Anchors Aweigh!

[howardang]

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

When giving advice it is usual to ensure that it is correct - in this case it is not.

But how would you see the ball during the night? Painting it white may help, however. 

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by howardang

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, howardang said:

But how would you see the ball during the night? Painting it white may help, however. 

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

Please tell him your joking. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, howardang said:

But how would you see the ball during the night? Painting it white may help, however. 

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

One would normally use the white bow & stern lights as per the 'rules' (Colregs rule 30) for a boat between 12 and 100 metres (assuming you are between these dimensions)

[howardang]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One would normally use the white bow & stern lights as per the 'rules' (Colregs rule 30) for a boat between 12 and 100 metres (assuming you are between these dimensions)

Alan, If you think I was serious, I can confirm that I was'nt t. I think I do know the rules - at least the authorities seem to think so - but thank you for pointing out that I was speaking nonsense!⚓️

Howard

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by howardang

[Scholar Gypsy]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Which wooden piles look rickety, exactly?

I'll check them out next time I'm passing, but I've never seen a pile on the Thames that looks anything worse than brand new and immaculately maintained. Further, I can't actually bring to mind any weir barrages on wooden pilings. Most if not all the weir barrage pilings are steel. 

I've not been on the Thames since 2012-13, but here are a couple of photos that look woodish to me.  

The first (Osney)  has some steel campshedding as reinforcement. The second (Goring I think) is more robust, but to the right there is some clearly unprotected weir! 

And last time I looked the protection at Kings was minimal - one wooden post and some chains if you are lucky ..

does have some

 

[MtB]

In your first pic, I can't imaging a narrow boat going through those sluices even if it did manage to breach the wooden piling.

In your second pic, that is a lock mooring landing not a weir barrage.

[Scholar Gypsy]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

In your first pic, I can't imaging a narrow boat going through those sluices even if it did manage to breach the wooden piling.

In your second pic, that is a lock mooring landing not a weir barrage.

Maybe on the first - I suspect you could sink a boat here quite easily when the sluices are fully drawn. 

On the second, I know -  but my point was that the weir is not protected. There would be something to the right that might catch you, but it's not foolproof.

[MtB]

On 06/04/2017 at 23:51, Scholar Gypsy said:

Maybe on the first - I suspect you could sink a boat here quite easily when the sluices are fully drawn. 

 

Agreed, but they will never be fully drawn on a calm summer's day like the OP will be out on, so where is the risk?

[MtB]

On 06/04/2017 at 23:51, Scholar Gypsy said:

On the second, I know -  but my point was that the weir is not protected. There would be something to the right that might catch you, but it's not foolproof.

 

I 

On 06/04/2017 at 23:51, Scholar Gypsy said:

On the second, I know -  but my point was that the weir is not protected. There would be something to the right that might catch you, but it's not foolproof.

 

Which weir is it? I recognise it but can't place it. If genuinely unprotected I stand corrected. But this seems highly unlikely given the EA obsession with barraging off weirs.

[Scholar Gypsy]

6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Which weir is it? I recognise it but can't place it. If genuinely unprotected I stand corrected. But this seems highly unlikely given the EA obsession with barraging off weirs.

Goring, I think. Looking more carefully at Google earth, and at my the photo, there is indeed a pile on the right edge of the photo and a chain from there to the lock island. Oops.

[Naughty Cal]

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Agreed, but they will never be fully drawn on a calm summer's day like the OP will be out on, so where is the risk?

How do you know that?

We do get rain in the summer as well. Rivers can go into flood very quickly in the summer as the rain often just washes over the dry ground.

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

How do you know that?

We do get rain in the summer as well. Rivers can go into flood very quickly in the summer as the rain often just washes over the dry ground.

Cos he assumed it. 

[Sir Nibble]

On 06 April 2017 at 09:33, Neil2 said:

That brings me back to the point I made earlier, what is the point of carrying an anchor if you choose not to wear a life jacket?  Most folk on the river do not wear life jackets, therefore no point carrying an anchor.

 

[Sir Nibble]

On 06 April 2017 at 09:33, Neil2 said:

That brings me back to the point I made earlier, what is the point of carrying an anchor if you choose not to wear a life jacket?  Most folk on the river do not wear life jackets, therefore no point carrying an anchor.

This is the same as saying that because the passengers don't wear seat belts, the bus doesn't need brakes. A boat drifting out of control is a hazard to navigation and it's no use saying "I'm ok, not going over a weir" when you are surrounded by smashed fibreglass and people in the water..

[Neil2]

41 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

This is the same as saying that because the passengers don't wear seat belts, the bus doesn't need brakes. A boat drifting out of control is a hazard to navigation and it's no use saying "I'm ok, not going over a weir" when you are surrounded by smashed fibreglass and people in the water..

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy.

Remember, the OP asked what do we think about the advice to carry an anchor.

As far as I know, having brakes on a bus is not an option.

The point I am making is that when we consider safety measures (that are not compulsory), you can't just take one in isolation you should consider all the risks, and which are most likely.  It doesn't make sense to take precautions against one risk whilst dismissing a more likely risk. 

I think you make a good point about the danger to other boats though.  I wonder how many boaters know the sound signal for "I am unable to manoeuvre"?  

 

[howardang]

38 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy.

Remember, the OP asked what do we think about the advice to carry an anchor.

As far as I know, having brakes on a bus is not an option.

The point I am making is that when we consider safety measures (that are not compulsory), you can't just take one in isolation you should consider all the risks, and which are most likely.  It doesn't make sense to take precautions against one risk whilst dismissing a more likely risk. 

I think you make a good point about the danger to other boats though.  I wonder how many boaters know the sound signal for "I am unable to manoeuvre"?  

 

Some of us Do.

 

Howard

Edited April 7, 2017 by howardang

[Naughty Cal]

Several of us do.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Neil2 said:

 I wonder how many boaters know the sound signal for "I am unable to manoeuvre"?  

Well I couldn't give a 'hoot and two parps'.

Them as know it, know it, them as don't, probably couldn't be arsed to learn it because"its not needed on the Inland Waterways, and, anyway if I learned it, no-one else would recognise the signal, so what's the point ?"

[Sir Nibble]

1 hour ago, Neil2 said:

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy.

Remember, the OP asked what do we think about the advice to carry an anchor.

As far as I know, having brakes on a bus is not an option.

The point I am making is that when we consider safety measures (that are not compulsory), you can't just take one in isolation you should consider all the risks, and which are most likely.  It doesn't make sense to take precautions against one risk whilst dismissing a more likely risk.

I think you make a good point about the danger to other boats though.  I wonder how many boaters know the sound signal for "I am unable to manoeuvre"?

 

The legal situation is irrelevant to the analogy. It gives an example of the silly idea you seem to have that if you take personal risks you may as well put everyone at risk. Anyway, how do you know that people don't have lifejackets because they don't have an anchor? By your logic any equipment is not worth having if you don't carry every conceivable item. No point having a spanner to bleed the fuel if you don't have a spare belt.

[Neil2]

17 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

The legal situation is irrelevant to the analogy. It gives an example of the silly idea you seem to have that if you take personal risks you may as well put everyone at risk. Anyway, how do you know that people don't have lifejackets because they don't have an anchor? By your logic any equipment is not worth having if you don't carry every conceivable item. No point having a spanner to bleed the fuel if you don't have a spare belt.

As I said, I take your point absolutely about the risks to third parties - it's actually, I think, the first time anyone has raised this aspect of it which is a bit surprising, the discussion so far seems to have concentrated entirely on the personal risk to the boat owner.  All my comments were made in that context.

If you consider the danger to other parties I accept it's a completely different matter and my reasoning doesn't apply.

No doubt MtB will be along in a minute to question the danger of a boat drifting downstream at 0.5mph on a Summers day..

[Sir Nibble]

On 06 April 2017 at 13:39, Sir Nibble said:

A boat drifting down the river, weir or not is a danger to life and property. In the absence of an anchor maybe just hoist two black balls to signal that your vessel is not under command. Causing danger and possibly instigating an emergency rescue situation for the lack of an anchor is gross negligence and one should be mindful of ones responsibilities as master of the vessel.

 

[Drayke]

5 hours ago, Neil2 said:

As I said, I take your point absolutely about the risks to third parties - it's actually, I think, the first time anyone has raised this aspect of it which is a bit surprising, the discussion so far seems to have concentrated entirely on the personal risk to the boat owner.  All my comments were made in that context.

If you consider the danger to other parties I accept it's a completely different matter and my reasoning doesn't apply.

No doubt MtB will be along in a minute to question the danger of a boat drifting downstream at 0.5mph on a Summers day..

That's why I said.

Posted Sunday at 23:09 · Report post

Couple of years ago I deployed my anchor whilst on the Thames just above Reading, had a log jammed between prop and weed hatch, used anchor as boat drifting to close to tupperwares . My anchor is a 25kg Danforth with chain and rope, had no problem pulling back on board. So you never know when an anchor will be needed.

Should also have said that this was in the summer and not a lot of flow.