Visit our Popular Forums

**hummingway** · 10-12-2010, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiracer

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.

Vessel not under command does refer to captain and crew I believe. I can't see the auto pilot being considered command

goboatingnow · 10-12-2010, 14:28

Hove to is merely underway as regards Colregs, "not under command", has nothing to do with the "command" of a vessel. It means that the vessel is not responding to "a" command, for example a mobo with a line around the prop, is not under command, even though the full crew are active.

Since teh Colregs require a constant watch, it would be a brave sailor that tried to maintaina starboard tack while hove-to gave him any "rights". Its also worth poiting out that teh COLREGS dont give anyone any rights, each party must act to avoid collision

Quote:

power boats donot heave to --they drift.

actually Zeehaq, they do, its called "jogging" and very effective it is too .

Dave

Hiracer · 10-12-2010, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by hummingway

Vessel not under command does refer to captain and crew I believe.

Quote from COLREGs, please, because I can't find it.

Captain and crew is never mentioned in COLREGs, and the authority I cite above states that for "exceptional circumstances" "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

It's the condition of the vessel, not captain or crew.

Hiracer · 10-12-2010, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Its also worth poiting out that teh COLREGS dont give anyone any rights, each party must act to avoid collision

Bingo. COLREGs impose responsibilties, and that's all.

Hiracer · 10-12-2010, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

"not under command", has nothing to do with the "command" of a vessel. It means that the vessel is not responding to "a" command

Correct. The vessel does not and cannot respond to the command of the master of the vessel. Something is wrong with the vessel due to an exceptional circumstance that results in the vessel unable to follow COLREGs.

**hummingway** · 10-12-2010, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Quote from COLREGs, please, because I can't find it.

Captain and crew is never mentioned in COLREGs, and the authority I cite above states that for "exceptional circumstances" "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

It's the condition of the vessel, not captain or crew.

I'm not going to go through the COLREGs, I'll take your word that there is no "mention" however IIRC it does say a watch must be maintained at all times? I'm pretty sure that implies by captain or crew.

**hummingway** · 10-12-2010, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Hove to is merely underway as regards Colregs, "not under command", has nothing to do with the "command" of a vessel. It means that the vessel is not responding to "a" command, for example a mobo with a line around the prop, is not under command, even though the full crew are active.

If I were going to say that I would in fact say "the vessel is not responding to command". To me "not under command" has a broader implication.

Is there somewhere in the regs where it says that is what it means or is it up to the courts to decide?

Hiracer · 10-12-2010, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by hummingway

If I were going to say that I would in fact say "the vessel is not responding to command". To me "not under command" has a broader implication.

Is there somewhere in the regs where it says that is what it means or is it up to the courts to decide?

Rule 3
(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

It doesn't say the master is unable to command the vessel. It says the "vessel" is unable to maneuver, and I'm pretty sure they mean that literally as in the vessel doesn't do what the captain wants.

Bash · 10-12-2010, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61

But surely a vessel that is 'Hove-to' is a 'Vessel not under Command' and therefore every other vessel is obliged to give way...

I hope anyone new to the Rules of the Road realizes that this is just plain wrong. I would hate for anyone to pick up bad information on this forum.

A vessel garners no special privileges by heaving to. This is why knowledgeable sailors would choose to heave to on starboard tack and therefore be the stand-on vessel.

Bottom line: even when you heave to you are required to keep a proper watch and observed the COLREGS.

Hiracer · 10-12-2010, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by hummingway

I'm not going to go through the COLREGs, I'll take your word that there is no "mention" however IIRC it does say a watch must be maintained at all times? I'm pretty sure that implies by captain or crew.

Rule 5
Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Captain and crew is never mentioned in COLREGs

I correct myself; there is a reference to master and crew:

Rule 2
Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Seems to me the drafters of COLREGs knew how to reference owner, master, and crew when they wanted to, but purposely did not for the definition in Rule 3f. They limited the definition of "vessel not under command" to a vessel with a problem, not a master or crew with a problem.

Now, if somebody with a perfectly working vessel wants to risk collision just because they are tired and want to sleep, so they flip on some "vessel not under command" lights, good luck to you is all I can say because I think you're gonna need it if you hit somebody. I don't see a court agreeing that your vessel was not under command and somehow you granted yourself some mythical superior "rights" just by flipping on some lights.

I think the rules are just the opposite: responsibilties are reduced when in fact you can't comply because your vessel is unresponsive. Master and crew are always obligated to comply with the rules so long as the vessel is able to maneuver.

heyyou · 10-12-2010, 19:03

Where in the colreg's is there a conversation about galley layout? Please clarify? this is getting way off coarse.

**boatman61** · 10-12-2010, 20:10

Bay of Biscay, May 1996
A call was broadcast..
Securite, Securite, Securite, All Ships, All Ships, All Ships...
This is sailing vessel 'call sign'
Position 'blah' heading WNW, average speed 1kt, two persons on board,
Vessel not under command request all ships maintain 1/2 mile clearance of vessel...
This was relayed to Ushant and Finisterre... all vessels stood clear and apart from occasional broadcast of position updates of their radar fixes there was no further communication till the sailboat was able to continue
No fallout or rebukes, inquiry's....
I believe I was No; 94 in the list of alerts... if memory serves me well...
If you do it do it correctly...
And not just to slap a meal together...
Who'da thought a flip comment about a Stbd Galley would start such a fuss

markpierce · 10-12-2010, 22:10

Quote:

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.

If there is no conscious/able crew, how can a vessel be under command? Isn't there any common sense in this world? Obviously, not when lawyers exist.

My point was not that such situations relieve responsibility of a vessel signaling it wasn't "under command," but that signaling one's boat isn't "under command" is a warning to others. Hopefully, other vessels would respect such a signal, and if such signal are ignored and disregarded, those vessels would appear to be guilty of violating rules and good sense.