Capt. Neal® wrote:
You can't tell me vessel A was not in doubt of what vessel B
intentions were.

Put yourself in his place. He is proceeding out a channel and
off to his starboard he sees a vessel that might be crossing
his path or might be turning to come in the channel. He knows
not which is the case.

He is clearly required by the Rules to sound the danger
doubt signal since a chance for a collision exists.

All of this depends on the true and perceived aspects of the vessels
and what each "pilot" knew of the other vessel. The "danger signal" was
an option, though not necessarily the first option.

He clearly erred 'assuming' an action by the other vessel
when he had not communicated with the other vessel.

This negates your assumption based on scanty information
that it was OK for vessel A to sound a signal that said
"I am turning to port". It clearly was not OK when he was
required by the Rules to sound the danger signal instead.

Since it has been stated that "Inland Rules" applied, his signal did not
say "I am turning to port", rather that he "intended to leave you on his
stbd side".... big difference.


He erred and he erred badly and, thus, his was the primary
responsibility for the collision because his actions were
the cause of the other vessel altering its course and
a collision happening.

As for B crossing the channel. He was not and never was
crossing the channel because the channel does not extent
out to some unexplained distance from the headpin.

The channel starts and stops at the first two lateral
channel markers. This idea that the channel extends
out some undefined distance is just that - an idea.
Unfortunately it is not a fact. The channel is defined
by the markers. When the markers stop the channel
stops.

Jeeeez!

CN


The question of the proximity to the channel and the area in question is
not totally clear in my mind.
Jeff ..... did this by chance involve a Naval transport/cargo vessel and
another ship?

otn