Capt. Neal® wrote:
Brilliant and correct comments interspersed below.

Now there are.



"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.

At first sighting the distance was about 4 miles. The speed of the
vessels was roughly 8 knots. But most of this can be analyzed without
the specifics.


If the vessels are over a half mile apart then it is neither a
crossing nor a passing situation.

Wrong. With large vessels at any significant speed the situation has to
be considered long before the "half mile" point. Are you saying the
vessels should ignore each other until within a half mile?

It is definitely not a
narrow channel situation.

Perhaps, but it certainly could be if the channel extended seaward. If
vessel B were "cutting a corner" then this could be a Narrow Channel
situation. Further, if A had to dangerous evasive action while still in
the channel, it could be argued the Rule 9 applied even if B did not
cross the dotted line on the chart. Remember, Rule 9(b) doesn't even
specify that small boats have to be in the channel to be considered
"impeding."


And, what's this about an 'extension of the channel'?

A descriptive, not a legal term.


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.

Now you're making assumptions based on no information at all.


The situation you describe is nothing but a cause to pay
attention at this particular stage.

Wrong. It may be that action is required even at this point. Certainly
A has to determine if it needs to slow to allow B to enter the
channel. As it unfolded, A decided there would be enough time/room to
pass starboard to starboard, but this was incorrect. This should be
enough to show that earlier action might have been appropriate.



A careful and prudent mariner aboard the vessel exiting
the channel would use the VHF to ask what are the other
vessel's intentions.

Perhaps. But sometimes relying on VHF causes problems. Perhaps I'll
post "VHF Assisted Collision" next. For instance, what if A's radio
call was answered by a third vessel hidden by B, and B's intent was to
cross the channel, not enter it? All sorts of mischief would ensue.




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. . .

you are permanently fuddled.


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.


Actually, this was under Inland Rules. I should have mentioned that,
but the concept of "proposing a departure" doesn't really exist in the
Int'l rules.


Since he did not but returned the signal he agreed to
the maneuver.

Again, this concept only applies in the Local Rules.


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.


This is certainly a key point, and courts have gone both ways. However,
you should the differing responsibilities of the proposer and acceptor.
Actually, what caught my eye in this case was an aspect of this issue
mentioned by the appeals court.


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.

Your record had to get a little better. Its still rather doubtful that
you could pass the captain's test.