Rules Test (advanced)
 

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.

G I'd give credit for asking the right questions prior to answering.

otn

Brilliant and correct comments interspersed below.


"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.

If the vessels are over a half mile apart then it is neither a
crossing nor a passing situation. It is definitely not a
narrow channel situation.

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

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.

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

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


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. . .

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

"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.



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.



Regards


Donal
--

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

otn

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
--

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

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
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.

And, as a liberal I suppose you think that's a good thing?

You idiot, you.

Read the Constitution. Courts don't 'determine law' under the
constitution. When there is a dispute, courts are supposed to
apply the law as it exists - not change it.

If the language of the law is too vague it is the court's
responsibility to strike down the law - not to write a
new one.

Law means nothing if it can be changed at will by courts.

In the USA it is ONLY legislatures (citizens) who are allowed
to write law - not judges.

CN

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.


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.


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.




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.

Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

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.


And, as a liberal I suppose you think that's a good thing?

I view this more as a "state's rights" type of issue. There are
numerous points that have to be interpreted considering the situations,
the vessels, the technology available, the local traditions, etc.

When the Democrats had power for 50 years, the Republicans claimed
everything was a matter of state's rights. Now that the tables are
turned, the Republicans want Federal Law and Amendments to prevent
states from exercising their rights!




You idiot, you.

Read the Constitution.

Which Consitution is that, Neal? The "Constitution of the Sea"? The
"World Constitution"?

Courts don't 'determine law' under the
constitution. When there is a dispute, courts are supposed to
apply the law as it exists - not change it.

International Maritime Law is not the lubberly law you want it to be.



If the language of the law is too vague it is the court's
responsibility to strike down the law - not to write a
new one.

Perhaps lubber's law works that way, not Maritime Law. When I have more
time, I'll torture you with some quotes from the text books.


Law means nothing if it can be changed at will by courts.

In the USA it is ONLY legislatures (citizens) who are allowed
to write law - not judges.

What about the IRS?

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.

wtf are you talking about? the lawmakers just scribble on a slate tablet, so
the courts can then make the laws to their own whim?

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

Jeff Morris wrote:

Nav wrote:



Jeff Morris wrote:
How do the courts assess

blame?



It should have been 50/50


That's not the question I asked.

But it's right.

Cheers

Nav wrote:


Jeff Morris wrote:

Nav wrote:



Jeff Morris wrote:
How do the courts assess

blame?



It should have been 50/50



That's not the question I asked.


But it's right.

No. The question was "HOW do the courts assess blame?" You answered a
different question, and got the answer to that wrong. Before you
complain, read OTN's responses - he was trying to understand HOW you
analyze this situation.

Jeff Morris wrote:

Nav wrote:



Jeff Morris wrote:

Nav wrote:



Jeff Morris wrote:
How do the courts assess

blame?



It should have been 50/50




That's not the question I asked.



But it's right.


No. The question was "HOW do the courts assess blame?" You answered a
different question, and got the answer to that wrong. Before you
complain, read OTN's responses - he was trying to understand HOW you
analyze this situation.


I'm right -it should have been 50/50.

Cheers