Jeff Morris wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:

This is becoming clearer.
My read of this is that "A" was coming clear of a buoyed channel into
an "open" stretch of water when it met "B" and the subsequent
collision occurred in the "open" stretch of water (Inland Rules in
force), not the buoyed channel. (still not 100% sure on this, but g
close)


I was under the impression that the collision actually occurred in the
channel, but they were not specific.

G Again why I'm not 100% sure, but the findings seem to indicate my
assumption, at least to me.



Of the CG findings:
a,b,c, no problem.
d G Unless you're a military vessel, having extra hands to take
compass bearings, other than eyeball, and the value of them if vessels
are not maintaining course is interpretive, but this is a rule 2
"gotcha".


I'm always surprised that every fog situation reveals that contacts are
not formally plotted, not that I've ever done it, other than for
practice! When shorthanded in the fog there are more important things
to do than play with a grease pencil.

For anyone, this can be a problem. For ships, they have ARPA, so no real
excuse, except the time needed to develop the plot.



e debatable, but, understandable.


Piling on. Or maybe they felt the A started to move prematurely.


In answer to your feelings regarding the vessel entering the channel
from the side .... It is going to depend on the exact location of the
meeting. If the two vessels will be meeting IN the buoyed channel,
then that vessel (entering) will be required not to impede the vessel
in the channel. However if the meeting will occur in the approaches
to the channel, then the vessels will have to address the "normal" rules.


Yes, but that leaves a gray area. In this case, A must slow before the
meeting, because its not clear whether B is going to turn.

Possibly slow or alter to stbd to pass astern, (assuming maneuvering
room) or both. To me, the gray area here revolves around the point of
collision (in or out of the channel).




As to the proposal/acceptance aspect. Although I can see the courts
stepped decision regarding which rules take priority when assessing
blame (you haven't stated how much "B" was held liable and for what),


The was no mention of blame assigned to B. Although everyone talks
about how blame is always shared, I think that's a bit of a myth.
Somewhere I have the breakdown on this ...

I would argue that at the point that the 2 blast signals where
exchanged, this became in effect a passing situation with everyone in
agreement and now both vessels should be maneuvering under that
agreement .... and here, this goes to possible responsibility on "B".


So you're claiming that two whistles would not be used in a crossing
situation where the give-way vessel thinks it can pass cleanly in front
of the stand-on? In that case, the stand-on vessel should not be
required to alter course. I believe the courts are saying that this
situation was a crossing from first sighting to collision.

No, that's a different scenario. If the two vessels would be passing as
you state above, within 0.5 mi the signals would still be required.
My point above is that the signal has been given and accepted. Now each
pilot/master would and should be working under the terms of the agreed
signal, and I have to believe from this decision on their part, that the
actual meeting in no way involved rule 9(d) in particular and rule 9 in
general, but that the situation of the agreed signals had to be
considered when assessing blame.
To me this is a big point. The signal should not have been given (bad
decision) NOR should it have been accepted. It would seem that both
parties should have noted that to carry out the passing (stbd/stbd) was
going to require a significant maneuver which might not be and obviously
wasn't, possible. This is why I'm including "B" so highly as sharing the
blame.

otn