Kitchen Layout ?

[mrohr]

Midship galley fine for acchorage or marina and I might prefer it in a liveaboard on a large boat that only occasionaly went out. A galley near cockpit allows cook to hand up hot food and drink,snacks etc. to watch on deck and communication is less impaired when engine is running. If you are alone, or off watch is sleeping, then I can watch the pots or nip below to stir something without compromising my duties on deck. Underway galley near compaianway wins hands down ,buts thats just me ,good food underway is BIG.

[Matt sachs]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

What do you have against a good Cabernet Sauvignon?

I would rather keep the Sauvignon in the celler, not the Cabernet. :-)

[boatman61]

Thanks for the on survival methods at sea... I'm to young to die dumb...
Reading Arabic style... numbers =age

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by mrohr

Midship galley fine for acchorage or marina and I might prefer it in a liveaboard on a large boat that only occasionaly went out. A galley near cockpit allows cook to hand up hot food and drink,snacks etc. to watch on deck and communication is less impaired when engine is running. If you are alone, or off watch is sleeping, then I can watch the pots or nip below to stir something without compromising my duties on deck. Underway galley near compaianway wins hands down ,buts thats just me ,good food underway is BIG.

Agreed on arrangements. To my mind having a head to one side and galley to the other of the companionway ladder is the best for sailing offshore regularly. The watch can use the head without waking anyone, and the cook can feed those awake (the watch first!) without too many steps. A head big enough for a separate shower to use as a wet locker is even better.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by mrohr

good food underway is BIG.

Strongly disagree. Good food is big all the time.

Maybe that's why I'm bigger than I need to be.

[Hiracer]

Interesting legal question. I cannot find any explicit language (from a quick review of the rules) that says you can't use lights and shapes in addition to when prescribed by the rules. Maybe a better reader than me can find it.

Clearly, this should not be allowed as it amounts to false communication, which frustrates the underlying intent of the rules. The rules state that one shall use certain lights and shapes for certain circumstances, but the rules don't say explicitly you must use those lights and shapes ONLY under those circumstances.

I'm pretty sure that, if there were a collision, the court determining liabilty would take into consideration that one party was 'falsely' communcating a vessel-not-under-command status. I understand the sentiment behind the approach, and I see the merits in the real world--but not in a court room. It amounts to false communication, and I can't imagine any judge taking kindly to a misrepresentation.

So, if somebody hits you while you are communicating vessel-not-under-command even though you were just hove-to, I don't think the alleged status will provide any defense at all. Liability will be determined by who failed to maintain a lookout and/or who was the give-way vessel. But in the real world, I certainly see the merits of communicating, albeit indirectly, that the captian is not commanding his vessel (even if the lack of command is, in fact, illegal).

This is the conundrum of all single handled sailors. At some point the limits of human capacity require them to violate the rules. I can't say it's stupid to use the rules to communicate the fact of this limitation. Illegal, yes. Stupid, no.

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Is that to suggest Boatman's cooking is not exceptional?

Been a while since I read the Colregs. and no Licencing over here The two may be linked ..........but my take is that in Boatman's circumstances I would do the same (if I looked up what the not under command lights / signals were ) - if someone runs me down I expect it won't be because they didn't beleive my circumstances (or Lunch ) were exceptional enough to merit avoiding a collision.

Of course as a singlehander already open to challenge on keeping adequate lookout. and I guess that includes when cooking lunch, as well as when sleeping. But I would give more marks to heaving to (with lights / signals) than ploughing blindly on under sail - but me is not a High Court Judge, so that opinion doesn't matter

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Matt sachs

I would rather keep the Sauvignon in the celler, not the Cabernet. :-)

Damn, I'm jealous.

[boatman61]

Sorry about the 'Hi-Jack' guys... but its sorta relevant.. to me at least..

Under Part A of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.



Vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre
(a) A vessel not under command shall exhibit: 1. two all-round red lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen; 2. two balls or similar shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen; 3. when making way through the water, in addition to the lights prescribed in this paragraph, sidelights and a sternlight.
To me 'Making way through the water' is hove to..
Exceptional circumstances is needing sleep/repairs/whatever... if machines need shutdown for maintainance so do humans...
Just because it does not specifically mention 'Hove To' does not mean it does not comply within
The term “vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre” shall include but not be limited to:
And now I'm stepping away...

[Hiracer]

I can't find a single case involving a circumstance relating to the condition of the captain or crew. All of the cases and commentators refer to a circumstance relating directly to the vessel only.

Eg. Marsden on collisions at sea - Google Books

"The focus is on the ability of the vessel to manuevre, not her master or crew." Farwell's rules of the nautical road - Google Books

Originally Posted by boatman61

Sorry about the 'Hi-Jack' guys... but its sorta relevant.. to me at least..

Under Part A of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.



Vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre
(a) A vessel not under command shall exhibit: 1. two all-round red lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen; 2. two balls or similar shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen; 3. when making way through the water, in addition to the lights prescribed in this paragraph, sidelights and a sternlight.
To me 'Making way through the water' is hove to..
Exceptional circumstances is needing sleep/repairs/whatever... if machines need shutdown for maintainance so do humans...
Just because it does not specifically mention 'Hove To' does not mean it does not comply within
The term “vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre” shall include but not be limited to:
And now I'm stepping away...

[markpierce]

Seems obvious to me that an incapacitated crew, thus not capable of commanding a vessel, results in a vessel not under command. Whether this is due to illness, injury, or sleep deprivation, doesn't seem relevant.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Seems obvious to me that an incapacitated crew, thus not capable of commanding a vessel, results in a vessel not under command. Whether this is due to illness, injury, or sleep deprivation, doesn't seem relevant.

The sea is a harsh place.

As a practical matter I agree with you. I don't think, however, that the COLREGS agree with you. A master is legally responsible for his vessel regardless of his condition. Taking to sea is a harsh responsibility, until you are dead.

If you have a case or language in COLREGS to the contrary, let's hear it.

[Hiracer]

My search of the rules excusing the captain of liability for a collision where his vessel failed to giveway because of the captain's condition yields nothing.

I don't recall a single COLREG even mentioning, however obliquely, the condition of captain or crew. In that respect, there is a flavor of strict liability in the rules. Illness, injury, and fatigue are not legal defenses. Only death is.

Remember, the focus of the rules is on the safety of the other boat. That responsiblity is not elective. The captain's condition might be an explanation but in itself is not a legal defense if there is a collision.



Now, if you have a stroke and are in a coma, maybe you're no longer master of the vessel. That might be the issue. Who is the master of the vessel? But I think that is a stretch, especially if you are single handed.

[Hiracer]

One thought that comes to mind is that "vessel not under command" is a legally defined term. Applying practical real-life expectations and understandings to a legally defined term is not always a productive exercise. What seems obvious sometimes turns out to be wrong on account of the way a term or phrase is defined. Good reason right there to read the definitions.





Another thought is that at some point being hove-to in a storm, particularly a survival storm, will equate to a vessel not under command. At some point sea conditions will make steerage impossible even if the vessel and crew are in perfect working order. When and where the point might arrive is an interesing grey area of the COLREGs.

[hummingway]

The phrase "exceptional circumstances" would seem to imply eating, sleeping and shitting don't qualify. In a perfect world these things are unexceptional.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by hummingway

The phrase "exceptional circumstances" would seem to imply eating, sleeping and shitting don't qualify. In a perfect world these things are unexceptional.

Agree, but to put a finer point on it "exceptional circumstances" does not even refer to captain or crew but rather to the condition and operation of the vessel.

I can't find anything in COLREGs talking about captain and crew. It's vessel this and vessel that.

Seems to me, that the way the COLREGs have been written, the condition of captain and crew is irrelevent. The responsibilities imposed by COLREGs are completely independent of the condition of captain and crew.

I think this is a significant point, which is why I belabor it. It's almost counterintuitive. It should give one pause before taking to sea because, from a legal stand point, it amounts to the assumption of quite a bit of responsibility with no means means of avoiding that responsibilty short of getting back to shore. This is why I say there is a bit of a flavor of strict liability in the COLREGs.