Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by StuM

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.

If it were daylight, and easily manageable conditions, I think we would approach the vessel, too, to see if they're okay. [Remember, there was that awful period when both of us were quite sick with Victoria flu, and hove to 2 days out of NZ, anchor light on at night, and not keeping watch....]

But then, it would our decision to approach that increased our risk, not the fact that he's out there, with the black ball up.

Ann

[TrentePieds]

We owe a great big “thank you” to John Hutchins for that succinct review of Introduction to Probability Theory he posted in #213. And now we are at #240! Good Lord...Per omnia saecula saeculorum! Now if someone will be kind enuff to post an equally succinct recap of Introduction to Ethics, and if one of the lawyers around here will post a quick review of the Scope of Jurisdiction of the sundry Admiralty Courts, and of whence their authority derives, then maybe all the angels that have been vying for room to dance on the head of this 'ere pin, can be granted a little rest :-)?

TP

[Three Sisters]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...Who is this guy?? Another superbly insightful contribution. A couple of levels too deep for much of this crowd I'm afraid ...

Oh...

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by james247

Agreed

Righto-especially that French single hand ocean racer who fell asleep on auto pilot and crashed his 90ft Trimaran at high speed into the rocky French coast coming in from a long race. At least he hit the rocks and not another ship. He said he was just too tired to stay awake any longer and did not hear the RADAR alarm going nutso.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by 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.

depends---said Hillary

[roverhi]

Save me from those who are trying to save me from myself.

Then we have the boat with 3 crew in a race to Mexico who ran into the rocky shore of an island with all of them dieing. Just love those autopilots.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by 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?

While I concur with your argument in general, perhaps rule 2 is the go to rule...

[Don C L]

Yes, I'd agree that the degree of risk to others will matter in both morality and legality. I occasionally see folks poking along at 4 knots with no one at the helm, and they may pose some small lethal risk to someone out fishing from a raft perhaps, but when I nearly got slammed by a boat doing 20 knots with no one at the helm, I had a few un-christian thoughts about the immorality of that that may preclude me from entry to those Elysian fields.
I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that given that singlehanding is not illegal, and given that it is not humanly possible to maintain a watch at all times while sailing alone, if there is a collision I suspect a court will look to what reasonable precautions an experienced sailor would reasonably be expected to make while off watch when rendering judgement. These days that would probably mean electronically, which all do a better job than I do of keeping an eye on the surroundings; AIS, radar, VHF on, and perhaps slowing the vessel down, which wouldn't bode well for racers. Now, I may have missed it, but do we think that a court will also look to see if a boat sailing with a sleeping skipper shall also display day shapes, lights and sound signal for a vessel not under command? If so, if the SH complies with these reasonable measures would a SH be judged favorably in spite of not keeping a full time watch? just a thought.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by mcneilms

I rarely post, as I haven't been out there...But, if I was the cause of someone else's death because I did not have a watch, right or wrong, I would be gutted.
All of you can say, well the other should had a watch, and he was asleep. But for those who choose to have no watch you are putting others in danger. The chance of collision avoidance is double if both boats have a watch.
As far as technology, all well and good, but how many of you have slept through your alarm clock.
If you can live with killing someone. That is between you and God.

Enough said.

I agree with you Sir.
All the Solo Sailors however have many reasons and excuses for not keeping a proper lookout:1) The Ocean is big.2) My boat is small. 3) My egg timer is ticking. 4) Crews talk too much and give me a headache. 5) I got Radar.
Etc., etc..

[magentawave]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Morality is an extremely flexible concept.

Not really. If you're not initiating violence or fraud against others or their property then it's not immoral. It's called the Non-Aggression Principle.

As far as single handing over 24 hours... I'm with the others in that if it's a small sailboat and you're practicing good seamanship then have it.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Memory IS fickle, for sure, but the report WAS written by the Australian Transport Safety Board.

TSB's as a rule don't normally apportion blame as their mandate is to improve safety through sharing information.

From the ATSB report on the incident:

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the collision and should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.

Further from that report:

This incident clearly demonstrates the conundrum that exists between long distance solo-sailing and the legal requirements of the COLREGS. Since it was not possible for the yacht’s skipper to keep a watch by sight and hearing at all times, it was not possible for her to comply with the COLREGS.
The skipper was aware of this inconsistency. As a result, she had assessed the risks associated with not keeping a visual lookout at all times and had implemented a system that she believed would reduce the risks. This system required the fitment and effective use of navigational aids and an appropriate assessment of when it was safe to take a catnap.
However, she was not meeting her obligation to keep a proper lookout at all times and was, at times, placing her safety in the hands of others and relying on them to maintain a proper lookout and give way to her vessel when necessary.

So the state clearly sees this as illegal, but doesn't seem too concerned about enforcing the law in that regard. I think the final paragraph sums it up very nicely. To be clear, we often hear about sailors (solo sailors in particular) and their insistence on being self-sufficient and self-determinant, but here they are relying on others to keep them out of harm's way.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by poiu

Even a fully crewed vessel will not keep watch all the time.

This is BS. A disciplined watchkeeper does not stare at the moon for 30 minutes, or the chartplotter. It doesn't take that long to tie their shoes. They don't read a book and don't even go for a piss. They're on watch, and they do that for the duration of their watch. There is a world of difference between taking 10 seconds to jot a note in the log or check the chart, and going to sleep, even if just for 20 minutes.

[Mr B]

There is a huge difference between sailing close to shore, Whether single handed or crewed,
Which is very dangerous at any time,

To sailing hundreds of miles from land and any shipping lanes, Whether crewed or single handed,
The chances of meeting another vessel out there, whether big or small is very remote,

Is it morally wrong that in most instances, Single handed sailors are quite happy with their own company, and dont need, or want to be surrounded by crew or any one else on their vessels,

The solitude of being in a very big ocean on my own for me is magic,
And no contact with any one, is even more so,

I personally love to be on my own, Whether living on my own, Sailing, Camping, Driving, Riding, Skiing,
If I want company, I go to a pub, Have a few beers and talk to the people around me,
Thats enough for me, I dont need people,

I dont need to be accepted by anyone on how to live my life, Thats your problem, Not Mine,
I hate crowds and avoid them at all costs,

Morally wrong, I think its more jealousy that we are doing it and you cant, Or wont,

[Alan Mighty]

I doze off and find this thread has expanded many pages since this:

Originally Posted by StuM

That's not my interpretation.

That is a straight quotation from "A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules" by Cockcroft and Lameijer (commonly know as "Cockcroft"). It is the seminal work on interpreting COLREGs with copious case historiesn of Admiralty Court decisions. Anyone who really wants to understand COLREGs should have a copy. I will take his interpretation over yours any day

I'll take my cue to thank StuM and to laud Norman Cockcroft. He is unaccountably not mentioned in Wikipedia. Nor is Captain J N F Lameijer.

So what minimum ought a Wikipedia page on Norman Cockcroft say? Something like this:

Yorkshire-born Captain Alfred Norman Cockroft (1930-2015), went to sea aged 16 as an apprentice (for 16 shillings 8 pence a month) on an oil tanker and worked his way on merchant ships from 3rd Officer to 2nd Officer and 2nd Mate in 1952. In 1956 Norman Cockcroft gained his Extra Master certificate from the Sir John Cass College; that college then employed him to teach the course. From 1958-1970 he organised and taught the Extra Master course at the King Edward VII Nautical College (later London Metropolitan University) as Senior Lecturer. He remained in association with the LMU until 1984 and also worked as a consultant until 2000 specialising in maritime collisions and strandings. He became a Member of the Royal Institute of Navigation in 1963, a Fellow of the RIN in 1976, and was awarded the gold medal of RIN in 1982. He published in Britain his "Guide to the Collision Rules" in 1965 when the 1960 COLREGS came into force. Commercial demand for his book and the 1972 IMO conference that revised the 1960 COLREGS led to "A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" in 1976 with Captain Lameijer, who participated in the 1972 IMO conference, as co-author.

And unlike Stephen Hawking, no one ever accused Norman Cockcroft of domestic abuse towards women.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

I agree with you Sir.
All the Solo Sailors however have many reasons and excuses for not keeping a proper lookout:1) The Ocean is big.2) My boat is small. 3) My egg timer is ticking. 4) Crews talk too much and give me a headache. 5) I got Radar.
Etc., etc..

Look in the mirror as it takes two for a collision..