Those rules questions were just too easy, since they were simply test
questions where the answer could be looked up. Even so, they proved too
difficult for some.

Here are real life questions from an actual event:

A ship "A" is leaving harbor by the main channel. As A nears the mouth,
he sees ship B outside the channel to his right, apparently intending to
turn and enter the channel. Question 1: should this be considered a
Crossing situation, since the boats are in that orientation; a Passing
situation, since they seemed destined to "pass", or is it Narrow Channel
situation, because vessel B is about to cross the "extension" of the
channel?

The situation evolves: Vessel A is intending to turn left when leaving
the channel. As he approaches the end of the channel he sounds two
blasts, proposing a departure from the rules to pass starboard to
starboard. Vessel B has squared up to enter the channel and responds
with two blasts. Both vessels turn left but the maneuver was started
too late and the vessels collide. Question 2: How do the courts assess
blame?

Credits for the description of the event when I give the answer. No
fair posting if you're familiar with the case.

G I'd give credit for asking the right questions prior to answering.

otn

Brilliant and correct comments interspersed below.


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Those rules questions were just too easy, since they were simply test
questions where the answer could be looked up. Even so, they proved too
difficult for some.

Here are real life questions from an actual event:

A ship "A" is leaving harbor by the main channel. As A nears the mouth,
he sees ship B outside the channel to his right, apparently intending to
turn and enter the channel. Question 1: should this be considered a
Crossing situation, since the boats are in that orientation; a Passing
situation, since they seemed destined to "pass", or is it Narrow Channel
situation, because vessel B is about to cross the "extension" of the
channel?


It is none of the above until such time as the author of this
question provides more information as to the vessels relative
distance.

If the vessels are over a half mile apart then it is neither a
crossing nor a passing situation. It is definitely not a
narrow channel situation.

And, what's this about an 'extension of the channel'?

The channel stops when the channel markers stop. Anything
outside of that is not a channel. The channel seabouy is
placed far enough out so traffic can pass on either side
of it in safety.

The situation you describe is nothing but a cause to pay
attention at this particular stage.

A careful and prudent mariner aboard the vessel exiting
the channel would use the VHF to ask what are the other
vessel's intentions.


The situation evolves: Vessel A is intending to turn left when leaving
the channel. As he approaches the end of the channel he sounds two
blasts, proposing a departure from the rules to pass starboard to
starboard. Vessel B has squared up to enter the channel and responds
with two blasts. Both vessels turn left but the maneuver was started
too late and the vessels collide. Question 2: How do the courts assess
blame?

Tricky but it will not befuddle this Master. . .

Vessels don't 'intend' in the International rules when they
sound two short blasts . The two blasts of the whistle say,
I 'am' turning to port. If B had a problem with that he
should have sounded the five blast, danger/doubt signal.

Since he did not but returned the signal he agreed to
the maneuver.

If I were sitting the court I would assign equal blame based
on the fact that both vessel had agreed and both were at
blame for the collision.


Credits for the description of the event when I give the answer. No
fair posting if you're familiar with the case.


CN - a maritime lawyer in the making.

Capt. Neal® wrote:
Brilliant and correct comments interspersed below.

Now there are.



"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Those rules questions were just too easy, since they were simply test
questions where the answer could be looked up. Even so, they proved too
difficult for some.

Here are real life questions from an actual event:

A ship "A" is leaving harbor by the main channel. As A nears the mouth,
he sees ship B outside the channel to his right, apparently intending to
turn and enter the channel. Question 1: should this be considered a
Crossing situation, since the boats are in that orientation; a Passing
situation, since they seemed destined to "pass", or is it Narrow Channel
situation, because vessel B is about to cross the "extension" of the
channel?



It is none of the above until such time as the author of this
question provides more information as to the vessels relative
distance.

At first sighting the distance was about 4 miles. The speed of the
vessels was roughly 8 knots. But most of this can be analyzed without
the specifics.


If the vessels are over a half mile apart then it is neither a
crossing nor a passing situation.

Wrong. With large vessels at any significant speed the situation has to
be considered long before the "half mile" point. Are you saying the
vessels should ignore each other until within a half mile?

It is definitely not a
narrow channel situation.

Perhaps, but it certainly could be if the channel extended seaward. If
vessel B were "cutting a corner" then this could be a Narrow Channel
situation. Further, if A had to dangerous evasive action while still in
the channel, it could be argued the Rule 9 applied even if B did not
cross the dotted line on the chart. Remember, Rule 9(b) doesn't even
specify that small boats have to be in the channel to be considered
"impeding."


And, what's this about an 'extension of the channel'?

A descriptive, not a legal term.


The channel stops when the channel markers stop. Anything
outside of that is not a channel. The channel seabouy is
placed far enough out so traffic can pass on either side
of it in safety.

Now you're making assumptions based on no information at all.


The situation you describe is nothing but a cause to pay
attention at this particular stage.

Wrong. It may be that action is required even at this point. Certainly
A has to determine if it needs to slow to allow B to enter the
channel. As it unfolded, A decided there would be enough time/room to
pass starboard to starboard, but this was incorrect. This should be
enough to show that earlier action might have been appropriate.



A careful and prudent mariner aboard the vessel exiting
the channel would use the VHF to ask what are the other
vessel's intentions.

Perhaps. But sometimes relying on VHF causes problems. Perhaps I'll
post "VHF Assisted Collision" next. For instance, what if A's radio
call was answered by a third vessel hidden by B, and B's intent was to
cross the channel, not enter it? All sorts of mischief would ensue.




The situation evolves: Vessel A is intending to turn left when leaving
the channel. As he approaches the end of the channel he sounds two
blasts, proposing a departure from the rules to pass starboard to
starboard. Vessel B has squared up to enter the channel and responds
with two blasts. Both vessels turn left but the maneuver was started
too late and the vessels collide. Question 2: How do the courts assess
blame?


Tricky but it will not befuddle this Master. . .

you are permanently fuddled.


Vessels don't 'intend' in the International rules when they
sound two short blasts . The two blasts of the whistle say,
I 'am' turning to port. If B had a problem with that he
should have sounded the five blast, danger/doubt signal.


Actually, this was under Inland Rules. I should have mentioned that,
but the concept of "proposing a departure" doesn't really exist in the
Int'l rules.


Since he did not but returned the signal he agreed to
the maneuver.

Again, this concept only applies in the Local Rules.


If I were sitting the court I would assign equal blame based
on the fact that both vessel had agreed and both were at
blame for the collision.


This is certainly a key point, and courts have gone both ways. However,
you should the differing responsibilities of the proposer and acceptor.
Actually, what caught my eye in this case was an aspect of this issue
mentioned by the appeals court.


Credits for the description of the event when I give the answer. No
fair posting if you're familiar with the case.



CN - a maritime lawyer in the making.

Your record had to get a little better. Its still rather doubtful that
you could pass the captain's test.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Those rules questions were just too easy, since they were simply test
questions where the answer could be looked up. Even so, they proved too
difficult for some.

Here are real life questions from an actual event:

A ship "A" is leaving harbor by the main channel. As A nears the mouth,
he sees ship B outside the channel to his right, apparently intending to
turn and enter the channel. Question 1: should this be considered a
Crossing situation, since the boats are in that orientation; a Passing
situation, since they seemed destined to "pass", or is it Narrow Channel
situation, because vessel B is about to cross the "extension" of the
channel?


In these circumstances both ships would be communicating with the harbour
control. Generally, the vessel outside the harbour would be instructed to
slow down and wait until the outgoing vessel was clear. However, if the
vessel inside the harbour had more sea room, then the inbound vessel might
be given priority.



The situation evolves: Vessel A is intending to turn left when leaving
the channel. As he approaches the end of the channel he sounds two
blasts, proposing a departure from the rules to pass starboard to
starboard. Vessel B has squared up to enter the channel and responds
with two blasts. Both vessels turn left but the maneuver was started
too late and the vessels collide. Question 2: How do the courts assess
blame?

It sounds like vessel B didn't hear(or understand) vessel 'A's signal.


I think that the allocation of blame depends on the time that elapsed
between the two sound signals. If there was only a couple of seconds, then
most blame would lie with 'A'. However, if more than 15 seconds had
elapsed, then I would say that 'B' was at fault.



Regards


Donal
--

I'm surprised, yet not surprised, at the lack of response to this "test".
The answer can not be given without a great deal of clarification and I
note that Neal and Donal tried without asking those questions.
Jeff:
I'm assuming that this was based on an NTSB report or court decision?
So far, I can see responsibility being placed totally on A, Totally on
B, 50/50, and some places in between.
I'm hoping more will stop to think about this one and ask questions, as
it's not "cut and dried".

otn

otnmbrd wrote:
I'm surprised, yet not surprised, at the lack of response to this "test".
The answer can not be given without a great deal of clarification and I
note that Neal and Donal tried without asking those questions.
Jeff:
I'm assuming that this was based on an NTSB report or court decision?
So far, I can see responsibility being placed totally on A, Totally on
B, 50/50, and some places in between.
I'm hoping more will stop to think about this one and ask questions, as
it's not "cut and dried".

otn
The report is based on an article by Jim Austin in an Ocean Navigator
newsletter. This report was a bit skimpy on the facts and I probably
left out a few key things, but frankly there's no way to describe a
situation completely without reading 100 pages of testimony. Further,
the decision of the court will likely hinge on some very subtle point
that might never be revealed. All we can hope to do is try to
understand some of the factors that influenced the decision.

It isn't really a test, therefore, since we can only guess at the
answer. However, we can still ponder what questions would have been
asked and consider how that would have influenced the decisions. For
example, what if vessel B had not agreed to the starboard/starboard
passing? Would A have been able to slow enough to let B pass safely in
front, or was the situation doomed already because of A's delay in
signaling?

Or another question: normally when the second vessel agrees to a
departure from the rules it assumes some responsibility. But in most
cases the burden is shared equally from the start, as in a head on
meeting, or a give-way vessel is requesting an alternative that does not
greatly affect the stand-on vessel's course. In this case, however, a
vessel that might be give-way is requesting a serious (and as it
happened, impossible) course change by the other. How might this affect
the responsibility?

As you say, otn, things to think about.

The way I read the Rules is both vessels are required by the
Rules to pass port to port. A reasonable judge could go by
that fact alone and conclude both vessels violated the Rules
equally and had they passed in accordance with the Rules
a collision would not have happened.

What bothers me more about this situation is a Court
of Law ends up deciding fault which is proper but what
is NOT proper in my mind is for a court to make a decision
that sets precedent which might be applied to other situations
and the Rules end up getting morphed into something
unintended.

I do not think the writers and signers of the Colregs intended
the Colregs to be a toy of the lawyers.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
otnmbrd wrote:
I'm surprised, yet not surprised, at the lack of response to this "test".
The answer can not be given without a great deal of clarification and I
note that Neal and Donal tried without asking those questions.
Jeff:
I'm assuming that this was based on an NTSB report or court decision?
So far, I can see responsibility being placed totally on A, Totally on
B, 50/50, and some places in between.
I'm hoping more will stop to think about this one and ask questions, as
it's not "cut and dried".

otn
The report is based on an article by Jim Austin in an Ocean Navigator
newsletter. This report was a bit skimpy on the facts and I probably
left out a few key things, but frankly there's no way to describe a
situation completely without reading 100 pages of testimony. Further,
the decision of the court will likely hinge on some very subtle point
that might never be revealed. All we can hope to do is try to
understand some of the factors that influenced the decision.

It isn't really a test, therefore, since we can only guess at the
answer. However, we can still ponder what questions would have been
asked and consider how that would have influenced the decisions. For
example, what if vessel B had not agreed to the starboard/starboard
passing? Would A have been able to slow enough to let B pass safely in
front, or was the situation doomed already because of A's delay in
signaling?

Or another question: normally when the second vessel agrees to a
departure from the rules it assumes some responsibility. But in most
cases the burden is shared equally from the start, as in a head on
meeting, or a give-way vessel is requesting an alternative that does not
greatly affect the stand-on vessel's course. In this case, however, a
vessel that might be give-way is requesting a serious (and as it
happened, impossible) course change by the other. How might this affect
the responsibility?

As you say, otn, things to think about.

I have to ask .... When (year) did this incident occur, and in what country?
You have stated that inland rules applied, but that this was in an area
that involved an extended channel towards the seabuoy. Normally, the
demarcation will be at a breakwater or some point before the seabuoy,
hence the reason for my question as it will greatly influence the rules
being used.
BTW. There are many places that will require a particular passage of a
seabuoy, be it to Port or to Stbd.
As stated, I wish more would ask questions on this and try to supply
answers (right or wrong) as it's a good exercise.

otn

Donal wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Those rules questions were just too easy, since they were simply test
questions where the answer could be looked up. Even so, they proved too
difficult for some.

Here are real life questions from an actual event:

A ship "A" is leaving harbor by the main channel. As A nears the mouth,
he sees ship B outside the channel to his right, apparently intending to
turn and enter the channel. Question 1: should this be considered a
Crossing situation, since the boats are in that orientation; a Passing
situation, since they seemed destined to "pass", or is it Narrow Channel
situation, because vessel B is about to cross the "extension" of the
channel?



In these circumstances both ships would be communicating with the harbour
control. Generally, the vessel outside the harbour would be instructed to
slow down and wait until the outgoing vessel was clear. However, if the
vessel inside the harbour had more sea room, then the inbound vessel might
be given priority.


Harbor control? What's that?

I think there is such a thing in New York and maybe in a few other ports
on the East Coast, but it is certainly the exception, not the rule.
Actually, it may be more common now after 9/11. Perhaps one of the
"pros" can address this issue.

Since the harbor entrance in still under Inland rules, I might guess
this happened in the Chesapeake.




The situation evolves: Vessel A is intending to turn left when leaving
the channel. As he approaches the end of the channel he sounds two
blasts, proposing a departure from the rules to pass starboard to
starboard. Vessel B has squared up to enter the channel and responds
with two blasts. Both vessels turn left but the maneuver was started
too late and the vessels collide. Question 2: How do the courts assess
blame?


It sounds like vessel B didn't hear(or understand) vessel 'A's signal.


I think that the allocation of blame depends on the time that elapsed
between the two sound signals. If there was only a couple of seconds, then
most blame would lie with 'A'. However, if more than 15 seconds had
elapsed, then I would say that 'B' was at fault.


Perhaps I should clarify a point. The major delay was in A's proposal,
not B's acceptance of the plan.




Regards


Donal
--