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.