What do single handlers do at night?

[boom23]

Originally Posted by JamieDMerrill

Sometimes its a hard decision given the circumstances.

Because the other vessel was traveling almost 5 times my speed and had the greater opportunity to either slow down a little or make a minor course change, I waited before performing any large evasive action. A small reaction on the part of the other vessel would have completely avoided the situation. But he never altered course or speed or, let me put it this way... it appeared to stay on a collision trajectory even though I was making minor corrections.

He was about 20-30 degrees to port. If I corrected to starboard, he might of T-Boned me. If I corrected to port, he could have rammed me head on. I made minor corrections, hoping to see the other vessel respond in kind, but it never did. Instead, the collision risk remained the same and I couldn't see (at my speed) how I could possibly avoid this vessel. So I had no choice but to wait until I knew which correction would put me out of danger.

You have to understand that it appeared as though the other vessel was maintaining a collision course and had 5 times my speed, so avoidance by me seemed unlikely at the time. I felt threatened by the other vessel. If I had the same speed or was faster than the other vessel, I could have corrected immediately. But in this case, my best bet was to wait until he altered course or until I knew my correction would put me out of harms way.


Sometimes its a hard decision, especially when the other vessel is completely ignoring you or appears to be bearing down on purpose.

I was not there, and in no way I'm judging what you did. I understand you did everything you could.

I have been in similar situations in New Zealand (3 fast ferries heading towards me) and the Atlantic coasts of Spain & Portugal (MANY fishermen out at night).

I have found that when one is in a collision course with another boat, it is best to make one large decisive course correction so that the other skipper clearly knows your intentions. Many small corrections will confuse the other skipper about your intent.

Communicating with the other skipper is very important too.

I'm probably stating the obvious...

[longjonsilver]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I use a Dutchman Boom Brake, which allows the boom to automatically gybe slowly, under control. If the main gets backwinded - you want the boom to swing across - just in a controlled fashion.

More information please

jon

[boom23]

Originally Posted by longjonsilver

More information please

jon

https://dutchmar.com/boom-brakes

[StuM]

> it appeared to stay on a collision trajectory even though I was making minor corrections...I made minor corrections,.

Originally Posted by boom23

I have found that when one is in a collision course with another boat, it is best to make one large decisive course correction so that the other skipper clearly knows your intentions. Many small corrections will confuse the other skipper about your intent.

Exactly. In fact COLREGs is very clear on this.

Rulle 8:
(a). Any action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b). Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.

[longjonsilver]

Originally Posted by boom23

https://dutchmar.com/boom-brakes

Thanks

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by StuM

.......
(b). Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.

I've always wondered about that requirement. I always make an exaggerated turn when changing course to avoid a close call. But I'm on a small boat. When 1,000 ft tanker makes a correction to avoid me, it is usually barely perceptible. The way I usually know that a large commercial vessel is avoiding me is when I see their CPA on the AIS go from under a mile to exactly a mile. This seems to be the common standing orders for passing.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I've always wondered about that requirement. I always make an exaggerated turn when changing course to avoid a close call. But I'm on a small boat. When 1,000 ft tanker makes a correction to avoid me, it is usually barely perceptible. The way I usually know that a large commercial vessel is avoiding me is when I see their CPA on the AIS go from under a mile to exactly a mile. This seems to be the common standing orders for passing.

Also seen the cpa of close to exactly 1nm quite a lot. Though maybe they can't do too big a move as it would put them on collision course with other commercial vessels way ahead and behind we dont even know about.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by conachair

Also seen the cpa of close to exactly 1nm quite a lot. Though maybe they can't do too big a move as it would put them on collision course with other commercial vessels way ahead and behind we dont even know about.

I concur. I've seen 1 nm CPA so often that I set my CPA alarm at 1 mile. Still, I regard freighters like they're robots that lack all human empathy, just like driverless cars. The day artificial intelligence becomes real, we're all screwed by that absence of empathy - which is another definition for "evil."

When changing course for a traffic conflict, all other things being equal, I always turn toward the other vessel's stern, if not head-to-head where I turn for a port to port crossing. The reason for favoring the "stern side" is: if you misjudge the other vessel's speed, the only way a collision can occur is where the other vessel is backing up.

I also make a call "in the blind" (without the full radio calling protocol that might force the helmsman to run out of the head) saying something like: "Motor Vessel Behemoth. This is Sailing Vessel Insignificant directly ahead at one mile. I have you in sight. I coming about and giving way for a port-to-port crossing." That way, if he was about to turn to port - he won't. I've always gotten a thank you for that - if any response at all.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by GordMay

"Based on ... about 10,000 empirical scientific studies, the number of people who can survive on six hours of sleep or less, without showing any impairment, rounded to a whole number ... is zero."
Dr. Matthew Walker, professor of neuroscience and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley

Anyone who says they can capably single-hand for days on end with only short (< 6 hours) naps are just sleeping with their eyes open and zombie-handing their boat the entire time -- along with causing long-term physical harm to themselves.

"Chronic short sleep duration (<6 hours) has been associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases. Acute sleep deprivation (defined as sleeping 25–50% of a normal 8 h night's sleep) contributes to an increased inflammation and disturbs the immunological response." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165901/

The "General Prudential" rule, codified as COLREG rule 2(b), provides for non-conformance with stated rules to prevent a collision, because what is paramount is to avoid or minimize the damaging effects of a collision, as opposed to blindly following the rules to the letter. Which action do you assess as posing the lower risk: sleeping in low-traffic waters at least six hours with good alarms and collision sensing systems or … helming your boat in a mentally and physically disabled state?

You decide. The General Prudential rule gives you the latitude.

[dwedeking2]

The keys is too be able to guide your sleep-deprived hallucinations to be hallucinating that your sailing...

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

The keys is too be able to guide your sleep-deprived hallucinations to be hallucinating that your sailing...

in my hallucinations I’m a really great sailor and I’m at the helm of a Gloucester schooner!

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Anyone who says they can capably single-hand for days on end with only short (< 6 hours) naps are just sleeping with their eyes open and zombie-handing their boat the entire time -- along with causing long-term physical harm to themselves.

"Chronic short sleep duration (<6 hours) has been associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases. Acute sleep deprivation (defined as sleeping 25–50% of a normal 8 h night's sleep) contributes to an increased inflammation and disturbs the immunological response." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165901/

The "General Prudential" rule, codified as COLREG rule 2(b), provides for non-conformance with stated rules to prevent a collision, because what is paramount is to avoid or minimize the damaging effects of a collision, as opposed to blindly following the rules to the letter. Which action do you assess as posing the lower risk: sleeping in low-traffic waters at least six hours with good alarms and collision sensing systems or … helming your boat in a mentally and physically disabled state?

You decide. The General Prudential rule gives you the latitude.

I know this is your interpretation of the Colregs, but as far as I can find it is not the courts interpretation. Exceptions of the rules to avoid an imminent collision are clearly permitted and required. Failure to adequately crew a vessel for a known passage is not imminent and not supported in the courts.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I know this is your interpretation of the Colregs, but as far as I can find it is not the courts interpretation. Exceptions of the rules to avoid an imminent collision are clearly permitted and required. Failure to adequately crew a vessel for a known passage is not imminent and not supported in the courts.

Then I presume you will never single-hand over a long multi-day passage. That is absolutely your prerogative.

I also presume we will both watch with great interest how the COLREGs are interpreted as they apply to future robotically operated ("driverless") vessels.

The General Prudential Rule has remained virtually unchanged within the body of the International Navigation Rules for well over a century, initially as Rule 24 (1864). Did it not apply to Joshua Slocum's biological requirement for sleep over his solo circumnavigation of 1895? He did confess to sleeping while underway at several points in his book: "Sailing Alone Around the World." It's an interesting question. If there is an Admiralty Law jurist among us, I'd love to hear your opinion. I suspect the answer will be: if you hit something valuable, your being asleep at the time will be a factor in the calculation of civil liability, but if your vessel was not the give way vessel, your being asleep will not be considered to be the proximate cause of the collision. So do your best, in your own best judgement, not to hit anything.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Then I presume you will never single-hand over a long multi-day passage. That is absolutely your prerogative.

I also presume we will both watch with great interest how the COLREGs are interpreted as they apply to future robotically operated ("driverless") vessels.

The General Prudential Rule has remained virtually unchanged within the body of the International Navigation Rules for well over a century, initially as Rule 24 (1864). Did it not apply to Joshua Slocum's biological requirement for sleep over his solo circumnavigation of 1895? He did confess to sleeping while underway at several points in his book: "Sailing Alone Around the World." It's an interesting question. If there is an Admiralty Law jurist among us, I'd love to hear your opinion. I suspect the answer will be: if you hit something valuable, your being asleep at the time will be a factor in the calculation of civil liability, but if your vessel was not the give way vessel, your being asleep will not be considered to be the proximate cause of the collision. So do your best, in your own best judgement, not to hit anything.

You are mixing up the rules vs what people do in practice. A single hander does not need premission to single hand and they all require sleep. On long passages they fail to maintain the required lookout. It is only an issue if there is a collision. In those cases the single hander failing to keep watch will be assigned a significant portion of the blame should the incident end up in court. There is no defense that says it was safer for me to sleep than keep watch.
Since accidents are so rare offshore single handers rarely end up in court.

[Student_Driver]

A friend recommends commercial class AIS. More power/range but also he feels that many ships ignore or do not monitor standard yachting AIS class signals. Thots?