Apparently AIS & RADAR not Adequate Substitute for Lookout

[Montanan]

It was disconcerting to watch the video and to not hear a single word about whether anyone on the trawler was injured or an inquiry made as to damage done to the fishing boat. It was like listening to a hit and run driver speak about how lucky he was to avoid injury or dramatic damage.

Incredibly one-sided and self-centered perspective. He was merely disappointed that he was going to lose positions as to the leaders in the race.

He was sailing, likely at considerable speed with no watch keeping. Illegal and unethical.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Maybe I'm a bit thick but I don't see how having AIS and Radar alarms does not qualify as "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." even if you are asleep. If you are in fog, you can be wide awake and still not be able to keep a proper watch.

I would imagine that drone boats are keeping their proper watch 24/7.

When operating in restricted visibility conditions sound signals are required and there is no sleeping through that. This applies while underway or at anchor, or moored, such as in fog, rain, blizzard, or where landscape inhibits viewing, such at bends or around points.

You keep watch with your ears when your eyes are not capable.

Rule 35 (Sound signals in restricted visibility)

In or near an area of restricted visibility, whether by day or night, the signals prescribed in this Rule shall be used as follows:

(a) A power-driven vessel making way through the water shall sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes one prolonged blast.

(b) A power-driven vessel underway but stopped and making no way through the water shall sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes two prolonged blasts in succession with an interval of about 2 seconds between them.

(c) A vessel not under command, a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre, a vessel constrained by her draught, a sailing vessel, a vessel engaged in fishing and a vessel engaged in towing or pushing another vessel shall, instead of the signals prescribed in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule, sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes three blasts in succession, namely one prolonged followed by two short blasts.

(d) A vessel engaged in fishing, when at anchor, and a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when carrying out her work at anchor, shall instead of the signals prescribed in paragraph (g) of this Rule sound the signal prescribed in paragraph (c) of this Rule.
This can make for a VERY noisy anchorage. Everyone tooting their horns or bells.

(e) A vessel towed or if more than one vessel is towed the last vessel of the tow, if manned, shall at intervals of not more than 2 minutes sound four blasts in succession, namely one prolonged followed by three short blasts. When practicable, this signal shall be made immediately after the signal made by the towing vessel.

(f) When a pushing vessel and a vessel being pushed ahead are rigidly connected in a composite unit they shall be regarded as a power-driven vessel and shall give the signals prescribed in paragraphs (a) or (b) or this Rule.

(g) A vessel at anchor shall at intervals of not more than one minute ring the bell rapidly for about 5 seconds. In a vessel of 100 m of more in length the bell shall be sounded in the forepart of the vessel and immediately after the ringing of the bell the gong shall be sounded rapidly for about 5 seconds in the after part of the vessel. A vessel at anchor may in addition sound three blasts in a succession, namely one short, one prolonged and one short blast, to give warning of her position and of the possibility of collision to an approaching vessel.

[Sailing Ohm]

well duh of course it isn’t an adequate substitute.
You can’t rely 100% on any electronics. As a computer technician I can tell you there is one rule about them and that is they will fail sooner or later, Guaranteed.
Without a redundancy in everything, from batteries to the actual electronic device, you run a risk and even then it’s no guarantee.

[Montanan]

FYI: A vessel without anyone commanding it, is not a vessel not under command, rather it is a vessel being operated under dereliction of command.

In the military the term is called Dereliction of Duty.

A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties. Such incapacitation includes the person falling asleep while on duty requiring wakefulness, their getting drunk or under the influence of drugs, or simply leaving one's post, or being merely inattentive / distracted.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Maybe I'm a bit thick but I don't see how having AIS and Radar alarms does not qualify as "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." even if you are asleep. If you are in fog, you can be wide awake and still not be able to keep a proper watch.

I would imagine that drone boats are keeping their proper watch 24/7.

If you are not looking around you are not maintaining a lookout by sight.
If you are not listening, you are not maintaining a lookout by sound.

You are required to have a lookout physically on deck paying attention at all times, underway or at anchor. This in not realistic for short handed crews let alone sailing solo. Short handed crews can run a watch system underway where somebody looks around every 7-10min and it functionally meets the requirement. The solo guys gotta sleep and when they do they are not meeting the letter nor the spirit of the rule. Mostly sailboats are smaller and more fragile and come out on the short end of such collisions. Not this time.

People do violate the rule all the time and you will probably get away with this violation until you are in a collision that could have been prevented by maintaining a sight and sound lookout. It's like speeding on the freeway in California as long as it isn't really excessive you won't get cited until you get in an accident or come across a trooper needing to fill his ticket quota.

Drone boats are like self-driving cars, at some point there will be a reckoning about their operation when somebody gets hurt or dead, in the mean time "Oooooo, shiny high-tech gizmo, how cool."

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Montanan

FYI: A vessel without anyone commanding it, is not a vessel not under command, rather it is a vessel being operated under dereliction of command.

In the military the term is called Dereliction of Duty.

A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties. Such incapacitation includes the person falling asleep while on duty requiring wakefulness, their getting drunk or under the influence of drugs, or simply leaving one's post, or being merely inattentive / distracted.

If it leaves without a crew aboard, can it be said that the crew is derelict?
Is the officer ordering the departure responsible and therefore derelict?
These are legal issues that need to be ironed out.

[Pauls]

Regards the need for good watchkeeping, this is a true story. A couple I know were under sail at night. AIS showed nothing. Ditto radar. A trip out of the wheelhouse for a look around showed a ship dead astern and bearing down on them, a collision course. Contacting the ship they learned that the ships' AIS was down. The couples radar, mounted on the front of the mast, was masked for targets dead astern. Without the lookout they'd have been rundown.

The real world has a lot of variable things going on.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Drone boats are like self-driving cars, at some point there will be a reckoning about their operation when somebody gets hurt or dead, in the mean time "Oooooo, shiny high-tech gizmo, how cool."

To my knowledge there are no 100% autonomous vehicles. All are required to have a humanoid aboard to monitor the vehicle. They are running a small autonomous bus in St Petersburg. The attendant is always aboard and monitoring. So if there is a crash, it is the person who failed to react.

IMHO- COLREGS will have to make a decision on autonomous vessels fairly soon.

The logical decision is that autonomous vehicles are always give way. If a small one crashes into a ship and sinks, us taxpayers are out another $1M or two for the boat. If it crashes into a smaller vessel, then the smaller vessel shares blame for failing to avoid a collision. Once again, the taxpayers will take the hit for paying out. IF, there is evidence...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Maybe I'm a bit thick but I don't see how having AIS and Radar alarms does not qualify as "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." even if you are asleep. If you are in fog, you can be wide awake and still not be able to keep a proper watch.

I would imagine that drone boats are keeping their proper watch 24/7.

Cockcroft quoting Admiralty Law findings:

[PirateGuy]

Whoever says that loud noise, like a horn blast, will keep you awake never did three towers (workshifts) in a row on a small drill ship in the oilfields.

And whose bunk was over the bowthruster with a bad bearing.

Extreme fatigue will make you hallucinate. You hear loud noises (if you fell asleep) but you can’t physically respond to them anymore.

And I’m not trying to cover the jerk racer and his thoughtless comments.

But I bet he is fatigued, and not in his best senses.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Snore

IMHO- COLREGS will have to make a decision on autonomous vessels fairly soon.

The logical decision is that autonomous vehicles are always give way.

Generally agree with the first, but disagree with the second. The limitations of radar and AIS are well-known, but technologies such as LIDAR and, well, microphones can provide detection capability as good as or better than a human. (Though, I am now curious about the color-detection aspect.) I don't even think you'd need to change the wording of the ColRegs.

The second presumes it's clear which vessels are autonomous and which are not. It also allows for exploitation by traditional vessels, but that's getting into the weeds. Rather, a capable autonomous vessel should have the characteristic of being able to comply with the ColRegs in such a way that other mariners can treat them the same as any other vessel, and behave in the manner that mariners would expect of any other vessel.

[Don C L]

Hmm, maybe no way to fully justify this, but given that most modern electronics are often superior to my own senses, if they are in use, not having one's eyes and ears fully engaged at all times may still represent effective watch-keeping as long as other often (sometimes) superior devices are employed at the same time. When I wrote what I did I was thinking that one might make the case that employing all means possible all at the same time, all the time, may not be required to be keeping an effective watch. A legal distinction that may not exist, I understand. And I know about fog, and noise... but hearing loud noises in fog doesn't always tell me what I really need to know: where are you (exactly) and which way are you going? And as far as the human eye being able to see more quickly, than radar, in fog... well, I'm a little skeptical.
And thanks for not agreeing I am a bit thick!

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Snore

To my knowledge there are no 100% autonomous vehicles. All are required to have a humanoid aboard to monitor the vehicle. They are running a small autonomous bus in St Petersburg. The attendant is always aboard and monitoring. So if there is a crash, it is the person who failed to react.

IMHO- COLREGS will have to make a decision on autonomous vessels fairly soon.

The logical decision is that autonomous vehicles are always give way. If a small one crashes into a ship and sinks, us taxpayers are out another $1M or two for the boat. If it crashes into a smaller vessel, then the smaller vessel shares blame for failing to avoid a collision. Once again, the taxpayers will take the hit for paying out. IF, there is evidence...

There are not supposed to be autonomous vehicles on the road but a number of folks have died when the cars were allowed to operate themselves without the human guidance that was supposed to be taking place.

[bobgarrett]

Originally Posted by Snore

To my knowledge there are no 100% autonomous vehicles.

You better check this...https://mas400.com/ sets sail this spring.

[peter loveridge]

it is rare around here ( western Nova Scotia) that fishing vessels actually fishing have their AIS transmitting. Neither do the fisheries patrol vessels. Average fishing boat 50 feet long, 28-32 feet beam, so unless you very large a collision is going to hurt. In nearly 50 years of cruising the only time I've heard a horn is if they have a target on their radar that they can't identify. They never sound a bell, either, if anchored. Many of the longliners drift with everything off at night. They don't sound anything either