Donal wrote:
"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?



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 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?


It sounds like vessel B didn't hear(or understand) vessel 'A's signal.


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.




Regards


Donal
--

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

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

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

"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

"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
--