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)

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.

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.

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.

CN

CN

Neal, attempting rational discussion with jeffies is like attempting rational
discussion with a dog pile. jeffies intent is to "prove" that his 84 IQ is
within 2-1/2 points of infinity.

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)

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.

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.

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.

CN

CN

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.

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.

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.

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


"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.

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

Neal, don't attempt rational discussion with jeffies. he doesn't understand
half the words you used, but he tell you for days about the time he motored his
training wheels Marathon to Key West.

ask jeffies about his college degree in physics. I want to see him say that
again.

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.

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.

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


"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.

JAXAshby wrote:
Neal, don't attempt rational discussion with jeffies. he doesn't
understand half the words you used, but he tell you for days about the
time he motored his training wheels Marathon to Key West.

ask jeffies about his college degree in physics. I want to see him
say that again.



Hey Jaxies,
What was the name of that "definative" book that you wrote?

What type of boat do you own?

Where's the gulfstream?














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.

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.

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


"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.

What type of boat do you own?

well, I do own an inflatable kayak.

Where's the gulfstream?

Here's where they (not it) was a week ago, two weeks ago and three weeks.

If you don't know how to read them, post again and I'll see it I can find a
tutorial for you.

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.

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.