Capt. Neal® wrote:
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.

Problem is, if this is an "inland" situation, the rule states "unless
otherwise agreed"

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.

If that court is some State or Federal court, unfamiliar with the
MEANING of the rules, I'd agree. However, if the court is a Maritime
court, that becomes another matter.

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

Sorry to say, lawyers are here to stay. Many of the changes to the
rules, have come about because lawyers were able to argue the wording of
the rules (hence, no longer "right of way"). This is not all that bad as
it's helped clarify many areas. However, one must never lose sight of
the fact that the "Rules of the Road" tend to rely more on the "spirit"
of the law, than they do on the "letter of the law" ..... i.e. Rule 2
......you are responsible for what you do, what you don't do, and what
you should or should not have done.

otn

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.

What right does a maritime court in the USA have ruling
on the COLREGS which are an International body of
law signed on to by countries all over the world.

What if a maritime court in Namibia under the
auspices of some dictator decided the meaning
of the Colregs.

Would you feel comfortable with that?

The Rules should not be changed in a Court
of Law. The Rules should only be interpreted.

It is not up to courts and lawyers to rewrite
law. That is up to legislatures.

CN


"otnmbrd" wrote in message nk.net...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
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.

Problem is, if this is an "inland" situation, the rule states "unless
otherwise agreed"

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.

If that court is some State or Federal court, unfamiliar with the
MEANING of the rules, I'd agree. However, if the court is a Maritime
court, that becomes another matter.

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

Sorry to say, lawyers are here to stay. Many of the changes to the
rules, have come about because lawyers were able to argue the wording of
the rules (hence, no longer "right of way"). This is not all that bad as
it's helped clarify many areas. However, one must never lose sight of
the fact that the "Rules of the Road" tend to rely more on the "spirit"
of the law, than they do on the "letter of the law" ..... i.e. Rule 2
.....you are responsible for what you do, what you don't do, and what
you should or should not have done.

otn

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.

bject: Rules Test (advanced)
From: Jeff Morris

Donal wrote:

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 number of ports with a "control" entity is increasing. Donal is correct
regarding the way a "control" might handle this situation, however, world wide,
these controllers are still the exception, not the rule.
If you're talking the Chessy, like otn, I question which rules applied
(int/inl).
I agree with otn, in that I'd like to see more (especially the lurkers) get
into questioning this case.

Shen

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't a lot of fairways like
that in the Chesapeake come under the auspices of the
International Rules?

CN


"Shen44" wrote in message ...
bject: Rules Test (advanced)
From: Jeff Morris

Donal wrote:

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 number of ports with a "control" entity is increasing. Donal is correct
regarding the way a "control" might handle this situation, however, world wide,
these controllers are still the exception, not the rule.
If you're talking the Chessy, like otn, I question which rules applied
(int/inl).
I agree with otn, in that I'd like to see more (especially the lurkers) get
into questioning this case.

Shen

otnmbrd wrote:
I have to ask .... When (year) did this incident occur, and in what
country?

Don't know the year. The Coast Guard and Inland rules were mention, so
my guess the Chesapeake.

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.

yea - that's why this one has stuck in my mind for a few months. It
seems simple yet is filled with paradoxes. A seemed to be at fault for
presuming that this would become a passing situation. But it did become
that, so is A really at fault? If B was standon as a crossing vessel,
did he have the right to turn into the channel? Do we look at only the
events, or do have to consider the motivations? This case illuminates
the concept that a master will be held accountable for their actions and
how they were justified by the information they had, not necessarily by
how things unfolded. But I can say no more ...

otnmbrd wrote:
Capt. Neal® wrote:

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.


Problem is, if this is an "inland" situation, the rule states "unless
otherwise agreed"

This was inland. And anyone that monitors 13 in NY harbor knows that
"departures" are commonplace.



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.


If that court is some State or Federal court, unfamiliar with the
MEANING of the rules, I'd agree. However, if the court is a Maritime
court, that becomes another matter.

Actually, I've read that the circuit courts that handle some appeals do
a rather credible job.




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


Sorry to say, lawyers are here to stay. Many of the changes to the
rules, have come about because lawyers were able to argue the wording of
the rules (hence, no longer "right of way"). This is not all that bad as
it's helped clarify many areas. However, one must never lose sight of
the fact that the "Rules of the Road" tend to rely more on the "spirit"
of the law, than they do on the "letter of the law" ..... i.e. Rule 2
.....you are responsible for what you do, what you don't do, and what
you should or should not have done.

Frankly the rules a very terse and obviously written to give the courts
the widest latitude in interpretation. It was intended that the courts
would have an active roll in determining the law.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
Harbor control? What's that?

Any commercial traffic approaching, departing or traversing the traffic
lanes to Halifax Harbour and approaches are required to contact 'Halifax
Radio'.. the Port Authority. Private Vessels should notify Halifax Radio ...
but it is not a requirement.


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.

This has been the case here long before 9/11....

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

Not Inland Rules in Halifax.... routing is under direction of the Port
Authority.

I have heard Halifax Radio warning a small private vessel that it was on
course for foul ground and directed it to alter course. The vessel replied
and obeyed prior to thanking Halifax Radio for the notice. They track
everyone in the harbour... 24/7.

They tagged me 30+ years ago at 0230hrs racing the Pilot vessel back into
the harbour.... I had no running lights, no radar, no sounder, no radio, no
lights at all... it was a stick steer 42 foot Northumberland Strait Lobster
Fishing boat, no cabin.... I was trying to sneak in under the Pilot Boat
shadow. I was only 17... we had already taken the vessel from Prince Edward
Island to Halifax with 3 charts, a dip tube log and a time piece. We cooked
food we caught on a Habachi on deck and slept in hammocks strung athwartship
under a canvas tarp. Those were the days....

CM

Capt. Neal® wrote:
What right does a maritime court in the USA have ruling
on the COLREGS which are an International body of
law signed on to by countries all over the world.

Who better to address a case regarding a Maritime incident, than a court
that is primarily made up of those familiar with Maritime law and it's
ins and outs?

What if a maritime court in Namibia under the
auspices of some dictator decided the meaning
of the Colregs.

It's not a perfect world, but allowing that some dip**** court could
make a politically motivated judgment on an international case that
would hold up worldwide, regarding something such as the IMO Rules, is
highly unlikely.

Would you feel comfortable with that?

see above.

The Rules should not be changed in a Court
of Law. The Rules should only be interpreted.

yes and no. The court cannot change the rules. Their job is to interpret
how the rules apply to a particular incident, and assess blame or innocence.

It is not up to courts and lawyers to rewrite
law. That is up to legislatures.

GAWD FORBID !!!! The last body you want to become involved with Maritime
law, is some governmental legislature!!!! Those idiots base their
decisions on political expediency, not rational thought!!


otn

Shen44 wrote:
....
Since the harbor entrance in still under Inland rules, I might guess
this happened in the Chesapeake.


The number of ports with a "control" entity is increasing. Donal is correct
regarding the way a "control" might handle this situation, however, world wide,
these controllers are still the exception, not the rule.
If you're talking the Chessy, like otn, I question which rules applied
(int/inl).

All of Chesapeake Bay is under the "Inland Rules." Also, Delaware Bay,
NY Lower Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, Casco
Bay are Inland, and large enough to handle the ships in this scenario.
Also, there are numerous secondary ports that accommodate smaller
ships that would not have "harbor control."

For those that don't know the US rules, there are "Inland Rules," almost
the same as the Colregs, but with a few differences. The largest
difference is the lights for tows, with special rules for the Western
Rivers. Also, the passing signals in the Inland Rules allow for
proposing and accepting/rejecting alternate passing. These arrangements
may be made over the radio, in which case whistles need not be used.
Under Int'l rules the whistle must always be used. Also, the concept if
"Constrained by Draft" does not exist in the Inland Rules. Another
difference, often overlooked, is that small powerboats, including
dinghies, are exempt from using sidelights under Int'l Rules, but they
are required for Inland. I've left a few other Int'l/Inland differences
for the nit pickers.

There is a line on US charts that shows the "demarcation" between Inland
and Int'l Rules, often called the "Colregs Line." Usually Int'l rules
are in affect when you leave the harbor, but the larger Bays and Sounds
are Inland. The question always get raised, what if a boat in Inland
waters meets with boat in Int'l waters?

Based on inland rules, I can see a couple possibilities regarding court
decision and appeal.
Since we are talking whistle signals, since the outbound vessel proposed
a stbd to stbd passage and the crossing vessel agreed to this, but then
was unable to make the turn and collided. The court could hold this
vessel to have the main fault since they should have known whether or
not they could make the required turn and if there was doubt, should
have blown the danger signal and not have agreed to the stbd/stbd passage.
However, since you are discussing ships, it can be assumed that there
were pilots aboard both vessels. This being the case and since nowadays,
pilots are being held to a higher degree of responsibility, on appeal, a
court might decide that the outbound pilot was equally responsible,
since his higher training and experience should have indicated that this
may not have been the best passing agreement.
Without all the info that was available to the courts, it's tough to
guess their thinking process, but the above are possibles.

otn