Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kyle Stubbs

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Had a great month of taking some fantastic ship photos both around my local harbor, and on a short road trip to the Columbia River. Then, had my home broken into, with my camera, and the camera card with all of those photos, stolen...

In my opinion, for a comprehensive site standard it can work out three ways, only one of which is straightforward.

1. All Caps: Easy, everything is converted.

2. Leading first letter capitalized, except acronyms and other various situations: Complex situations such as finally having to sort out whether this tug is a name or an acronym...

3. By Appearance on Hull: Complex situations such as having to adjust for every yacht owner that thinks they're being funny by alternating caps and lower case, or representing the boat name with a symbol, etc...


You may not be talking about a wooden yacht from the 1970's now, but in 5 short months your proposed category would start to include them! Around my parts, Seattle, wooden Chris Craft older than that are so worthless they are being used as homeless encampments (not joking, it was in the news last week). I've seen photos showing the same story up in your waters.

And why is a wooden vessel any more interesting than a steel or fiberglass one? No other category on the site is dependent on the material of construction, so why should this one be? In my opinion, the fiberglass yachts of the 1950's can be works of art, featuring car-inspired fins and other jet age extravagance. In comparison, 1950's wooden yachts are stodgy and hardly different from those of the 1940's or 1960's.

And that's exactly the point I was trying to make, interest in small vessels is incredibly arbitrary. Would you consider one of those moldy Chris Craft I mentioned above as interesting now as you would have considered a 1930's wooden yacht 20 years ago? Remember, even harder than judging interest by age is judging interest by condition, so a category open to nicely restored vessels would be equally open to those in a near-wreck state.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look at changing the category allowances in favor of smaller older vessels. But "opening up" some category that is already a dumping grounds of sort, like the ill-defined Ancient Motor Vessels, or adding some category with no lower boundary don't seem like wise options.

Perhaps expanding Motor Yachts into two parts would be a better solution. For example a " Motor Yachts Newer than 50 years (20 m and over)" category alongside a "Motor Yachts Older than 50 years (12 m and over)" category. That sort of compromise could expand the interesting vessels that are added, as well as weed out the potentially "over-abundant" forms of debatable-classic vessels no one would probably look at.

As for the Ancient Motor Vessels category itself, perhaps it would best be served as a home to working vessels converted to yachts, retired working vessels, or something of that sort. Apart from old yachts, which by site guidelines should be in the yachts category, that seems to be the primary focus, anyways.

Yachts under 20m are not accepted. That's about the only clear line that can be drawn in regard to that form of vessel.

The term "classic" in itself is subjective. Is a wooden yacht from the 1970's classic? How about a fiberglass one from the 1950's? Or, what about that brand new yacht that's built from the plans of a vintage yacht from the 1930's?

The only way to establish a clear line, where we won't continue to bicker over our "feelings towards the matter" is to enforce a hard line based on a fixed trait of the vessels in question, which is already established. Regardless of age, if it is a yacht 20m or over it's fair game, if it's under 20m, don't post it.

If the yacht is under 20m, but was once a commercial vessel of a type allowed regardless of size, a fishing boat rebuilt as a yacht for example, I'm fine with a sort of exemption. Otherwise, once a yacht, always a yacht. "Historical status" is too subjective.

That's my opinion.

I have managed to find clear evidence in a Canadian Government-endorsed description that refers to the class with the prefix CFAV.

The following document, published for the Canadian Government Director Meteorology and Oceanography by General Dynamics in 2015, includes, in section 2.3, a list of Navy equipment. All commissioned vessels are referred to as "HCMS," while most of the remainder, including the Orca-class, are all described as "CFAV." Seems like a fairly clear delineation to me.

For consistency's sake, I would think the prefix "CFAV," for what I assume is "Canadian Forces Auxiliary Vessel, should be used for any non-commissioned Canadian Navy vessels. That prefix is already in place for Canadian Navy tugs, such as the GLENDYNE:

Since CFAV seems to already be established as some form of standard, I don't see why it shouldn't be carried over to the Orca-class vessels, in the form of using a photo title of, for example, CFAV ORCA PCT55.

Shipping News and information / Re: Renamings
« on: May 08, 2019, 12:57:40 AM »
STALEGG (IMO 9211810), Norway flag fishing trawler, has been renamed PACIFIC LEGACY No.1, Belize flag with Canadian ownership.

To me, the "Reefers in support of the Fishing Industry" category has always seemed redundant. It is one of the only cases where the site identifies a vessel solely by its industry instead of its function, such as having a hypothetical case of "Tugboats in support of the oil industry."

My suggestion would be to move virtually everything that is an Equasis-classed as a Reefer Vessel to the actual Reefer Vessel categories, and leave the existing category to be re-established as "Fish Processors and Fishing Tenders," or something similar, as the majority of the vessels already in the category would be defined as the following two types:

Fish Processor/Factory: A self-propelled or moored vessel with no capacity to catch fish, but equipped with facilities to process and pack seafood:

Example: NORTHERN VICTOR (IMO 7204231)

Fishing Tender/Packer: A vessel classed by international or local authorities as a fishing vessel, but carrying no gear to catch fish, and only limited equipment for packing fish in ice. Most often used to ferry supplies and the catch of other vessels between a combination of fishing vessels, floating processors and shore-based processing facilities.

Example: BALAENA (IMO 7051450)

Help and Advice / Re: US ship info www
« on: December 20, 2018, 02:33:10 AM »

I believe this is the site you are looking for:

Also, in cases where the NOAA site isn't working well, which isn't uncommon, it's sister site hosted by the Coast Guard is a good, if less user-friendly, resource:

Kind Regards,

[URL corrected - DA]

Vlad is right on the money.

Here on Puget Sound, we've got a 38 year-old due in for a scheduled visit on Saturday, and 44 and 45 year-olds laid-up in operating condition.

So sorry to hear this news.

For so many years, Ken was the dedicated, if occasionally gruff, heart of this site. His absence will leave a big void in all of us that have enjoyed the empire that his hard work built.

Rest in Peace, Ken.


I've always felt that the existence of the "Reefers supporting fishing vessels" is kind of a silly category, as in the modern era, a significant portion of the vessels with that job description are just standard reefer vessels with no designed connection to fishing, only a contract to support the industry for a short or long term.

Instead, it seems to me that the category would be better served by relocating any "typical" reefers to the normal reefer categories, and re-establishing it as a "Fish Factory Vessels and Tenders" or "Fishing Tenders and Motherships" category, which would encompass two relatively prevalent varieties of vessel:

1. Fish Factories: Specially-designed or modified vessels intended to serve as a "mothership," receiving fish from catcher vessels, processing it for long-term storage, and either transferring the processed fish to reefer vessels, or keeping it in a dedicated hold until returning to port. (Not to be confused with "catcher-processers," vessels that process the fish they catch, which are best left in the standard catcher categories.)


2. Fishing Tenders: Vessels with no catch gear of their own, but working solely in support of fishery operations through a combination of delivering supplies to catcher vessels and factory ships, and ferrying fish between any combination of catcher vessels, factory ships, and shore-based processing plants. In some cases, these vessels may also carry their own small-scale processing gear.

Example: DOROTHEA (

I feel that such a rearrangement would easily cover at least 95% of the non-catcher vessels currently found within the site's fishing categories in a much more straightforward and clear organization. Relocating any remaining fisheries research or patrol vessels to the respective Survey and Law Enforcement categories, and any small utility boats to the Workboat category would likely account for a significant portion of the remainder.

Kind Regards,

I'm getting it here in the United States, on the Google Chrome browser. It's getting quite irritating.

She has been moored at Fishermen's Terminal on Salmon Bay in Seattle for quite a while now. I can't remember if she was still there during my last visit, but I would be surprised if she wasn't.

Her appearance has not changed since my most recently posted photo of her:

Many Canadian fishing vessels have been coming to the US via admeasurement and state licensing, which is exempt from the Jones Act as long as the vessel can be measured at less than 5 Net Tons. For larger vessels, that usually involves extensive modifications below decks to the hold areas in order to exempt various spaces from the tonnage measurement. My assumption is that the owners bought her thinking they could accomplish modifications for proper admeasurement, but found the task either impractical, or too expensive, and never managed to get her registered.

She is currently listed for sale for $350,000 USD.

Shipping News and information / Re: Fish carrier LA MANCHE
« on: November 04, 2017, 02:27:27 AM »
The build date of SAGA SEA in 1974 is, in all reality, a red herring. While the 52.4 m x 11.6 m offshore supply vessel SEA BRUSE was built at Houston, Texas in 1974, only a tiny portion of the hull was re-used in 1990 during, essentially, the construction of the 92 m x 16.5 m factory trawler SAGA SEA in a Norwegian shipyard.

The late eighties saw several of these "conversions," when allowances in the Jones Act allowed for foreign-built US flag vessels as long as some portion of the vessel, however small, was originally a US-built ship.

In the most egregious case, the 24 m, 175 GT research vessel ACONA (IMO 7738412, blt 1961) was "rebuilt" as the 87 m, 5,015 GT factory trawler AMERICAN TRIUMPH.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9