a factor in causing the accident. The Baker turned a safe passage into collision by suddenly veering into its lefthand side of the channel and across the Miami's bow when the vessels were a half mile or less apart. Thus I concur completely with the conclusions as stated by libellant in its reply brief "If the Baker suddenly turned [and I have found it did] in front of the Miami when the vessels were less than a half mile apart, no radar, no lookout and in all likelihood, no amount of visibility could have avoided the collision. All parties who observed the picture developing on radar, are in agreement that initially, the passing could have been accomplished safely and without incident." The Baker's improper veering to its left into the Miami's channel altered this situation.
To the extent that what I have said constitute findings of fact and conclusions of law, this opinion shall be considered as containing them. In addition, I affirm, albeit in different form, plaintiff's request for findings of fact Nos. 1 through 31. I also affirm defendant's request for findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (except as to No. 7, I neither affirm nor deny the mathematical computations for the computed speeds); 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 24. All requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law not in harmony with those stated in this opinion are severally denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Delaware Channel on the Little Tinicum Island Range is a narrow channel.
2. The officers and crew members of the Melvin H. Baker were at fault in failing to report to their Pilot the whistle signal from ahead that they heard approximately two minutes prior to the collision.
3. The Pilot of the Melvin H. Baker without radar and bridge-to-bridge radio-telephone was lost.
4. Collision was caused by the fault of the Melvin H. Baker in crossing into the wrong side of the channel across the bow of the Cities Service Miami when the vessels were approximately one-half mile or less apart.
5. When the Melvin H. Baker swung into the path of the Cities Service Miami, collision could not be avoided.
6. The collision was not caused by any fault or improper judgment on the part of the Cities Service Miami.
And now, this 30th day of September, 1966, the parties are directed to submit a proposed order for the appropriate implementation of these findings of fact and conclusions of law and opinion.