• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

PHOTOS: "You are doing it wrong . . . !"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
No smoking with kids in car law ...
 

Attachments

  • NoSmokingWithKidsInCar.jpg
    NoSmokingWithKidsInCar.jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 324

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Selfie . . .
 

Attachments

  • 10E55C4D-5AB9-4722-A271-6C744B8D7631.jpeg
    10E55C4D-5AB9-4722-A271-6C744B8D7631.jpeg
    33.1 KB · Views: 311

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Tail gunner . . .
 

Attachments

  • 297448B2-A93D-4D32-8EC2-91854B5A4942.jpeg
    297448B2-A93D-4D32-8EC2-91854B5A4942.jpeg
    79.9 KB · Views: 331

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think we are going to need a bigger donkey. :laugh3:

Probably want to get him some hearing protection too. First pull of the trigger, while standing behind that donkey, is likely to yield an unwelcome kick to the balls of the person holding the rear end of that gun from a very frightened and panicked beast!
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
:whistling: . . .
 

Attachments

  • B0549320-F00D-4AF6-9E94-567E9C3938D2.jpeg
    B0549320-F00D-4AF6-9E94-567E9C3938D2.jpeg
    116 KB · Views: 300

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Awesome wireless hose ....
 

Attachments

  • HomeDepot.jpg
    HomeDepot.jpg
    64 KB · Views: 192

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
...
 

Attachments

  • DoingItWrong-19-04.jpg
    DoingItWrong-19-04.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 157

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Seized lug nut . . .
 

Attachments

  • B449BE79-28A7-488C-BC14-00F4F097F14F.jpg
    B449BE79-28A7-488C-BC14-00F4F097F14F.jpg
    145.4 KB · Views: 143

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Wrong lane?
 

Attachments

  • ED736B1A-1AA5-4529-B2AC-9CB3601FFCC6.jpg
    ED736B1A-1AA5-4529-B2AC-9CB3601FFCC6.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 143

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
whoops ...
 

Attachments

  • DoingItWrong-19-05.jpg
    DoingItWrong-19-05.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 104

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I'd give a pretty penny - even an ugly dime - to see a copy of the Coast Guard investigation on this one! :yum:

I'm thinking that stupid sailor leaped right out in front of the motor craft.

That looks like a Juneau 30 "Sunlight." Them suckers are fast.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I'm thinking that stupid sailor leaped right out in front of the motor craft.

That looks like a Juneau 30 "Sunlight." Them suckers are fast.


Or, the fishermen were fishing and the bloboater decided that he had "the right of way" because he is a bloboater. PS, it's not right of way, it's stand-on.



Blobaters are the "give way" vessel when coming across a fishing vessel.
The fishing vessel is the "stand on" in this situation. Or, has the right of way.


However, no matter, both vessels are damaged and both should avoid collision. Having said that, if in fact the fishing vessel was in fact fishing, then the bloboater or his insurance gets to pay the majority of both claims.



Nobody can say that these either of these two captains were correct. They both should have avoided collision. Even if the fishing vessel wasn't fishing, the captain had the autopilot on, engines at 3/4 throttle, with everybody sitting in the cockpit looking towards where they came from, the blooater should have had situational awareness and turned to avoid. Plain and simple. No matter how negligent the other captain was. And vice-versa.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Or, the fishermen were fishing and the bloboater decided that he had "the right of way" because he is a bloboater. PS, it's not right of way, it's stand-on.



Blobaters are the "give way" vessel when coming across a fishing vessel.
The fishing vessel is the "stand on" in this situation. Or, has the right of way.


However, no matter, both vessels are damaged and both should avoid collision. Having said that, if in fact the fishing vessel was in fact fishing, then the bloboater or his insurance gets to pay the majority of both claims.



Nobody can say that these either of these two captains were correct. They both should have avoided collision. Even if the fishing vessel wasn't fishing, the captain had the autopilot on, engines at 3/4 throttle, with everybody sitting in the cockpit looking towards where they came from, the blooater should have had situational awareness and turned to avoid. Plain and simple. No matter how negligent the other captain was. And vice-versa.


As a lifelong bloater who has a few stink pot vessels as well, I respectfully disagree.

Any sailor will tell you from the pictures that the wind was slight. Unless the Juneau had it's axillary running, the stand on sailing vessel would been making little, if any, way and would have had very little maneuverability. That is why they have the unquestioned right of way.

IF the sail craft was not making way, the "stand on vessel " rule does not even apply.


Despite the fact he was engaged in "fishing", the power boat captain will get the blame 100% for this one.
 
Last edited:

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
If you want to look closer at that boat accident, search for details on it. The accident occurred in the Chesapeake bay, 8/17/18.
I dug some but couldn't find the results of the Coast Guard investigation.

Here's a couple links.
https://wjla.com/news/local/boat-crash-chesapeake-bay-annapolis
https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2018/08/22/chesapeake-bay-boat-accident/
https://wjla.com/news/local/boat-crash-chesapeake-bay-annapolis

None of the links give much help as to what happened. The narrative suggests the sailboat " may have changed tack." If so I'm betting the sailor saw the Powerboat approaching and put his helm hard over to avoid. Powerboat capable of 30 knots speed and the sailboat at best 6.6knots in a fair wind.

But based on the wave action at the time of the photos, and the sails being deployed, I'm guessing less than 5 knots of wind. every maneuver employed by the sail vessel would have been sluggish at best.

And on a starboard tack he had right of way.

As a sailing vessel vrs power vessel he had right of way

And since the charter crew and guest were not "fishing" at the time, the sailor had right of way.

I'm making these judgements on available information. That, and the fact that there is almost no conditions, on a fair day with excellent visibility, that such an encounter would have required the sail vessel to have held any, much less sole, responsibility for avoiding the impact.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Stand on vs give way.

Looks to me as if rods were in the rod holders.

And the bloboat with sails up even in the mildest of wind was in motion; wind was 10-12 knots that day. I also notice the exhaust port in the transom of that bloboat. Even at 30mph, the bloboater had plenty of time to react.
The bloboater even admitted he saw the fisherguy "way off in the distance "coming and decided to standon.

But then again, fisherguy probably had a cooler full of brew, an autopilot, and may have decided to sit in back with the boys.

If they were fishing, he had the right of way, or, he was the stand on vessel.

I have no idea how to search for USCG findings. Would be interesting to read the transcripts. The USCG transcripts page ends in 2015. No reports of any sort after that, at least that I can find. Anybody?

The fisherguy also has a radar on top. I tend to set an alarm zone on mine once I get out on the water. It's annoying sometimes, but it also easy to get into a focused discussion on the bridge, and not being focused on piloting.

At least the fisherguys put their life vests on. I'm guessing the bloboaters have their vests stowed below, which is illegal, and now they can't get to them. So they were in motion and had their gear stowed below.

The bloboater, in a 10-12 kph blow, should have and could have avoided, especially after seeing it way off in the distance. A portion of this accident was because of his attitude. He assumed the fisherboat would alter course and give way.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Stand on vs give way.

Looks to me as if rods were in the rod holders.

And the bloboat with sails up even in the mildest of wind was in motion; wind was 10-12 knots that day. I also notice the exhaust port in the transom of that bloboat. Even at 30mph, the bloboater had plenty of time to react.
The bloboater even admitted he saw the fisherguy "way off in the distance "coming and decided to standon.

But then again, fisherguy probably had a cooler full of brew, an autopilot, and may have decided to sit in back with the boys.

If they were fishing, he had the right of way, or, he was the stand on vessel.

I have no idea how to search for USCG findings. Would be interesting to read the transcripts. The USCG transcripts page ends in 2015. No reports of any sort after that, at least that I can find. Anybody?

The fisherguy also has a radar on top. I tend to set an alarm zone on mine once I get out on the water. It's annoying sometimes, but it also easy to get into a focused discussion on the bridge, and not being focused on piloting.

At least the fisherguys put their life vests on. I'm guessing the bloboaters have their vests stowed below, which is illegal, and now they can't get to them. So they were in motion and had their gear stowed below.

The bloboater, in a 10-12 kph blow, should have and could have avoided, especially after seeing it way off in the distance. A portion of this accident was because of his attitude. He assumed the fisherboat would alter course and give way.


You didn't read the narrative of the link.

And your weren't there. The waves in the photo (admittedly post event) don't reflect a 10--12 knot blow.

Passenger stated the captain was not drinking
Photo shows NO lines in the water.

Speaking of lines...
…. this line is cryptic.
"Most of the passengers were hanging out enjoying the ride, and no one was really paying attention the situation on the water."

I would like to see the final but your assumptions are biased. And that is being kind. Because nothing of the little we do see in the photos, or the narrative, supports your accusations.

The photo only shows what you can see. Where the sailors had their vests is unknown and irrelevant. Besides the sailboat was in NO DANGER OF SINKING.

You keep trying to blame the sailor. Typical of Power boaters because every once in a while you have to turn a few degrees off your course to miss us.

If we are the stand on vessel Our obligation is to "MAINTAIN COURSE AND SPEED!!!

Whatever that is.


Rule 17 assigns responsibilities to the vessel with the "right-of-way"--the stand-on vessel. The text of the Rule does not use the term "stand-on vessel" but instead describes it in paragraph (a) as the "other" vessel, that is, not the give-way vessel, not the vessel required to keep out of the way. When does this Rule apply? It applies only in situations covered by Rules 12, 13 ,15, and 18, which require one vessel to stay out of the way of another.
These four Rules apply only when the two vessels are in sight of one another and only when risk of collision exists. When three or more vessels approach with risk of collision it will likely will be impossible for all of them to act according to all of the Rules; one vessel may be the stand-on vessel with respect to a second and a give-way vessel with respect to a third. Rule 17 would require one action while Rule 16 would require a conflicting action. Such a situation is one of special circumstances and is governed by Rule 2.
Give-way vessels have one obligation--to stay out of the way of stand-on vessels. Stand-on vessels, however, have more complicated responsibilities, but their basic obligation is to hold their course and speed, or to "stand-on." Other actions are required or permitted depending on the circumstances.
Remember that give-way/stand-on situations do not begin until risk of collision (Rule 7) exists. You are free to maneuver before that risk arises no matter what your obligations would be later if you were to continue on your initial course.Once risk of collision develops, however, paragraph (a)(i) requires the stand-on vessel to hold its course and speed. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the give-way vessel to predict the action of the stand-on vessel and so be able to stay out of its way. In some circumstances, the stand-on vessel's normal maneuver would be to slow down or turn (to pick up a pilot or enter a channel, for example) and such action may be expected of the stand-on vessel by those on the give-way vessel. In that case, the stand-on vessel is obligated to maneuver as expected, even though the action is something other than holding course and speed. Again, a radiotelephone confirmation of intentions is useful.

I have both a 27 foot Maxum Sunbridge cruiser and a 30 foot sloop. If I have learned anything it is that situational awareness is required by both . But one cannot successfully operate a sailboat without a high moment to moment acuity to everything going on around the craft

I've been boating power and sail since 1964 and have heard it all from you guys. We are slow and in your way. Grab your dam throttle, back off or steer away and get over it..

Meanwhile, when you're not out on the water terrorizing the sail boaters, you might want to bone up on the rules of the road.
 
Last edited:

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Do a bit of research franc, while bias for the bloboater is highly apparent in your response.

Multiple news outlets in and near Kent Island repoted a 10-12 kph blow.

Anytime a mayday is reported, USCG orders all involved to Don flotation devices.

You can't know you are the stand on vessel in this case, if in fact they were fishing.

Being prudent is sometimes more important than being s pig headed bloboater that admitted to responders as I stated above in my last post. He saw them far off.

Again, I'd like to see the actual transcripts, wouldn't you?

But I guess in your mind, the bloboater was 100% not at fault. I postulate there is a mixture of fault here.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Do a bit of research franc, while bias for the bloboater is highly apparent in your response.

Multiple news outlets in and near Kent Island repoted a 10-12 kph blow.

Anytime a mayday is reported, USCG orders all involved to Don flotation devices.

You can't know you are the stand on vessel in this case, if in fact they were fishing.

Being prudent is sometimes more important than being s pig headed bloboater that admitted to responders as I stated above in my last post. He saw them far off.

Again, I'd like to see the actual transcripts, wouldn't you?

But I guess in your mind, the bloboater was 100% not at fault. I postulate there is a mixture of fault here.
Do you have info on the final judgment or ruling by the USCG??

My position here is based on what we can observe from the photos and the narrative YOU posted. And it was you who suggested alcohol might be involved but the narrative said no, it was absent. It also said nothing about lines in the water,and none were in the photos. Finally, based on the final resting place on top of the sail craft, they weren't operating at troll speeds at time of impact. Did you even read your posted link?


!2 knt wind a 30ft sailboat could eventually generate 3 to 4 knts on a broad reach, 6 downwind with a kite. Avoiding an un skippered 30 knt power craft could be dicey. After standing on, a last second tack would likely be futile


Pictures of the sailboat show no life vest on personnel but they only are required to be "accessible." easily assumed they could be in the cockpit on the floor. The best either of us can see from the photos, the emergency was stable at the time. Life vest rules for sailboats are that they are accessible. As was pointed to me during my recent on the water inspection where mine were found properly stored under the helmsman's seat. And only underway must a child under 13 wear one on deck. It varies from state to state but that is the general CG rule.

I know this because 1) my vessel was inspected last summer and 2) I not only took the boating safety course, years ago I taught it.

Further in order to get a license in Connecticut ( where my Maxum 27 is berthed) I had to pass a proficiency seamanship course. This stand on vessel rule is on every test. The stand on vessel, with few exceptions not relevant here, must maintain course and speed.

I don't have a bias toward power craft, I skipper one. Actually more than one as I own two 15 ft ski boats. I love sailing but my Bahama Islander 30 won't get my ass out of the water. I own a power cruiser because my son prefers to just push a throttle and try not to run into things at high speed. It also is a more appropriate vessel for overnighting on the Connecticut river. He also took the course in Connecticut as did my spouse.

Seamanship proficiency for power boat operators is no less an achievement that that of sail. I am proud both of them are competent operators of sea going vessels, both sail and power.

Could the sailor be held responsible" Perhaps on a vary narrow bit of reckless seamanship,,,, if provable. Unlikely in open water where visibility was clear and his vessel was the least maneuverable of the two water craft involved in the encounter. Open bay water with no channel buoys apparent, the power craft had ample opportunity to avoid the collision. J30 boats are relatively fast sail craft but not well known for sporadic darting about the waterway. Jet skis they ain't.

As Danang Sailor said, I'd love to see the CG findings. But I have little doubt as to the findings. I'll add that a mention of the sail crew in violation for not wearing life vests will most likely be missing from the report.

Neither you or I were actually there. "What ifs" are not evidence. Only wild speculations give rise to the possibility that the sail vessel caused the mishap.
 
Last edited:

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Perhaps you should read my responses.

I'd like to see the transcripts.

As far as qualifications, I have been awarded Navigator status in the USPS. I am also a qualified instructor and have taught classes.

Stand on or not, your bloboater captain saw the vessel and did nothing to avoid collision. Highlight your words all you want, at a 10-12 knot blow, he had ample time to alter course.

Your first and original post about this clearly showed your bias in this situation. I chose to show there may be one or more other sides to the story. I believe in all my posts I stated I'd like to see the final outcome of the USCG report.

Find it.

Until then, your stand is the bloboater is 100% not responsible, correct?

I will comment no more until I can assess the investigate report.

Ciao.
 

Jim_S

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
Warning . . .
 

Attachments

  • 970D4C20-22BA-4D8D-A0AF-70717FC4A2D6.jpeg
    970D4C20-22BA-4D8D-A0AF-70717FC4A2D6.jpeg
    100.1 KB · Views: 218

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Perhaps you should read my responses.

I'd like to see the transcripts.

As far as qualifications, I have been awarded Navigator status in the USPS. I am also a qualified instructor and have taught classes.

Stand on or not, your bloboater captain saw the vessel and did nothing to avoid collision. Highlight your words all you want, at a 10-12 knot blow, he had ample time to alter course.

Your first and original post about this clearly showed your bias in this situation. I chose to show there may be one or more other sides to the story. I believe in all my posts I stated I'd like to see the final outcome of the USCG report.

Find it.

Until then, your stand is the bloboater is 100% not responsible, correct?

I will comment no more until I can assess the investigate report.

Ciao.

It's what you believe, but NO it I not what I said.
Putting words in my mouth is not changing that.

I found this account for your review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T_Qk_ym8mA
You seem to need it, so the last word is yours. I'm done here.

Look we have abused this forum thread long enough. There is a Sub forum for boating. I'm leaving this here. Because we are "doing it wrong."
 
Last edited:

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
I know they often change names of chain restaurants in other countries, but geeez!
:yum:

UFO??!!
Who dat taking the colonel's place?
Lol
funny-names-15.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top