• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

BrianM v2

Members
  • Content count

    684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BrianM v2

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 05/29/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Near 36 56N 076 18W
  • Interests
    International Moths, big grey ships, and things with strings.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,134 profile views
  1. If that guy was on my side of the country, I'd have bought it already. Would love a beater Laser.
  2. Got my 100 ton Master two years ago. The coursework and exam difference between Master (X ton) and OUPV (six-pack) is about a day's worth. If you have the chance and the sea time, just do the rated tonnage. If you do OUPV and want to upgrade later, you'll get to retake the RotR exam (among other things). The 100 ton Master is the largest tonnage you can self-certify for (no one else has to validate your sea service list). Anything bigger and the master has to countersign the underway time list. There are two timing wickets to jump through: total time afloat and recency. Total time: OUPV: 360 days on the water since your 13th birthday. Master near coastal: 720 days since 13th birthday, 180 days outside the Line of Demarcation. Recency: both: 90 days in the last three years. The tonnage for master will be driven by how big a craft your logged time is on. Recency specifies "on vessels of appropriate tonnage or horsepower", but that is never defined. The National Maritime Center will review your application and decide. In my case, all my qualifying sea time was on big grey things ranging from 4,000 to 100,000 tons; all my recency time was on small sailboats - (see avatar photo). Apparently in the NMC's eyes, 11 foot unpowered sailboats are "appropriate tonnage" to keep me recent for a 100 ton license. I'm told you might get pushback if all your time is kayaks or sailboards, but otherwise go for it. I had to get titles for my sailboats to prove they exist, since neither was a state-registered vessel (unpowered, not required). Once through that hoop, everything else was pretty simple. You can get a sailing endorsement on your ticket as well. Requires 180 days under sail, same 90 days in the last 3 years. The sail endorsement exam was a joke. Edit to add: for ex-Navy types, you do need an official letter saying you served on ships. BUPERS / NPC writes them, took a few weeks from faxed request to receipt. However, their letter doesn't include all the details USCG wants, so you still get to include FITREPs/etc like WHK commented. CG wants watch position served, tonnage, horsepower, and location. All the official USN letter covered was dates and ship.
  3. Interesting. Thanks for the closeout.
  4. Probably a decent idea for those afraid of wiggling. Just to share, it's disturbing how well the boat tracks of it's own accord when heeled to weather. I've played around a couple times with letting go of the tiller completely and just hanging in the straps and being the crew while the boat steers itsself. It's very eerie how long it will behave itsself for when I do this. It likely has to do with how neutral the struts are at that heel angle. DRC Except that the moth does that mostly for capsize recovery. Much easier to get back onboard (water start) if the tiller self-centers - that way the boat tracks in a straight line and pulls you up. Otherwise, it's likely to round up and re-capsize as you try to drag in. Not intended to be a damper on movement while on foils. But, just like Dave says, there is a huge difference between a balanced boat and a non-balanced boat. If you get a moth set up right (heel, fore/aft balance, foil height) the tiller goes pretty light. You _could_ let go, but I've never been willing to try it. It really comes down to learning a lighter touch. Up flying at 20+ kts, with the fairly short wheelbase that comes with foils, the same amount of rudder motion that works well for a conventional boat puts you deep into PIO (pilot-induced oscillations) on a foiler. Movement leads to counter leads to overcorrection leads to eject and crash. One must play with the waggle-stick very gently.
  5. Converted my grill several years ago. You are correct, all it takes is new orifices for the burners and a new regulator setting. My regulator does both LP and NG, just swap a pressure plate - check yours before buying a new one. Burner bars are exactly the same. The orifices are the 'jets' just after the valve, and NG takes a larger orifice than LP.
  6. I got this from a friend of mine who is a deputy COTP, but not in PNW. Names and locations deleted to protect the guilty. This is not an official USCG ruling, but is perhaps at least a view of how they see things. He found this an interesting question - apparently not one that had obviously come up - and kicked it around with his staff for a few days. As before, clear as mud. Easy answer is "just avoid the situation in the first place." But the idea of fining both parties amuses me, is in keeping with most Admiralty cases, and sounds like "you scratched my anchor." I see the score as: Power boat: illegally inside the security zone (33 CFR 165) (assumption, but probably wasn't on the radio); failure to keep a lookout (rule 6); failure to avoid collision (Rule 8 and 17). Ferry: failure to give way (Rule 15 and 16), failure to avoid collision (Rule 8). And you can probably pile on with various unsafe speed (Rule 5, because a safe speed would have allowed you to avoid), violations of prudent seamanship (Rule 2), maneuvering signals (Rule 34) prior to sounding 5 short, and a few others. The lawyers will have a ball.
  7. Another helpful gent pointed out publication of enforcement in the Federal Register. SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port Puget Sound will begin, on February 8, 2004, enforcing the Large Passenger Vessel Security and Safety Zones that were published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2004...DATES: 33 CFR 165.1317 will be enforced commencing February 8, 2004. So for Puget Sound, yes the zones are in effect - which doesn't help the original question about apparent conflicts between CFR and COLREGs. .... For giggles, I just volleyed that question to another friend of mine who is currently a COTP (not in PNW) to see what he thinks.
  8. And to clarify my previous comment - the paragraphs in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are simply publication of the law. CoTP still has to announce "today, around this vessel, that law will be enforced." Note the sentence that says "will only be enforced". Now, most guys who displace more than 50 tons would appreciate an early and obvious course change that removes all doubt...even if you don't have to. As someone else said earlier, "right of way is given, not taken."
  9. More mud for the waters.... As pointed out by my retired Coastie friend, the large vessel protective zone (and tank ship zone) only exist when explicitly announced by the Captain of the Port. The naval vessel zone always exists. Just did a quick skim of the D13 page and Google, nothing obvious about a 'standing announcement.' In other words, if there is a CG patrol with the ferry, safe bet that a standoff zone exists. No patrol, no Broadcast Notice to Mariners? No zone.
  10. Overall, you gents have pointed out some interesting nuance changes. Only the NVPZ language includes the "unless required to maintain speed" phrase; the tank ship and large passenger vessel codes do not. Which does beg a few questions. I wonder which one (NVPZ, tank ship, passenger vessel) was written first? Would not be the first time CFRs were published with accidental holes that were patched in later versions. At any rate, I work with some Coasties who used to enforce this stuff. I'm curious now - I'll hit them up on Monday.
  11. When I open that document on my Mac, it doesn't have a title. What is it? I don't see a title either, but it comes from a USCG address. I was Google-searching for "Rosario Strait VTS Special Area" and found the link to that document. That document is the 2013 VTS Users Manual. Original link is on the Coast Guard District 13 site.
  12. Previous experience in PNW says "yes" to recording. Seattle Traffic (the VTS) records everything on 14 and 16 (maybe more, not sure) and will come find you. Had a sister ship on the receiving end of a tounge-lashing one day. They will even call out ships for erratic course changes, following too closely, or failing to make arrangements. Regards "in the clear" - in Admiralty cases, completely clear is pretty rare. There is usually enough blame to smear around. For example, for the ferry - perhaps they hailed (on what channels? Only players in the VTS use 14) - did he negotiate the crossing via radio first, did he back it up with sound signals, did he attempt to turn starboard and avoid, how long was he aware of Nap Time, was the radar on the appropriate scale, etc. Given that one of the fundamental rules is "don't hit each other"...and they did...both parties carry some blame. This whole thing is part of why I made a point of teaching all my young officers the difference between what the rules actually say and what people usually do. Feel free to follow common practice - but if it all goes pear-shaped, you'd better know which side of the rules you are on. Case in point: for this ferry collision - Puget Sound is not US inland waters, the international COLREGs apply. Rule 34 (Maneuvering and Warning Signals) requires sound signals if you are maneuvering "as authorized or required by these rules." The caveat that allows agreement by radio only applies in US Inland waters. (N.B. there may be something buried in the VTS Manual that provides another option, not sure). So what? If you are operating under the International COLREGs, talk to the other vessel on the radio, make passing arrangements, and hit each other anyway - you bear some fault if you never touched the whistle. Ask anyone who sails offshore - how often do you hear one short or two short? Kind of like the speed limit - everyone blows it off, but that doesn't mean it is legal.
  13. I'll muddy the waters a bit. From the perspective of someone who used to drive ships that qualified for a Naval vessel protective zone (NVPZ), the only thing it really provides is an indicator of intent. Think of it just like a fence around your yard. Without a fence, someone wanders onto your property - are they up to malice? Maybe, maybe not, perhaps they are just confused. With a fence, that decision is easier - they had to cross a barrier to get there, which provides some insight to purpose. We look(ed) at the protective zone the same way. If your small powerboat is closing me at high speed, and you blow through the outer line of the protective zone, maybe I need to be concerned. If you slow down, that gives me pause. Where the thing really gets confused is when the vessel and protective zone close another anchored vessel. I watched this play out in the approaches to Kings Bay (submarine base in GA). A defined zone, lots of Coasties defending it, and a cabin cruiser legally anchored near the channel. As the sub goes by, the cabin cruiser is inside the zone. Does that mean the protected vessel could demand that the anchored vessel move? In practice, no one would, in the absence of intent or intel. As a result, I always looked at the COLREGs/NVPZ interplay this way: If my maneuvering under COLREGs puts you inside my NVPZ, that's my problem to solve (turn away, request you change course, decide I don't care, etc). Your maneuvering under COLREGs should account for the additional buffer space - so if you are supposed to stay clear, duck my stern by at least 500 yards, or slow down when you do it. If you blast by at 30kts 100 feet away, that's a different problem.
  14. Not sure about the doppler bit - I'm working with R21 Alaska and Western Rivers and that concept hasn't surfaced, but those are slightly different installations of the kit - an interesting question to go chase at work this morning if things are slow. From experience in my previous life, CG has been known to use the portable disaster towers (R21 tower on a trailer) to help with hoax cross-fixes. The fixed towers ideally give you the two-bearing cross, then you park the trailer nearby to help narrow it down. They also do sound analysis. Had a hoax caller on the East Coast a few years ago - one of the nuggets that helped get to a search warrant was picking up the background noise: a large industrial fan, based on frequency and specific tonals in the recording. The small cocked-hat we had included two residences and a warehouse. Ding! we have a winner.
  15. I agree with "no." 1. 33 CFR ยง 165.1317 Security and Safety Zone; Large Passenger Vessel Protection, Puget Sound and adjacent waters, Washington. (e) The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times within a large passenger vessel security and safety zone. 2. Not that I've ever heard of. No such specific exemption exists in the COLREGs. 3. Not unless it is actually in a marked channel or flying the appropriate lights/shapes. For the international crowd, ferries in the US don't carry a special status like those in Sydney Harbor.