takes a licking and keeps on cruising
- Thread starter starcrafttom
- Start date
Robert H. Wilkinson
New member
Peter & Judy":2tar1dov said:
In Cambridge Ont. there is a regiment of The Royal Fusiliers of Canada (Highland Light Infantry). Don't see a lot of them but a funny thing happened last summer. One young serviceman was days away from being deployed. His C/O sent him on one last march to prepare. From the armory he walked down a main street to the edge of town where he linked up to a "rail trail" for his march. In full combat gear backpack, gun, etc.
911 lit up like a Christmas tree - SWAT deployed to track down this "terrorist". Turns out his C/O had forgot to give the local Police the usual courtesy call.
Regards, Rob
Marco Flamingo
Active member
Kushtaka":2tq83wf6 said:
This has real world problems. First, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fire warning shots over the bow of a boat anywhere in Puget Sound and not hit lawn furniture or worse. And if the ferry whistle got no response, why would a popping sound get a response? It could be that Captain Lugnut was indisposed such that he couldn't get to the helm (or didn't care what was happening around him) in the 30 seconds (or 5 minutes) prior to the collision. The CG would have had a very difficult decision here, and a couple shots across the bow would not likely have improved the situation, other than providing the excuse "we tried to warn the deceased." Spooky.
Mark
I would think that for a relatively slow moving boat that was cruising in a straight line and unresponsive, the CG would come up beside it and either nudge it to a different course or board it and see what's up.
Its clear from the video that Nap Time was not maneuvering to "attack" the ferry or doing anything else that could be construed as aggressive. As far as anyone knew the captain of that boat could have had a heart attack, stroke, or simply fallen, hit his head, and passed out.
Shooting up a private boat that wasn't doing anything but sailing in a straight line and possibly injuring or killing people on board would bring a whole lot of questions down on the CG and Homeland Security.
Yeah, the captain of Nap Time was napping on the job (figuratively speaking), but the CG shouldn't turn that into a fatal mistake.
The ferry could have also just sped up a bit when they first determined that there was a collision track. Nap Time would have then passed behind the ferry and gone on its merry way, possibly hard on some rocks.
Its clear from the video that Nap Time was not maneuvering to "attack" the ferry or doing anything else that could be construed as aggressive. As far as anyone knew the captain of that boat could have had a heart attack, stroke, or simply fallen, hit his head, and passed out.
Shooting up a private boat that wasn't doing anything but sailing in a straight line and possibly injuring or killing people on board would bring a whole lot of questions down on the CG and Homeland Security.
Yeah, the captain of Nap Time was napping on the job (figuratively speaking), but the CG shouldn't turn that into a fatal mistake.
The ferry could have also just sped up a bit when they first determined that there was a collision track. Nap Time would have then passed behind the ferry and gone on its merry way, possibly hard on some rocks.
If the Coast Guard is involved in escort duty they take this very seriously--especially if they consider it a threat. (How could CG cover all of the Ferry crossings that occur in the Puget Sound to San Juan Islands? Take a lot more resources than are available.
On the other hand, if they thought that there was a serious threat of terrorist attack--that would be met with very serious measures. Lets say that a terrorist had a vessel, full of explosives and was a suicide bomber or a vessel put on auto pilot with the explosives (Ie USS Cole) what would be the procedure?
"A shot across the bow," is fired into the water, not toward lawn furniture...or any structures on land.
The procedure in most of the CG interdictions where shots were fired, tend to attempt to disable the outboard motor. i don't know how many of those have occur in the PNW, if any, but in S. Calif. and off Florida there have been a number of incidents where shots were fired eventually disabling the vessel...(But also CG boats have been rammed and personal have been injured.
A lot easier to speed up a C Dory or other light vessel, than a ferry which is swinging a 10 foot prop with the engine at 900 RPM and already going close to its max speed at 1200 RPM. Lets say that the ferry was going the lower range of its speed at 12 knots, and tried to go up to 18 knots theoretical top speed (which it probably cannot obtain.) This would take a number of minutes. It is probably not possible. The ferry technically was the give way vessel--and should have turned or stopped: Evidence points to the ferry attempting to stop--first by slowing, and eventually starting the second engine.
Close encounters with pleasure boats happen daily with the ferrys. 99% end up with the recreational vessel changing course, stopping or speeding up to avoid collision. Often recreational vessel operators are not aware of the limits of maneuverability of the vessels of the size and type of the Washington State Ferrys.
The ferry skippers have a difficult job even without the foolishness of small recreational boats "challenging " them. The ferry's generally stick to their course and speed. I have seen them on occasion maneuver around a vessel engaged in commercial fishing--and I suspect that they have communicated with the fishing vessel by radio.
It will be very interesting to see the final CG report. Yes, fault will be assigned to both operators. But I suspect that the "protection zone" argument will win. From what I see the operator of Nap Tyme seems to be taking this relatively lightly...Not a good idea when an investigation is on going.
On the other hand, if they thought that there was a serious threat of terrorist attack--that would be met with very serious measures. Lets say that a terrorist had a vessel, full of explosives and was a suicide bomber or a vessel put on auto pilot with the explosives (Ie USS Cole) what would be the procedure?
"A shot across the bow," is fired into the water, not toward lawn furniture...or any structures on land.
The procedure in most of the CG interdictions where shots were fired, tend to attempt to disable the outboard motor. i don't know how many of those have occur in the PNW, if any, but in S. Calif. and off Florida there have been a number of incidents where shots were fired eventually disabling the vessel...(But also CG boats have been rammed and personal have been injured.
A lot easier to speed up a C Dory or other light vessel, than a ferry which is swinging a 10 foot prop with the engine at 900 RPM and already going close to its max speed at 1200 RPM. Lets say that the ferry was going the lower range of its speed at 12 knots, and tried to go up to 18 knots theoretical top speed (which it probably cannot obtain.) This would take a number of minutes. It is probably not possible. The ferry technically was the give way vessel--and should have turned or stopped: Evidence points to the ferry attempting to stop--first by slowing, and eventually starting the second engine.
Close encounters with pleasure boats happen daily with the ferrys. 99% end up with the recreational vessel changing course, stopping or speeding up to avoid collision. Often recreational vessel operators are not aware of the limits of maneuverability of the vessels of the size and type of the Washington State Ferrys.
The ferry skippers have a difficult job even without the foolishness of small recreational boats "challenging " them. The ferry's generally stick to their course and speed. I have seen them on occasion maneuver around a vessel engaged in commercial fishing--and I suspect that they have communicated with the fishing vessel by radio.
It will be very interesting to see the final CG report. Yes, fault will be assigned to both operators. But I suspect that the "protection zone" argument will win. From what I see the operator of Nap Tyme seems to be taking this relatively lightly...Not a good idea when an investigation is on going.
Yes, firing upon a vessel would be severe, but it happens and they would do it if necessary. Warning shots would absolutely be appropriate and almost certainly done before firing upon the vessel. USCG will act if necessary to divert a threat.
I've never operated a vessel the size of that ferry, but I've run boats up into the 200' range. It is a whole different game, and can take a mile or more to stop. Evenboats half that size need to be run with that in mind, and encountered by small boats with that understanding.
Does anyone agree that the ferry was constrained in its ability to maneuver? If so, then Nap Tyme becomes the give-way vessel, and is pretty much fully at fault, especially considering the clear attempt to avoid made by the ferry captain. I hope the captain walks away with commendations and Nap Tyme gives up boating for good.
I've never operated a vessel the size of that ferry, but I've run boats up into the 200' range. It is a whole different game, and can take a mile or more to stop. Evenboats half that size need to be run with that in mind, and encountered by small boats with that understanding.
Does anyone agree that the ferry was constrained in its ability to maneuver? If so, then Nap Tyme becomes the give-way vessel, and is pretty much fully at fault, especially considering the clear attempt to avoid made by the ferry captain. I hope the captain walks away with commendations and Nap Tyme gives up boating for good.
thataway":16wvafqb said:
Not exactly in my back yard but
the latter statement does not recognize the Sound has much land mass with
housing in close proximity to it and that a projectile fired at a low angle off
the water will ricochet violating the rule to always know what lies beyond your target.
Then, in a terrorist scenario, perhaps the CG would not act as we might think.
Aye.
Foggy":3bz2s80s said:
Can, not will ricochet.
There are lots of different types of rounds. I would suppose that the USCG would have access to ammunition that would reduce the risk, for example tracer rounds, or perhaps frangible rounds. I don't know the procedure, but am familiar with enough of them to speculate, probably correctly, that they have ammo they can use to break up on the water.
Further, I don't think the USCG are surprised to find themselves in Puget Sound, trying to figure out how to interdict a vessel, I would bet my boat that they have a very particular set of rules for fully operating that takes into account the homes and businesses. I would absolutely and positively assert that this includes contingencies for firing upon a vessel, and that that plan has operational parameter designed to minimize these risks. And I would further bet that there are contingencies in their operational plans for firing upon a vessel in Puget Sound that further include using warning shots.
Maybe it's me, but it's somewhat naive to think that the USCG wouldn't use their firearms in Puget Sound. If they would, I think a vessel on a collision course with a loaded ferry would absolutely and positively be among those.
starcrafttom
Active member
So we have gone from a boat accident to whether or not the coast guard is capable of using a fire arm. Mostly by people that may or may not even own a gun.
I can tell you that its not as easy as you would think to skip a bullet off the water as you have been lead to believe. I have tried it. We were bored and had ammo and time to burn, not a good combo sometimes for jarheads.
Then there is the fact that a bullet slows down after leaving the barrel, and then more after it hits something like water. Water by the way is a great bullet stopper. So even it it made it to shore It may not have enough power to do anything. I was ht by a 5.56 in the chest once after it passed 300 yards and went thu a 4x4 , then changed course 75 degrees before hitting me. left a bruise and thats it.
Oh and I wanted to point out that most of the fire arms you see on small coast guard boats are not in fact .50 cals but are m-60's or the newer M 240, both are 7.62mm. You know a .30 cal class bullet that are used to hunt deer. 30-06, .308, 6.5 creedmore etc etc
So will a coastie fire on a boat that he has been ordered to do so? Without even thinking twice. The armed service does not get paid to think to much or question to much. Are we machines? No but the guys at the sharp end trust the chain of command to have already answered the questions we may have about shooting a civilian craft on the sound. I can guarantee that this scenario has been gone over in training many times in the last 10 years.
Be safe and give those ferries a wide area as you pass.
I can tell you that its not as easy as you would think to skip a bullet off the water as you have been lead to believe. I have tried it. We were bored and had ammo and time to burn, not a good combo sometimes for jarheads.
Then there is the fact that a bullet slows down after leaving the barrel, and then more after it hits something like water. Water by the way is a great bullet stopper. So even it it made it to shore It may not have enough power to do anything. I was ht by a 5.56 in the chest once after it passed 300 yards and went thu a 4x4 , then changed course 75 degrees before hitting me. left a bruise and thats it.
Oh and I wanted to point out that most of the fire arms you see on small coast guard boats are not in fact .50 cals but are m-60's or the newer M 240, both are 7.62mm. You know a .30 cal class bullet that are used to hunt deer. 30-06, .308, 6.5 creedmore etc etc
So will a coastie fire on a boat that he has been ordered to do so? Without even thinking twice. The armed service does not get paid to think to much or question to much. Are we machines? No but the guys at the sharp end trust the chain of command to have already answered the questions we may have about shooting a civilian craft on the sound. I can guarantee that this scenario has been gone over in training many times in the last 10 years.
Be safe and give those ferries a wide area as you pass.
For the nay sayers on ricochet off water, from Wikipedia "Ricochet":
"Bullets are more likely to ricochet off flat, hard surfaces such as concrete or steel,
but a ricochet can occur on almost any surface, including grassy soil, given a flat
enough angle of impact. Materials that are soft, give easily, or can absorb the
impact, such as sand, have a lower incidence of ricochet.[3] Though it may not be
intuitive, bullets easily ricochet off water;[4][5] compare stone skipping."
Don't like the source? Try Googling 'bullets ricochet off water' for more of the same.
Agreed, off topic of this post. Just aiming to reflect fact vs opinions.
Aye.
"Bullets are more likely to ricochet off flat, hard surfaces such as concrete or steel,
but a ricochet can occur on almost any surface, including grassy soil, given a flat
enough angle of impact. Materials that are soft, give easily, or can absorb the
impact, such as sand, have a lower incidence of ricochet.[3] Though it may not be
intuitive, bullets easily ricochet off water;[4][5] compare stone skipping."
Don't like the source? Try Googling 'bullets ricochet off water' for more of the same.
Agreed, off topic of this post. Just aiming to reflect fact vs opinions.
Aye.
An unmanned boat in a collision course with a loaded ferry. If I were on the ferry (which I am a lot), I would want the Coast Guard to do their job. Given the times, the choices are not pretty.
Going through Rich Passage, and other similar areas, small boats are going to be close to ferries. If you are within the 500 yard zone prove your innocence by speed/course or whatever it takes.
Going through Rich Passage, and other similar areas, small boats are going to be close to ferries. If you are within the 500 yard zone prove your innocence by speed/course or whatever it takes.
starcrafttom
Active member
Again I think you're confusing can with Will. I don't know how many rounds Wikipedia has fired at the water but I have fired about a hundred. Out of that hundred probably 20 skipped. If there's any wave action it all then it just goes into the water.
the main point is that the Coast Guard has been trained to do exactly this. This is a scenario that they thought of and written in their training manuals they have practiced and they are trained on. If the scenario presented itself that meant the criteria of that training in that vessel will be fired upon. The guy on the bow that escort vessel is not going to suddenly Wonder if rounds ricochet.
the main point is that the Coast Guard has been trained to do exactly this. This is a scenario that they thought of and written in their training manuals they have practiced and they are trained on. If the scenario presented itself that meant the criteria of that training in that vessel will be fired upon. The guy on the bow that escort vessel is not going to suddenly Wonder if rounds ricochet.
starcrafttom
Active member
Again I think you're confusing can with Will. I don't know how many rounds Wikipedia has fired at the water but I have fired about a hundred. Out of that hundred probably 20 skipped. If there's any wave action it all then it just goes into the water.
the main point is that the Coast Guard has been trained to do exactly this. This is a scenario that they thought of and written in their training manuals they have practiced and they are trained on. If the scenario presented itself that meant the criteria of that training in that vessel will be fired upon. The guy on the ballot escort vehicle is not going to send Lee cell I wonder if surrounds ricochet.
the main point is that the Coast Guard has been trained to do exactly this. This is a scenario that they thought of and written in their training manuals they have practiced and they are trained on. If the scenario presented itself that meant the criteria of that training in that vessel will be fired upon. The guy on the ballot escort vehicle is not going to send Lee cell I wonder if surrounds ricochet.
Granted, this was the (east) Indian Coast Guard, not the U.S. team, but ...
Coast Guard Warning Shots Hit Two Fishermen Near Kerala Coast
Ricochets were involved.
Coast Guard Warning Shots Hit Two Fishermen Near Kerala Coast
Ricochets were involved.
Marco Flamingo
Active member
Years ago we used to shoot at the water to watch the ricochet. 90% skipped and often made that cowboy movie "zing." The round would land 1/4 mile out (not in a straight line) and sometimes skip again. That was with a 22. I don't imagine that a high power 50 caliber would come back down within eye sight. The idea of shooting a 50 caliber machine gun on the water in Puget Sound seems like a really bad idea. But there might not be anything to worry about.
I was talking to a guy who had been stationed at Checkpoint Charlie in the 1970s and asked him what it was like. They had strict standing orders about what to do under all kinds of scenarios and even how to look tough when nothing was happening. Then he told me that he had a very important secret task. If a confrontation arose, and the commanding officer gave him the order, he was to travel off site in the jeep and return with the live rounds.
The guards didn't have live rounds. He thought that maybe an officer might have had a live round in a side arm. But somebody up the chain of command had determined that U.S. soldiers making decisions to fire live rounds at the Berlin wall was more likely to cause a situation than to solve a situation.
We will never know if the CG even has live rounds on Puget Sound. My friend told me about Checkpoint Charlie only after the wall came down. He never told any of his fellow soldiers per his standing orders.
As to interpreting the small boat's actions as non-threatening and therefore unworthy of interception, wouldn't that be the tactic used by somebody intent on doing harm? Sure, an open boat carrying 50 gallon drums and screaming armed banditos speeding toward the ferry looks more threatening. But we have now seen that a slow moving boat with blacked out windows and apparently on autopilot (possibly being operated remotely) would be less suspect.
Mark
I was talking to a guy who had been stationed at Checkpoint Charlie in the 1970s and asked him what it was like. They had strict standing orders about what to do under all kinds of scenarios and even how to look tough when nothing was happening. Then he told me that he had a very important secret task. If a confrontation arose, and the commanding officer gave him the order, he was to travel off site in the jeep and return with the live rounds.
The guards didn't have live rounds. He thought that maybe an officer might have had a live round in a side arm. But somebody up the chain of command had determined that U.S. soldiers making decisions to fire live rounds at the Berlin wall was more likely to cause a situation than to solve a situation.
We will never know if the CG even has live rounds on Puget Sound. My friend told me about Checkpoint Charlie only after the wall came down. He never told any of his fellow soldiers per his standing orders.
As to interpreting the small boat's actions as non-threatening and therefore unworthy of interception, wouldn't that be the tactic used by somebody intent on doing harm? Sure, an open boat carrying 50 gallon drums and screaming armed banditos speeding toward the ferry looks more threatening. But we have now seen that a slow moving boat with blacked out windows and apparently on autopilot (possibly being operated remotely) would be less suspect.
Mark
Both Tom and I have pointed out that the USCG "SAFE" boats carry .30 cal "machine" guns, not .50 cal.
Do your really seriously think that patrol boats do not have live ammunition?
A rumor about "checkpoint Charlie" from about 40 years ago, has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of readiness of the USCG.
Don't tempt fate! There is no such thing as "Right of way"--with one exception--on the water. It is stand on, or give way, with very specific rules of navigation. But it is also imperative on all vessels to avoid collision...
Do your really seriously think that patrol boats do not have live ammunition?
A rumor about "checkpoint Charlie" from about 40 years ago, has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of readiness of the USCG.
Don't tempt fate! There is no such thing as "Right of way"--with one exception--on the water. It is stand on, or give way, with very specific rules of navigation. But it is also imperative on all vessels to avoid collision...