Weirs channel coexistence

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tis

It definitely needs to be defined. I think there is a reason for no wake however and that means you can't make a wake. Otherwise, just eliminate it. There NEEDS to be a difference. I know in years past, some MPs would not allow ANY wake to be made- some so small it even surprised me.

First I want to start by saying that the simple act of a object moving through water you are going to create a wake.... so if a Marine Patrol officer every indicated that no wake what so ever was allowed, I would be very surprised.

The displacement of the boat dictates how much of a wake you produce at a slow speed. In short at the same given speed of 6 mph, the wakes behind two different sized boats are going to be different.... so some boats my have a larger ripple then others....

Now the real problem here, is peoples interpretation of the wording.... As has been stated I would like to see the term No-Wake changed.... because as previously stated any object travel through the water will create a wake....

Now what is the proper speed.... that is a whole other argument. Which is why the law has been designed with a great deal of interpretability. As Woodsy point out he had a boat which really required headway speed to be about 7-8 mph... while I have had boats that I could back all the way down to 2 or 3 mph with out any issues.

I personally think "No-wake" should become "Headway speed"

And Headway speed should be defined as "A reasonable speed which allows the vessel, to maintain steerage, and progress in a forward motion, against any current, while minimizing the wake created by the vessel"

A figure of speed needs to be taken completely out of the equation....