Candidates keep reporting (and failing) this question, and it’s the one we’ve warned about in license prep. Here it is, why the NMC keys it the way they do, and \u2014 most importantly \u2014 how to answer it on exam day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Question<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND INLAND: Your vessel is underway in restricted visibility. You have detected the presence of a vessel ahead by radar alone and not in sight. Which of the following is TRUE?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A<\/strong>. You should sound the danger signal\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n B<\/strong>. You may alter course to port if overtaking that vessel\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n C<\/strong>. You should return the same fog signal that the other vessel is sounding\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n D<\/strong>. You may be in a head-on situation<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Keyed Answer: B<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The NMC keys B<\/strong>, and their reasoning is that it comes straight out of Rule 19(d)(i): when taking avoiding action for a vessel detected by radar alone, you shall avoid “an alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam, other than for a vessel being overtaken<\/strong>.” In other words, Rule 19 itself says a turn to port is permissible when overtaking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The NMC rules out D<\/strong> by citing Rule 11: the “head-on situation” is defined in Rule 14, which sits in Section II (Vessels in Sight of One Another) and applies only when vessels are in sight. In restricted visibility, by definition, there is no “head-on situation.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why This Question Is Flawed<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Here’s the problem. “Overtaking” is defined in Rule 13 \u2014 which sits in the same<\/em> Section II that the NMC uses to disqualify answer D. If Rule 11 makes “head-on” inapplicable to vessels not in sight, the identical logic makes “overtaking” inapplicable too. You cannot be in a Rule 13 overtaking situation with a vessel you have never seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rule 19 nonetheless uses the word “overtaken” \u2014 an inherent conflict written into the Rules themselves. (It’s not the only one: International Rule 9(e)(i) says a vessel in doubt may<\/em> sound the Rule 34(d) signal, while Rule 34(d) says a vessel in doubt shall<\/em> sound it. An optional signal made mandatory.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the question, as worded, asks you to accept Section II terminology inside Rule 19 for the keyed answer while rejecting Section II terminology to eliminate a distractor. A candidate who understands the Rules holistically \u2014 the way you actually have to apply them on the bridge \u2014 can defensibly argue that no answer is correct. Protests on this question have been submitted and denied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How to Answer It on Exam Day<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The NMC tests the text<\/em> of Rule 19, not the conflict buried in it. So:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When a question places you in restricted visibility with a vessel detected by radar alone, answer strictly from the language of Rule 19 \u2014 and pick the choice that quotes it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Answer B is a near-verbatim statement of Rule 19(d)(i). A, C, and D each contradict the Rules outright: the danger signal (Rule 34(d)) is an in-sight maneuvering signal, your fog signal is dictated by your own vessel’s status \u2014 never an echo of another vessel’s \u2014 and “head-on” exists only in sight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bottom line: choose B.<\/strong> Recognize the flaw, set it aside, and give the NMC the Rule 19 language it is looking for. Argue the Rules on the bridge and in the debrief \u2014 on the exam, play the question as keyed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Candidates keep reporting (and failing) this question, and it’s the one we’ve warned about in license prep. Here it is, why the NMC keys it the way they do, and \u2014 most importantly \u2014 how to answer it on exam day. The Question BOTH INTERNATIONAL AND INLAND: Your vessel is underway in restricted visibility. You […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[47,52,50],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8526"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8526"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8526\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8527,"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8526\/revisions\/8527"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lapware.org\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}