What was the question? Answers?
As anyone heard of having any luck with a question with regard to appealing a challenge verdict? If so what are the tactics to submit a solid case? Have a 1600t masters test in the balance.
What was the question? Answers?
I have heard that it is more effective use of time to resit the module rather than challenge.
If one could resit without having to take all six modules again that would be nice, but this question was based on ROTR "risk".Originally Posted by CaptAndrew
Q: both intl/inland which statement is true concerning risk of collision?
A. Risk would exist if two vessels pass within 1 ml
B. stand on vessel must keep out of way of other vessels.
C. Bogus answer
D. Bogus answer
I feel both these answers are correct but the q does not mention the fact a "giveaway" vessel is not taking appropriate action to avoid collision, thus for the give way vessel to assume "risk" and then take immediate action to keep clear. I believe this Q is simple to learn by the definition of repetitive Text book learning techniques, but to put into theory, the Q only ask what is true concerning "risk". I believe there is risk anytime two boats pass. We take that risk everyday we leave port.
I most likely will sit again but it's worth it to try and appeal this Q: so that in the future the USCG can evolve with these Q's Call me stubborn....
I would think its a classic case of pick the 'most right' answer. I myself would pick 'B'. If you set up the example of two vessels passing within 1 mile of each other on inland waters, they sound the appropriate signal, and pass with no risk. When passing signals are made and understood, that should negate the risk of doubt/collision.
However, if you do lose your challenge, you only have to take the ROR again, not the 6 modules. You would have to take all 6 again if you let something like 60 or 90 days pass without re testing.
Whilst I can see your argument, it does not really fly with Inland rules. Vessels are often much closer and in fact are not required to exchange signals until 1/2 mile. I would infer that a risk is not considered to exist over that distance. Which only leaves B as a viable answer.
My initial thought is B.
A. Is NOT always absolutely true. Simply because two vessels are within one mile does not constitute a risk.
Vessels are not even required to sound signals unless the 1/2,mile threshold is met.
I remember when I took my first set of exams after the academy. They told us that you had to challenge a question before turning in your test. Also it was suggested that is would be quicker to just retake the test then to wait for a verdict.
This seems like the best option but a typical poorly worded question. I guess they figure wording it correctly would make the test too easy. The answer would make the most sense if worded something like "if give way vessel does not yield, stand on vessel must keep out of way of other vessel." But again, that would make the correct answer much too obvious for the coast guard.Originally Posted by waterwrkpr
Last edited by Capt. Phoenix; October 19th, 2011 at 10:01 PM.
Sorry bro it is no brainer, A is the only viable answer. B is a Bogus answer as well. Why would a stand-on vessel need to keep clear of other vessels? Sorry, in my opinion your challenge will go nowhere, but it might be worth a shot.
WWAD? "What Would Anchorman Do?"
1) If the give way vessel does not yield and there is an accident the stand on vessel is partly at fault for not getting the f out of the way.Originally Posted by Diesel
2) Where in the rules does it say that within one mile equals risk of collision? If it was within half a mile I could see it, under inland rules. Since they think anyone within 1/2 a mile needs to make passing arrangements then they could infer that means there is risk of collision. Otherwise, I would go with B.