Re: More on Windward/leeward, upwind/downwind

[MZuil (at) AOL.COM]

In a message dated 08/17/1999 2:04:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
EricLaser@AOL.COM writes:

> ...Under rule 11, the windward boat is required
>  to keep clear, but the definition makes each boat the leeward
>  boat (and also the windward boat)!  Since neither one is windward
>  while the other is leeward, neither is required to keep clear
>  of the other.  Thus, the only rule that applies is rule 14.

I agree up to this point,  but the port side was the lee side for both boats, 
if their headings CROSSED, per the definition of Leeward and Windward, one or 
the other boat (and not both) was clearly to leeward and thus the other was 
windward and burdened.  (Make drawings or little paper boats and try it). If 
you don't agree, read the stuff below, which is the bulk of my previous 
posting, and see if it doesn't change your mind.  I might add:
 - if the boats were bearing PERFECTLY head to head (arguably impossible), 
the l/w definition does fail. If they were nearly head-to-head but crossing 
port-to-port so close that they'd collide, they're each in the other's lee 
and the definition fails again, but from the original narative, this doesn't 
appear to be what happened.
 - The definion doesn't work for non-converging paths either, but then the 
point is moot because they won't collide anyway.

All the best,
Mike Zuilhof

In a message dated 8/11/99 3:33:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MZuil@aol.com 
writes:

> Here's my guess:
>  
>  As they approached, the boats were overlapped, because they were on the 
same 
>  tack and neither was clear astern of the other (see definition of Clear 
>  Astern & Clear Ahead; Overlap).  Both boats' port sides were their leeward 
>  sides (see def. of Leeward & Windward).  One key to the question is who 
was 
>  to leeward of whom when, and that's not clear from the description.  (It's 
>  possible that there's no windward, and thus, burdened, boat, but at such a 
>  moment there's no collision course.)
>  
>  Any time the 2 boat's paths crossed, if A was to B's port and B was to A's 
>  starboard, A was leeward and B was burdened and obligated to keep clear 
per 
>  rule 11, but if B was to A's port and A was to B's starboard, B was 
leeward 
>  and A was burdened.
>  
>  Thus if B always had A on her port, B was always the windward and burdened 
>  boat.  If she was not, in attempting to prevent A from crossing her bow, 
> boat B [ironically] made herself the burdened boat the moment [if and when] 
she succeed in turning enough that A was to B's port.

>  In executing her tactic, boat A would have a tough time arguing that she 
>  never sailed below proper course because to cross B she'd have to go AT 
> LEAST 45 degrees true by the lee (and probably a lot more), thus if she did 
not 
>  head up to a proper course before coming within 2 boat lengths of B, she 
>  would have violated 17.2