OK - Here's what actually went down:

At the hearing by the Coast Guard, the Pilot of vessel A (outbound) was
found guilty of misconduct for:
a) Failure to take timely action to avoid vessel B
b) Navigating the vessel across the head of B
c) Failure to slacken speed, stop or reverse
d) Failure to take compass bearing of B
e) Navigating across the channel (right to left)

On appeal they first considered whether B was stand-on or give-way (or
possibly just passing) as it approached the channel. Since B was not
in the channel, it could not be considered the same as passing in a
winding channel. Since it was entering outside the mouth of the
channel, it was not a Rule 9 violation. Thus Vessel B was stand-on
under Rule 15 (Crossing). Even though A's presumption that B was going
to enter the channel was correct, he was not entitled to act on this
presumption. This meant that A's subsequent actions were incorrect. A
should have slowed to allow B to enter.

The other issue was: did B accept liability by accepting A's proposed
departure from the rules? As I mentioned before, in many of these
situations, the liability is already shared (such as a head-on meeting)
or "advisory" where the liability doesn't shift (such as overtaking).
In this case, A was not only advising that it wanted to pass in front of
B, but presuming that B could make a sharper turn. The court held that
"a reply in itself means nothing more than an assent to this course at
the risk of the vessel proposing it. Such a reply does not, in and of
itself, change or modify the statutory obligation of the former (A in
this case) to keep out of the way as before, nor does it guarantee the
success of the means she has adopted to do so." It also held that "the
burdened vessel has no right to give the other a signal of two whistles
unless she can cross the privileged vessel's bow without requiring the
latter to change her course and speed." This last comment emphasizes
that B did not waive any rights by responding with two blasts, she was
still the stand-on vessel and it was still A's obligation to avoid her.

The aspect of this that struck me was that A considered his obligations
based on the presumption that B was entering the channel and that this
would become a head on passing situation. However, although this was a
correct presumption, he was required to fulfill his obligation in the
crossing situation that was initially presented. A was probably
thinking that this had already become a passing situation when he gave
two blasts, but by not giving way in the beginning, his later actions
were flawed.

I've always felt that vessels entering a channel, especially from the
side, should give special consideration to those coming out of the
channel, but this could be my small boat background, based on narrow
channels with strong currents and nearby hazards. In fact, the rules
favor the entering vessel. In this case, had B been entering to A's
left, or head-on, the situation would have been easily resolved with a
port-to-port passing. When a crossing is required, the entering vessel
is favored.

And it is interesting that the proposal/acceptance process in the Inland
rules does not alter the stand-on/give-way relationship. If you are
give-way, you can't change that by asking the other boat to get out of
your way!

The facts of the case are from an online newsletter from Ocean Navigator.

Subscribe at:
http://cms.navigatorpublishing.com/enewsl.asp?l=471





Jeff Morris wrote:
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.