topside - a vulnerable spot for such a critical facility. Metcalf would shift the remaining bridge functions to CIC, which would be nestled snugly and safely in the very bowels of the ship. In his opinion, there is no rational reason to do otherwise. I'm not sure that's a conclusion that the Fitzgerald/McCain investigation team would concur with...
  2. Let's also recall that in both the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents, merchant captains who had a responsibility to avoid collision (regardless of who was stand-on or give way) also failed in their duties. Granted, McCain got a little squirrely due to their ship control fuck-ups, but Fitzgerald was on a steady course & speed for almost half an hour before collision - plenty of time for the other fellow, if he was alert and competent, to assess that risk of collision existed and even if he was stand-on he could/should/must maneuver to avoid. The actions, training and level of fault of the merchant captains and crews in these incidents was beyond the proper scope of the Navy's investigations so we don't know any specifics about that aspect. And it's not that merchant-on-merchant collisions and other mishaps don't happen on a regular basis, it's just that they don't immediately go viral like a Navy incident does. So I don't think the "Navy captains incompetent, merchant captains perfect (or even, necessarily, better)" meme is a valid one.
  3. They're not plucking these guys off the street (or directly out of a career in the Puzzle Palace) and shoving them into an 18 month CO tour. Not sure how it is today but at least back in my active service time a first command tour for an O-5 on a frigate or destroyer came after about 10-14 years of service, 6-10 of which would have been at sea (1 or 2 division officer tours, probably two department head tours and an XO tour, and presumably reasonably successful in each of them). I had some ship COs that I thought were not the greatest leaders or managers, but none that I thought were poor seamen or incompetent shiphandlers. On the other hand, it sounds like the XOs and COs of today are victims of the pared back SWO training pipeline of 10 or so years ago. So they may not even know what they don't know, and may not be the best sources for training the kids.
  4. I still remember two quotes, from a QM and an EW who worked for me (this was circa 1985 or so): QM said that Subic Bay was the only experience in the Navy that met his expectations. EW suggested that every American boy, when he hits puberty, should be given $50 and sent to Subic for a weekend...
  5. World Sailing Classification for drivers

    I went to the World Sailing website and it only took me about 15 minutes with readily available info to get a Sailor ID and Group 1 classification. But it does seem unreasonable to require it of "all crew" for a low-level regatta.
  6. THIEVES!!! junior Regatta night shoppers

    For the most part I'd expect regular members who keep their boats there to be responsible for securing their own stuff, and/or deciding that it's worth it for the club to pay for enhanced security. For a weekend regatta where there's a lot of transient stuff sitting around possibly unsecured and a lot of transient people around the club, it seems like it would be reasonable to at least round up some volunteers to hang around and provide security, especially through the night. I don't think you need armed professional security guards or sophisticated video surveillance, but just a couple of people walking around the yard with flashlights might well have deterred these thieves. I do hope that some of the stuff is recovered and that the perps are caught and punished.
  7. Racing Rules question

    I guess you could argue that the proper action would have been for the lead boat to remain above the port layline after tacking around the mark and do their penalty turn, so by turning down into the port tack fleet they failed to "get well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible" and thus broke rule 44.2.
  8. Racing Rules question

    I assume this was a port rounding of a windward mark, so the leading boat would have tacked at the mark, rounded (now on starboard) and borne away into the fleet of port tackers approaching the mark. If that's correct then lead boat must have completed her tack and had ROW. And if the port tack boats were able to avoid contact, then by definition starboard gave them room to keep clear. The fact that starboard is "carrying" a penalty makes no difference until she starts to make her penalty turn, and as noted she's permitted to sail well clear of other boats to do so.
  9. California Boating Card

    Apparently an early version of the bill did not include the rental exemption, but it was added before passage, based on the following rationale: According to 2013 California Recreational Boating Accident Statistics, of all the vessel accidents that occurred in the state that year, only 9% involved rental vessels. The boating industry indicated that rental agents generally provide boater safety training as part of the rental process. The California Yacht Brokers Association, the Marina Recreation Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and the Western Boater’s Safety Group, supported the bill stating, “The bill strikes a good balance between ensuring that vessel operators are sufficiently educated on boating safety and vessel operation without imposing an excessive burden that would serve as a barrier to operating a vessel.” I'd be interested in seeing more data about the first point. Specifically, what percentage of boat operator hours involves rental vessels? Without knowing that you don't really know if 9% of accidents is a big number or a small number. But the other points are obvious, and boil down to "boat rental outfits have lobbyists."
  10. asking for repair costs

    That does sound fairly dicey, I'll give you that. How many other collisions occurred? Must have been lots, I would think...
  11. asking for repair costs

    I don't necessarily add to a flame war but there are a couple of issues here: 1. COLREGS don't really give rights or entitlements (like RRS do), they only assign responsibilities. Both the give-way vessel and the stand-on vessel have responsibilities. As stand-on vessel you had the responsibility to avoid collision, the option to "take action to avoid collision by [your] maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to [you] that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action", and the responsibility to take action when it got to the point that action by the give-way vessel alone would not be sufficient to avoid collision. So from a COLREGS perspective, in my opinion, you were just as wrong as the port tack boat you hit. 2. It seems to me the proper course of action in both the COLREGS and Corinthian sense would have been for you to take early action to avoid the port tack crosser. You knew that they were racing and would prefer not to have to duck you, and it ought to have become apparent that they didn't see you and/or did not intend to alter course. You say that there were other boats to starboard of you so tacking wouldn't have been a good option, but it seems to me that an early and substantial turn to port to duck the port tacker by a good margin, plus maybe a wave or a hail to let them know you were letting them cross, would not have been an inappropriate course of action for a non-racing boat to take. I believe that's what I would have done in your stead.
  12. Re the Shiloh article, typically Aegis cruisers are at least a second command tour. Wonder what the environment was like on his first CO tour?
  13. Rule 17 - Proper Course rule question

    On the rule 17 side, it sounds likely that B established a new overlap after the gybes and rule 17 was on. Seems to me that B could claim their proper course could be as high as a beam reach, if they wanted to come into the mark on a deeper angle, perhaps to facilitate a takedown. Proper course above beam reach would be a hard sell. And as noted B would have to bear away to the mark and give A mark room as soon as the first of them reached the zone.
  14. Rule 17 - Proper Course rule question

    That still doesn't quite sound like what I think you mean. If B was overlapped to leeward of A (demonstrated by luffing A) just before the zone, then the overlap probably still existed when the first of them reached the zone (or A may have been clear ahead). From that point B is outside (or clear astern) boat and A is entitled to mark room. B luffing A to a heading above the leeward mark inside the zone deprives A of the mark room to which she is entitled. B breaks rule 18.2. The only way B could be clean is if B were clear ahead when they reached the zone. Did I get that right?
  15. Rule 17 - Proper Course rule question

    Brass, did you mean to say if the boats were overlapped when the luffing began ("just outside the zone"), then they must have been overlapped when the first boat crossed into the zone? I don't know how you could luff someone up without an overlap...