Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[Wotname]

Without wanting to derailed Ann's good thread (15 pages mainly still on topic), I gotta ask if it bad and/or wrong to be immoral.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

The JW decision apportioned the majority of the blame to the ship.

Are you referencing the ATSB report, or did this go to court?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Are you referencing the ATSB report, or did this go to court?

good question, and at this remove, I'm not sure of the answer. A computer crash has taken the original files to which I'm referring, and memory is fickle.

Jim

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

I've never thought of it that way. Morally wrong is pretty strong, for a behavior that may or may not cause someone else harm. Surgery's like that, harm can be caused, serious bodily harm, but no one says surgery should be prohibited because it may cause someone else harm.

It has always seemed to me that we need to keep a proper watch, and stay out of their way, whoever they are, whether or not they are singlehanded....and I've somewhere over 175,000 sea miles, I've been exposed, so to speak.

When the investigative body ruled in the collision of Jessica Watson, singlehander, with a ship of Chinese origin, the greater portion of blame was given to the ship.

Ann

Comparing surgery to immoral irresponsible fools ignoring the law of the sea is ridiculous

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by conachair

Last one not that much in it IMHO.

Is a slack crewed boat morally wrong?

A skilful solo sailor cannot possibly maintain a continuous lookout by sight and hearing, whereas a skilful fully-crewed vessel could. Therein lies the difference.

Is a boat that is not maintaining a proper watch morally wrong? - that is the question. The blighters that ran into Boatman for instance - were they morally wrong in not keeping a proper watch? Or did their lapse in morality come out when they tried to make a run for it?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Are you referencing the ATSB report, or did this go to court?

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

good question, and at this remove, I'm not sure of the answer. A computer crash has taken the original files to which I'm referring, and memory is fickle.

Jim

I don't remember this going to court but as Jim notes, memory is fickle.

[Tricolor]

Ask a military sniper if killing humans is inmoral and you end up with the same discussion.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I don't remember this going to court but as Jim notes, memory is fickle.

Memory IS fickle, for sure, but the report WAS written by the Australian Transport Safety Board. I looked for a bit, but couldn't find a link to the report itself, which we did have, but it died with the computer containing it. However, here's a link to a letter to Latitude 38 about it: https://www.latitude38.com/letters/201007.html

The event happened in July 2009.

Ann

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I don't remember this going to court but as Jim notes, memory is fickle.

Here you go... https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...8-mo-2009-008/

Very often even if something like this does go to court the results aren't made public..... thinking of Stockholm/Andrea Doria in particular...

Back on track....

Three things to consider when you think of doing something ( not neccesarily in this order ) .... is it moral?... is it legal.... and is it sensible.... oh and a fourth.... will I get caught??

I don't think morality comes into this discussion - thats more a bishop/choir boy sort of a thing.

Is it legal? .... hands up all those who have never done anything illegal.... don't think I can see any hands....

Is it sensible? Thats the tricky one ... I think the answer is 'it depends'.

[poiu]

Morally wrong? I have an instinctive reaction to such a question. Someone is trying to manipulate me with shame. I rail against such questions as there is no point addressing them as concensus can never be reached. There is no universal morality, all morality is subjective. It is an impossible question to answer.

It is much better to establish if it is legal or not. That is hard enough. This has been debated often and rightly so. It is an interesting and important question. The key is being able to comply with rule 5:

“Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.”

The only hope singlehanders have in complying with this is with a favourable understanding of the words “proper look-out”.

Even a fully crewed vessel will not keep watch all the time. It’s an important point to acknowledge that you can never keep a constant watch. The crew on watch will study the chart or plotter, write up the log, tie his shoe laces and stare at the moon now and again. Doing these things will mean he is not keeping a constant watch, but that will not prevent him keeping a proper watch, but if he goes to the toilet or makes a drink for ten minutes, that should be ok too. So when offshore and away from very fast power boats, if he goes down to make a meal for 20 minutes that is OK also surely. A scan of the horizon with binoculars should spot any hazardous vessel first and no small boat will arrive in less than 20 minutes. Any big boat will be on AIS. Then maybe he is far off shore and takes a nap for 60 minutes and turns the radar alarm on short range. Any hazardous traffic will be picked up by the electronics. The proper watch is being kept by a very intermittent check by sight and a constant check by sound for the alarms. Is that a proper look-out? As a constant look out by sight is not required is a very intermittent check OK and is it OK to primarily rely on electronics? If so how about two hours or three or more? So how much can we rely on electronics and where is the time boundary for sight to qualify for maintainig a proper look-out?

Being able to properly appraise the situation is also a requirement of rule 5. I would argue that the electronic aids are the best means to properly appraise the situation, so much information is available and so very accurate too. It is better than eyes and by monitoring their alarms intelligently and confirming the situation by sight that the rule is complied with. I realise this is a bit upside down compared to the usual approach to electronic aids, but why not? How else are you to spot the unlit fishing boat on a moonless night? Sight will be useless. In aviation electronic information and aids are often the primary way and in many circumstances the only way of ensuring safety from collision. So why not at sea also?

[james247]

Originally Posted by mvmojo

Morality aside, it is illegal and potentially dangerous to oneself and others! I've heard the "logic" about 20 min naps, egg timers, radar alerts, AIS, etc., and on the surface of it, they can make some sense. But, on more than one occasion, we've had to alter our course for boats at night that didn't appear to have anyone on watch, didn't give way when they should have, didn't answer their radio and didn't respond to a spot light. There is an inherent element of danger in going to sea at all, why exacerbate that by intentionally not maintaining a proper lookout for other boats? Sort of like texting while driving!

So you have never done it yourself. you don't know it these boats you have had issues with were solo sailors or fully crewed. Please explain the American warship spate of accidents and the constant barrage of complaint about commercial vessels not "seeing us" or the number of fishing boats displaying "not under command lights" while retrieving nets and sorting the haul.
I agree texting at 100k's puts lives at risk so is drink driving so is road rage or speeding.

Just how many incidents have been attributed to solo sailors v crewed boats.
Personally I believe all skippers should be given a final test before being given a offshore masters ticket. Sail for 48 hours solo and if you come back unscathed give him her the ticket.
So many weekend warrior crews just aren't up to it. More like teenage drivers. Maybe that's more of a reason. lack of experience and knowledge kills more under 25's on roads than anything else. Maybe it's the same reason lack of experience and knowledge.
I have been sailing with crews who party get seasick when the weather invariably changes. And it's muggins who ends up solo in-charge
Mmmmm

[james247]

Originally Posted by conachair

Well ultimately the universe is all, about probabilities, apart from maths and internet forums where it's more likely to be completely black or white



IMHO generally the more experienced single handers tend not be more "switched on" about everything. Which isn't just the chance on hitting something or something hitting you. Also don't get hurt out there, which means Careful round the boom and galley and anything else which could bite you. Means trying to put the odds in your favour with the boat mechanics /electrics keeping going. Enough simple systems to keep the boat moving til you get to the other side. A hundred and one little things, solo you are navigator, engineer, cook, weather forecaster....

So probably yes lot of solo sailors are more diligent in lots of ways.

Agreed

[james247]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Apart from Rule 2 which allows an exception to all rules ... Rule 17b clearly outlines the responsibility of the overtaken vessel not to allow itself to be hit.

I was very young when I was taught really there is only one law of the sea
Don't ever hit or be hit by another boat. Never needed any colregs

[StuM]

Originally Posted by thinwater

No, it is about whether it is morally wrong.

There are many other boating activities (water skiing, PWC in general, or just going fast) that are statistically (USCG keeps these and they are easily refferenced) far more dangerous, yet I hope we can agree they do not rise to the level of morally wrong.

With the possible exception of jetskis

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I don't think morality comes into this discussion - thats more a bishop/choir boy sort of a thing.

Is it legal? .... hands up all those who have never done anything illegal.... don't think I can see any hands....

Is it sensible? Thats the tricky one ... I think the answer is 'it depends'.

That sums it up nicely for me.

That said: if you are not maintain a watch by sight and hearing when you consider the likelihood of encountering another vessel is remote - please don't put up incorrect signals such as an at anchor signal. If I saw a boat flying a black ball out in the deep ocean, I would assume that it was adrift and approach the vessel, not give it a wide berth. That increases my risk.