HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scott@prodplan.Columbia.NCR.COM (Scott Bridges)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:39:49 GMT

In article <1iao6tINNql@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Sandra Distefano writes:
>
>	The Coast Guard can board you whenever they want in US coastal 
>	waters. They have special rights which police, FBI don't have.  
>	They don't need "probable cause". They can stop and search you 
>	because they want to search for drugs or safety violations.
>
>Does the Coast Guard Auxiliary have the same privileges? Also, in case
>harbors have been put in place by the County, then the Sherriff seems to
>have jurisdiction. In other words, it seems as though the CG only has
>jurisdiction in areas not under County control. Newport Beach and Dana 
>Harbor were certainly under County Sherriff's control, and the CG only
>seemed to visit as "guests", although I'm sure they must have had some
>search rights, perhaps in "hot pursuit".
>
>FM
>FELIX
>Port of Redwood City


The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have any authority to board your boat.
I think that their official designation is "quasi-government."  I think this
means that they have some government funding.  I believe that their primary 
mission is education and some safety/rescue patrolling.  I am not a member,
but I know some guys who are.

As far as jurisdiction is concerned, the USCG has authority in any waters
navigable from the ocean.  Someone with a more technical understanding of 
the law can provide the why-fores and where-as's.  So, I believe that any
bay, river, inlet, etc with access is their jurisdiction.

I don't know how the USCG interacts with local/state police, though.

Scott

-- 
Scott Bridges                               Phone (803) 791-6387
NCR Corp-MCPD Columbia                      Fax (803) 739-7362
3325 Platt Springs Rd                       scott@prodcntr.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
West Columbia, SC 29170
From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:31:42 GMT
Organization: New York University, School of Medicine
NNTP-Posting-Host: mchip00.med.nyu.edu

timothy@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy John Gale) writes:
>1. What do you think can be done about tankers to make them 
>   less-prone to spills?

	The environmentalist in me says that you should do everything
possible, but the engineer in me realizes that some things, while possible,
just aren't practical.  However, the biggest thing I can think of is to only
use double-hull ships, which I understand is already in the works.  I think
I read that Amoco (or was it Exxon, or both?) has announced that they will
no longer commission the building of any single hull tankers.  That's
certainly a start.  Now we just need to retrofit (if possible) existing
ships with second hulls, or retire them if that's not possible, or turn them
over to some other, less dangerous, use.

	The second thing I would say is not to use single-screw ships.  My
understanding of the recent North Sea disaster is that the ship had only a
single screw/engine.  Anytime you have a single point of failure, you are
asking for trouble.  Possibly the second engine wouldn't have been
sufficient to make headway against the wind/waves, but it probably would
have been enough to keep the anchor(s) from dragging, or at least given them
more time to get a tow there/attached.  Of course, if the cause of the
engine loss was fuel contamination, a twin-screw ship might have very well
lost both engines if they had a common fuel supply.
-- 
Roy Smith <roy@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Reply-To: O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk (OBSchou)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:59:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.204915.7098@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
...
>Nobody drove the ship, it was driven by wind and sea.  The crew had already
>abandonded ship, without setting an anchor or waiting for a tug.  I hope the
>inquest smokes the master.

I wanna know why the ship didn't just drop one or both anchors.  Even
if it dragged, it would have slowed the ships progress.

At a guess, it would then be in danger of ripping up some underwater
caple or other pipeline.

Bertil.

PS.  Without getting "anti-US" about it, a comment: this US charterd
ship is creating havoc on the Shetland coast.  It is the Americans
first to cancel orders for salmon from these waters.


Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: whoward@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (Will Howard)
Subject: Re: inverter electric lesson
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:07:06 GMT

In article <mshulman.20.725843864@genghis.borland.com>
mshulman@genghis.borland.com (Michael Shulman) writes:
>Wow!
>
>I'm always amazed by the depth of information found on the InterNet. 
>You all are amazing! Ask, and ye shall receive...

Which reminds me of another adage - "Be careful what you ask for..." :-)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: jimbo@statsci.com (Jimbo Harris)
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:01:30 GMT

josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam) writes:

>In <19490.2b48983b@ecs.umass.edu> jhwelch@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>>How about requiring the boats to be self contained for the duration
>>of one series?  Only the crew would be allowed on and off.  You'd
>>have to either stock up on spare parts or design a boat that
>>didn't require them.

>How about reimposing the requirement that all vessels travel to
>the race course on their own bottoms?  That would mean a real
>need for seaworthiness, and focus R&D on innovations more useful
>to *real* sailboats. :-)
>-- 
> Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
> 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
> We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
>Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
 
Oh, SURE... say that NOW when the Cup's right here at home... but wait
until they do something stupid like that and then the Cup goes back to 
New Zealand. THEN start telling me how cool it would be for us to have 
to sail all the way down there and race boats that have been halfway 
around the world against boats that have never been used.

sheesh.

-Jimbo Harris
From: bartley@spss.com (Dennis Bartley)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:42:16 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jhwelch@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>>
>How about reimposing the requirement that all vessels travel to
>the race course on their own bottoms?  That would mean a real
>need for seaworthiness, and focus R&D on innovations more useful
>to *real* sailboats. :-)

The problem with that of course is that boats from the host country
(and nearby neigbors) don't have to be built to cross an ocean. It was
a big advantage when NYYC was running A/C races. 
I believe the boats for A3 and Team DC were built back east (mostly 
by Goetz in RI, though one of A3s was done in Utah), it probably
wouldn't be that big a problem consructing them somewhere in LA or San Diego.

I suppose I'de like to see the races run in true one designs. All
hulls and sails the same. It would emphasize sailing skills rather
than technology. I know it's not exactly Americas cup...

One thing I'de really like to see changed is that the cup go to the
winning entry, rather than staying at the host club. If the costs
could be controlled better, then there would likely be more US
entries. New York, Chicago, Cleveland, or San Francisco.

While I enjoyed the racing in San Diego (there were some interesting
strategic decisions, and tactics were sometimes fascinating), I'de
agree with a previous post that Hawaii or San Francisco (in the
summer) might be more interesting venues. It would certainly tend to
emphasize seamanship and crew-work, and tend to encourage boats which
don't lose their mast when the wind > 10 kts.
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: wchutt@alex.monsanto.com (Bill C Hutton)
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Organization: Monsanto Company
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:21:35 GMT

If I heard the BBC news correctly this ship lost power and was driven
to the shore. Tugs were dispatched but could not make it to the ship in
time. 

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with my employer

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: legacy@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (wayne.m.simpson)
Subject: Re: Sailing Schools/Buying a used sailboat!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:01:10 GMT
Summary: Suitability of Catalinas offshore

In article <1993Jan8.121415.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> mautzcl@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>Also, I was told that hunter and catalina's were junk boats, and this was by
>some girl from another sailing school.  She said they were alright freshwater
>boats, but stay away from deep water.  I personally like these boats, and
>was looking at 26-28' boats.  Does anyone have any experience with these, and
>how do they hold up/handle in deeper water, say cruising to the carribean
>or bahamas.  I want something that I can sail locally, and take down there
>if the occasion arises.

   I suppose you all knew I would have to pipe up on this one...  :-)

   I've heard and seen good and bad things about Hunters, but as I don't
own one I'll reserve comment about themthis time. As for Catalinas, you 
can go tell "that girl" to stuff it. They are not junk boats. They are
capable of going offshore and many, from the little Catalina 27 on up,
have made circumnavigations.
   No, this is not the recommended use for this boat. They are intended for
coastal cruising service and they have cockpits and companionways that are
too large to be considered proper for deep ocean service. Nonetheless,
with reasonable planning (no hurricanes forecast this week), they are
quite capable of short hops offshore, such as from Florida to the Islands.
   What you get when you buy a Catalina is a strong hull, deck, and rig,
a livable interior, and a big cockpit. What you don't get is a lot of
fancy wooden joinery down below. That is generally the difference between
an affordable boat and a less affordable one.
   It's your money and your choice. If we were all rich, we would all
have Palmer Johnsons, Cherubinis and Hinckleys. But I'm not rich, and I'd
venture to say you'll have a hard time finding more boat for the money
than a Catalina 27. There are plenty of them around, and we have a first
rate class association. If you (or anyone else) ever get serious about buying
one, I'll be glad to tell you what to look for.

*******************************************************************************
                                        Wayne Simpson, Technical Editor
(insert standard                        National Catalina 27 Association
        disclaimer here)                wms@spin.ho.att.com
                                        (908) 949-0482
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: harsant@headplant.trl.OZ.AU (Dave Harsant)
Subject: Re: How Do GPS Receivers Keep Time?
Organization: Telecom Research Labs. Melbourne, Vic, Australia
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:12:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.151934.50543@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> bwb1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BRENT W. BENSON) writes:
>According to various articles on GPS, locations are found by a combination of
>ranging and triangulation. The receiver picks up a coded satellite signal and
>compares it to an identical code it's generating  internally.  The time
>difference between the code patterns is used to determine the range.  I.e.
>distance = (speed of light)*(time diff).  This assumes that the receiver knows
>the time extremely accurately.  For 30m distance accuracy you would need
>30/3e8=1e-7 accuracy  of time.  How is time kept in the receiver to an
>accuracy of one part in ten to the seventh? (and for less than $1k).
>Brent

The GPS receiver has a local clock which easily achieves the required
(clock cycle) precision.  This is set to a local reference time, which
does not need to be exact, ie it has some precise (initially unknown)
offset to the _real_ local time.  Readings are taken from a number of
satellites (at least 3, preferably 4 to allow for 3D position fix).
The time difference in each measurement from each satellite consists of
the real time difference due to propagation time plus the constant
offset due to the offset error in the local clock. Therefore we have a
constant offset in a set of simultaneous equations, and this offset may
be eliminated from the equations since there is at least 1 redundant
equation.  The satellite clocks must have the required accuracy.  The
local time clock as well as the position can be set by solving these
equations, enabling other features such as time to waypoint etc to be
calculated without the user needing to enter the accurate time.

This is a simplification of what happens in the receiver.  Our Navstar
2000 manual says to enter the time within 15 mins on initial use, and
requires 4 satellites before it locks for a 2D fix.

--
Dave Harsant,
Telecom Australia Research Laboratories  |  d.harsant@trl.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Reply-To: O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk (OBSchou)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:02:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.091031.20124@alcatel.no> vatne@alcatel.no (Lars Vatne) writes:

>The news in Norway has been a bit more comprehensive as Shetland is Norway's
>nearest neighbor to the west (approx. 190 n.m.).
>
>The crew was taken off by a Coast Guard helicopter after attempts to secure
>a tow line had failed. Both heavy anchors were deployed without being
                        ********************************
>able to hold the ship against the hurricane blowing 75 knots at the time.

So much for my earlier question!

Bertil.



Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: tarkkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lauri Tarkkonen)
Subject: Re: New AC Rules
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:43:04 GMT

In <1ia6e5INNnmb@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes) writes:
>I propose a rec.boats project: let's redesign the AC. I propose a few more
>alterations (which others should feel free to reject). 

>(1) All races to be sailed in sequence (no lay days) unless winds are 
>      gale force or higher
>(2) No electronics (now *that* would save money)

Why not restrict the number of sails one can measure in fot the 
whole *campaign*, I would tend to believe that the cost of sails
were higher than the electronics ans some sails were good for only
a couple of races.

>(3) One race (of five) to be sailed offshore at night.

>Of course, this would make the AC a test of something altogether different
>from what it test now. But it would be a test of things that *I* am
>interested in, and since this is *my* pipe dream...

>For those who say "But what about the trickle-down, from all those high-tech
>inventions of the AC into ordinary craft?," I can only say that some of 
>the worst possible things have trickled down (e.g. Wing Keels, of all things),
>and that I'd rather see great innovations in seaworthiness trickle down. 

The sail rule I propose would perhaps move the drasticly the goals for
sail design, it is not enough to make fast sails, but you have to make
fast sails that are fast after one summer's use. This would be good for
a majority of sailors, who would not prefer fast and durable sails to 
fast only, use once and throw away sail. :-).

- Lauri Tarkkonen
From: jfh@cs.brown.edu (John F. Hughes)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Water System
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:50:46 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.cs.brown.edu
Keywords: pressure pump

In article <1993Jan7.144831.2594@progress.com> gerard@progress.COM (Gerard Bras) writes:
>jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM (Jeff Huntington) writes:


>>Given the wealth of information on this news group, I am hopeful that I can get
>>an answer to somthing that has bothered me ever since I got my new boat.  My
>>water pressure pump pumps one stroke every few minutes, all the time.  

>>The boat has a Jabsco pump that has the pressure switch built into the pump.  I
>>believe the reason the pump cycles one stroke every few minutes is that there is
>>an internal chamber in the pump where the pressure switch senses the pressure.


>I have one of those Jabsco  pumps with the integral cutoff too...

So do I. But it died late last summer, and I've bought a FloJet replacement.
*MUCH* quieter, and it has a nice feature: the hose-barbs are held into the
pump by little snap-thingies, so it's easy to disconnect the hose for
winterizing without undoing lots of hose clamps. 

Now, does anyone need an old Jabsco with a reamed-out connecting rod, a motor
that's had a couple of wires in the armature re-attached by an amateur (me), 
and a whole lot of rust? 

I'll sell it *real* cheap...

-JOhn
From: bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Sextant Wanted
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:47:41 GMT
Organization: St. Mary's College of Maryland
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
X-XXMessage-ID: <A77085F7110101D2@williams.smcm.edu>
X-XXDate: Wed, 6 Jan 93 17:49:59 GMT

My spouse and I are just how embarking on the US Power Squadrons' "JN"
(Junior Navigator) course -- their first course in celestial
naviagation -- and we're interested in finding a used, serviceable
sextant.  We have the bottom-of-the-line Davis model (no telescope, no
worm drive on the arc, cost around $25), which was fun for a while but
will not be adequate for the course.  The next-up Davis, however, would
be fine.  Anybody out there have a sextant that's just collecting dust?

-Bill and Holly

___________________________________
William E. Williams, bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu
Divison of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
St. Mary's College of Maryland
St. Mary's City, MD 20686
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Oil Tanker Grounding
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:22:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: kiyotaki.thompson.726859374
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota

O.B.Schou@lut.ac.uk writes:

>Yes, in a way.  However, if a ship hits a rock in heavy seas, the
>double hull will also be likely to leak.  The tanker in the Shetlands
>is taking one heck of a hammering.  I am not a Naval engineer, but I
>suspect even if it were a double hulled ship it would still break up.

I listened to a representative of the shipping industry on the radio
this morning, who (expectedly) claimed that "quadruple hulls wouldn't
have helped in this incident."  Although this is self serving, I
suspect that he is correct.  According to the reports this morning the
Braer is now in at least four pieces, with little crude left aboard.

>Much more sensible - but with twin fuel supply systems.  These tankers
>apparently use the crude as their fuel, cleaning out all the unwanted
>water, gasses and other gunk as needed.

This contradicts the statements of the shipping industry
representative interviewed this morning.  He said something like "sale
of contaminated fuel by unscrupulous operators is a major and growing
international scandal."  He also said that the basic problem is that
the industry is not willing to pay the price that the oil companies
want for higher quality fuel as long as the lower quality stuff is for
sale.  The implication was clearly that these ships buy fuel
separately from their cargo.  Since tankers must do some of their
sailing without any cargo on board there would have to be at least
some kind of fuel reservoir separate from the cargo.  Does anyone know
for sure?

--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: floydb@rpi.edu
Subject: Full keel boats (was re: New York Boat Show: a short review)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:28:34 GMT

In article <MBR.93Jan11082835@ponape.bellcore.com> mbr@bellcore.com (Mark Rosenstein) writes:

stuff deleted

>The exhibits breakdown is about 50% powerboats, and 50% accessories
>(clothes, jewelry, West Marine). As I have no interest in powerboats,
>I have nothing to say about that half. 
>

stuff deleted

>Mark.
>=-=-=-=-=-=
>The sailor reaches his destination the moment the sails are raised.
>    --unknown source


I too ended up going to the NYC boat show. It turned out to be a last
minute day trip, not visiting any friends or other sites besides Jacob
Javitts Convention Center. Having been to two computer shows there, it
seemed smaller (taking up only on floor, about two or three foot ball
fields in size). As previously mentioned, 50% of the floor was power boats;
10% to 20% had sailboats; 10% to 20% had books, jewelry, clothes, magazines,
newspapers, etc.; the rest was equipment manufacturers dominated by electronics.

I was somewhat disappointed, though not entirely suprised, to see so much
power boating stuff (50% boats, and over half of all equipment manufacturers.
I overheard comments to the effect of: the boat isn't really much good until
a refrigerator and carpeting is installed... I also saw a life time's worth
of cheesey sailing outfits, for sale and worn by attendees...

None the less, I walked away with an 8" stack of paper stuffed in a plastic
bag. I got a number of newpapers and magazines with used boat listings, and
some references to 'boat exchange' companies. I grabbed a lot of the equipment
catalogues and price sheets. And was pleaseantly suprised to find 5 to 10
sailing schools, financiers, and insurers with booths. 

All in all I might pass on the Atlantic City show and other indoor events,
waiting for the next round of harbor shows with boats in the water.

I saw very few boat dealers/designers in the sailing area. Hunter was on
hand as was Hobie. After hearing negative comments about Hunters I noted that
their smaller boats (I don't know about their larger boats) have fin keels
with huge rudders. The rudders look like they were designed to be broken
off, so that the manufacturer could sell you new ones. 

On that note, any suggestions on who produces full keel (or nearly so)
cruising sailboats? In order to be able to find a used boat of this kind,
with a somewhat affordable price, the line of boats should have been around
for a few years (since the 1980's).

Any thoughts? suggestions

;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------;
;       Standard Disclaimer...                                                ;
;                                                                             ;
;       Rensselear Polytechnic Institute -- 110 8th Street -- Troy, NY 12180  ;
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------;

lastline
Newsgroups: rec.boats