ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Carrier Class Gateway

2001-04-25 15:00:03
Why Waste time with calculations, It's an American Ship!  Swing the 16" guns
and blow the Bridge. Bush can call it routine and not apologize for it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Holden [mailto:pat(_dot_)holden(_at_)SERANOA(_dot_)COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:13 PM
To: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia; Mark(_dot_)Abinante(_at_)HSC(_dot_)COM; Lloyd 
Wood
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway


one would have to consider high tides during a full moon to get an accurate
measurement.

I am also sorry about this but...

I think all the calculation regarding height limit should be made based on
high tides; it is easier to know if a ship would be able to pass on high
tide or not, when its the "sentsitive" time to let it pass, with it is
higher tides...

Manuel Arronte.



----- Original Message -----
From: <Mark(_dot_)Abinante(_at_)HSC(_dot_)COM>
To: "Lloyd Wood" <L(_dot_)Wood(_at_)eim(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:44 P
Subject: RE: Carrier Class Gateway



There's some discussion of Panama requirements in 'The New New
Thing'.
Not just a lock, but there's a bridge to worry about; passing
under
it
at low tide is your height limit.

i would imagine the problem would be at high, not low, tide.

oops. mea culpa.

L.


Sorry to add yet another post to a pointless thread but...
Lloyd was right the first time.  Height limit would be based on low
tide.
For ships that are near the height limit, waiting a mean time of 6 hours
for the next low tide is not a big deal.
-Mark



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>