Capt. Neal® wrote:
Here is an actual test question that sort of negates many of
the arguments in the collision scenario posted by Jeff Morris
(Rules test - advanced)


How does this "negate" anything I said? I've only relayed the events as
I understand them, and posed a few questions and things to consider. In
fact, your comments are just the sort of comment I hoped for.


INLAND. Your vessel is proceeding down a channel and can
safely navigate only within the channel. Another vessel is
crossing your bow from starboard to port and you are in
doubt as to her intentions. Which statement is true?

A) The sounding of the danger signal is optional

B) The sounding of the danger signal is mandatory

C) You should sound two short blasts

D) You should sound one prolonged and two short blasts.


The correct answer is B) sounding the danger signal is
mandatory.

Mandatory only if A is "in doubt." As it turned out, he was not in
doubt, and in fact, his presumption was correct. But, is A permitted
to act as he did based on the information he had at hand?

And what about the fact that B was not actually crossing the channel?
You have to sort that out first.



Answer C, you should sound two short blasts is incorrect
but that is what vessel A did. Hmmmmmm!

I would say the above question fairly describes Jeff's
scenario in which vessel A failed to sound the danger
signal as required by the Rules.


No, it really doesn't. If B was entitled to cross, then A shouldn't
have to sound the danger signal, especially since the initial sighting
was at 4 miles. You really have to sort things out step by step.



I must change my view that both vessels were equally
at fault. I would have to now say that vessel A was
primarily at fault because vessel A violated the Rules
and this violation was the primary causative factor
in the collision.

No credit until you put it all together. But most of the issues are on
the table now.