JAXAshby wrote:
You trimmed my first question about that book that you wrote.

It was probably beyond you,

Not if you wrote it.

and in any event the book is out of print.

Something that you wrote in junior high school doesn't count. Did you get
high on the fumes from the purple memeograph ink?

see Neal? I told you jeffies didn't understand half your words. you can spend
the next two weeks trying to bring him up to speed, intellectually, but if
eight years of high school couldn't do, why do you think you can? jeffies is
just a dog that can't hunt.

You can't tell me vessel A was not in doubt of what vessel B
intentions were.

Perhaps he should have been - that's what the courts claimed - but it
appears he wasn't.


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.

Since B took on a pilot, he probably witnessed that, or heard it on the
radio. The issue is not what he "knew," its whether he is entitled to
act on that presumption.



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

Nonsense. He was required to slow down.



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


That is true.


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".

I never said that.

It clearly was not OK when he was
required by the Rules to sound the danger signal instead.

It was not OK because he should have slowed instead.



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.


That is true.



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.


true. It was not a Rule 9 situation. It was Rule 15.


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!

I wasn't claiming this was the case, only that it was a possible line of
thinking. Actually, it was raised as part of the losing defense.



CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

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.

I know this answer is a little late, and I admit to stand on the shoulders
of others, but here it comes anyway:

A meets a vessel on his starboard side. A is give way vessel. A must assume
that B will continue course and speed, unless some sort of agreement is
reached. Even if he knows B wants to turn into the channel, he has to act in
conjunction with the rules, that state that he should give way and B should
stand on (unless otherwise agreed).
At this time A is apparently in the wrong side of the channel. This might be
a fault in itself? (I don't know US inland rules)
Then A signals and it is apparently to late for the suggested maneuver to
take safely place.
Then B accepts a maneuver that cannot take place safely, and thus failed to
do what he can (or should have been able to) to avoid danger and collision.

Based on this I would assume that A and B would share the responsibility,
with the main blame on A. Maybe 70/30.

Peter S/Y Anicula


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

Perhaps he should have been - that's what the courts claimed - but it
appears he wasn't.


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.

Since B took on a pilot, he probably witnessed that, or heard it on the
radio. The issue is not what he "knew," its whether he is entitled to
act on that presumption.



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

Nonsense. He was required to slow down.



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


That is true.


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".

I never said that.

It clearly was not OK when he was
required by the Rules to sound the danger signal instead.

It was not OK because he should have slowed instead.



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.


That is true.



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.


true. It was not a Rule 9 situation. It was Rule 15.


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!

I wasn't claiming this was the case, only that it was a possible line of
thinking. Actually, it was raised as part of the losing defense.



CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

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.

Aniculapeter wrote:
I know this answer is a little late, and I admit to stand on the shoulders
of others, but here it comes anyway:

A meets a vessel on his starboard side. A is give way vessel. A must assume
that B will continue course and speed, unless some sort of agreement is
reached. Even if he knows B wants to turn into the channel, he has to act in
conjunction with the rules, that state that he should give way and B should
stand on (unless otherwise agreed).

True.

At this time A is apparently in the wrong side of the channel. This might be
a fault in itself? (I don't know US inland rules)

I think the relevant part of Inland Rule 9(a)is the same as the Colregs.

Then A signals and it is apparently to late for the suggested maneuver to
take safely place.

true.

Then B accepts a maneuver that cannot take place safely, and thus failed to
do what he can (or should have been able to) to avoid danger and collision.

This is an unresolved point. Does the acceptance of the proposal mean
liability is shared? This court seemed to say "not really."



Based on this I would assume that A and B would share the responsibility,
with the main blame on A. Maybe 70/30.

Well, on this point I must apologize - I have no information on the
financial assessments. The pilot of Vessel A was found guilty of
misconduct, and this was upheld on appeal. I assume the pilot of B was
not found guilty, or that would have been mentioned.

On the issue of shared liability, it is true that a majority of cases
have that result, though I don't know the exact percentage. I'm pretty
sure it is not the "virtually all" that some people claim. Further,
although most countries went to the "Division of Damages" system earlier
(1910), the U.S. held out until 1975. Prior to that time, if both
vessels violated a rule, however minor, the division was always 50/50.
At some point it was decided the infraction had to actually contribute
to the incident.







Peter S/Y Anicula


Jeff Morris skrev i en
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You can't tell me vessel A was not in doubt of what vessel B
intentions were.

Perhaps he should have been - that's what the courts claimed - but it
appears he wasn't.


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.

Since B took on a pilot, he probably witnessed that, or heard it on the
radio. The issue is not what he "knew," its whether he is entitled to
act on that presumption.



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

Nonsense. He was required to slow down.



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


That is true.



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".

I never said that.

It clearly was not OK when he was

required by the Rules to sound the danger signal instead.

It was not OK because he should have slowed instead.



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.


That is true.




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.


true. It was not a Rule 9 situation. It was Rule 15.



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!

I wasn't claiming this was the case, only that it was a possible line of
thinking. Actually, it was raised as part of the losing defense.



CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

...

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.