Good point about the pilot. Vessel B had a pilot on board, there was no
mention for vessel A.

My first thoughts (being a recreational, small boat sailor at heart) was
that B's actions were suspect, first for creating a crossing situation
at the entrance to a channel, then for agreeing to a maneuver that it
couldn't complete. However, as I've hinted, the courts focused more on
A's actions. Clearly, A must take some blame for suggesting a doomed
maneuver - the issue the courts considered is whether A handled itself
properly in all regards. But I can say no more ...



otnmbrd wrote:
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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Good point about the pilot. Vessel B had a pilot on board, there was no
mention for vessel A.

Then Hang the Pilot for allowing the situation to occur!!!

The Captains of both vessels were probably drunk and either directing the
cook to toss garbage off the stern or dumping oil. The drunken *******s!

Hang'em All!!!

CM

What are these references to left and right? Is that their political
leaning?

Cheers

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.

Jeff Morris wrote:
How do the courts assess
blame?



It should have been 50/50

Cheeres

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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?

Every port that I visit has a "Harbour Master". Commercial vessels, and
larger pleasure vessels, usually have to seek the Harbour Master's
permission before entering or leaving the harbour. His VHF channel is
published in all almanacs.

I've (wrongly) assumed that it is the same everywhere.



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.

AFAIK, the Coll Regs reign supreme here, even in harbours. However, most
harbours have their own local rules. These are also usually mentioned in
the almanacs.



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.

I can see that 'A's lateness in making his intentions clear would not help
the situation. However I still feel that the gap between the signals would
have been very important. If 'A' was very late, and there was a very short
gap, then I would allocate most of the blame to 'A'.


Regards


Donal
--

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

Otn,
The master of a vessel often have to make quick decisions without having all
the information that he would like.

I gave an answer based on the evidence that Jeff provided. You didn't give
an answer. You were incapable of reaching a conclusion.


It seems that you are the sort of person who would dither and procrastinate
when presented with a difficult situation. I suspect that in real life, you
would be more decisive - so why don't you answer Jeff's question? It was an
excellent question, that promotes real sailing discussion. If we all
adopted your attitude, then we couldn't have any sailing discussion at all.



Regards


Donal
--

Nav wrote:


Jeff Morris wrote:
How do the courts assess

blame?



It should have been 50/50

That's not the question I asked.

Donal wrote:

Otn,
The master of a vessel often have to make quick decisions without having all
the information that he would like.

Interesting. Thank you for that insight as to how a Master works.

I gave an answer based on the evidence that Jeff provided. You didn't give
an answer. You were incapable of reaching a conclusion.

Ahhh, so you believe in giving answers based on scanty information. I
prefer to think, that a good answer could not be given, based on what
Jeff gave, so you're right, based on that information I was unable to
reach a conclusion.



It seems that you are the sort of person who would dither and procrastinate
when presented with a difficult situation. I suspect that in real life, you
would be more decisive - so why don't you answer Jeff's question? It was an
excellent question, that promotes real sailing discussion. If we all
adopted your attitude, then we couldn't have any sailing discussion at all.

LOL Obviously you haven't really followed this thread, just jumped in
with both feet.
Might I suggest a wee tad more reasoned thought to your responses and a
bit less petty criticism as to how others go about making theirs?

otn

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.

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)
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".
e debatable, but, understandable.

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.

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), 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".

otn