Interpreting ColRegs

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Canmods apply in roadsteads (anchorages), harbours, rivers, lakes and inland waterways, in the Great Lakes Basin or other specified waters. Georgia Strait is none of these.

Other than the rules that specifically state a geographic limit, the canmods apply in all Canadian waters - Collision Regulations

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations apply in respect of

(a) every Canadian ODAS and Canadian vessel located in any waters, including every Canadian vessel that is an exploration or exploitation vessel engaged in exploration or exploitation activities pursuant to a licence issued by the Government of Canada;


(b) every pleasure craft, foreign ODAS and foreign vessel located in Canadian waters, including every foreign vessel that is an exploration or exploitation vessel engaged in exploration or exploitation activities pursuant to a licence issued by the Government of Canada; and


(c) every seaplane on or over Canadian waters.


(2) As provided for Canadian vessels in subsection 7(3) of the Act, where the laws of a country other than Canada are applicable to a Canadian ODAS that is within the waters of that country and those laws are inconsistent with these Regulations, the laws of that country prevail to the extent of the inconsistency in respect of the Canadian ODAS.


(3) Where there is any inconsistency between a provision of the Rules and a provision of the Rules that falls under the heading “Canadian Modifications”, the latter provision prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Wotname

What does "appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" mean especially to the single hander?

Many say single handers fail rule 5 but I suggest that sleeping is a natural human condition (in response to tiredness) and as such, it is a legitimate "prevailing circumstance and condition" that will occur in lengthy solo voyage.

Therefore providing the single hander employs all available means (e.g. electronic alarms; ensuring sleep times aren't conducted in busy areas or frequently used shipping lanes; hearing), then rule 5 is has not been violated.

The section you quoted was in the "as well as" section of the rule. The most pertinent part is "all vessels shall at all times maintain a proper lookout" so by that test, singlehanders fail to follow the Rule.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Probably the most hotly contested part of Court cases.


What are the duties of a lookout?

I'll start. Here's a link to the IMO's verdict: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDat...%28VIII%29.pdf
The Lookout is specifically mentioned on the second page.

[LtBrett]

Perhaps the most important thing to remember as we discuss these rules is that it is impossible to reduce good seamanship to a finite code. While we each hold our own opinions of the specific meaning of each rule, the rules are only interpreted FOR us AFTER A COLLISION HAS OCCURRED. The courts APPORTION blame. In most cases, both captains share the blame. There is no black and white, absolute way to interpret the rules that have stirred the most "sea lawyering".

To take an example cited earlier: is a sailboat with an idling main propulsion engine considered power driven if the engine is not in gear? While I have an opinion, I don't want to be proven right because that would imply that a collision has occurred. The courts would weigh whether or not having a propulsion engine at the ready materially affected the chain of events leading up to the collision. I can easily envision a court finding that on a calm day, a sailboat configured as mentioned is in fact power driven. I can also see how a court might find that a sailboat flying a chute in heavy air is a sailboat even if her engine were in gear. In either case, it is likely other rules were violated.

Both captains almost always share the blame.

Brett

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Wotname

......Therefore providing the single hander employs all available means (e.g. electronic alarms; ensuring sleep times aren't conducted in busy areas or frequently used shipping lanes; hearing), then rule 5 is has not been violated.

Nice sleight of hand there with the words Wotname to make your point. (but sorry no cigar)... it was the "at all times" bit that sunk you


In terms of reality and a courts appraisal, there should also be enough crew to maintain a proper look-out at all times. An impossible feat for the long distance single hander!

So as LtBrett reminds us, blame will always be proportioned after a collision, and in Jessica’s type of case, no proper lookout was maintained on her part, so she has little recourse against the ship.

I have always wondered if a solo sailor would not be better rigging NUC signals when he/she is getting some sleep and trusting their luck to the Gods.

Be interesting to see how that would be judged

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I have always wondered if a solo sailor would not be better rigging NUC signals when he/she is getting some sleep and trusting their luck to the Gods.

Be interesting to see how that would be judged

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.

I have trouble believing that sleeping is an exceptional circumstance.

[Pelagic]

No, the "exceptional circumstance" in the case of the solo sailor is that there is no one to there to relieve him...

[Lodesman]

That hardly counts as an exceptional circumstance, unless a sailor becomes solo due to death or incapacitation of the other crew. See the IMO link - "the master of every ship is bound to ensure the watchkeeping arrangements are adequate for maintaining a safe navigational watch." If you didn't take sufficient crew, then you're in the wrong.

[jackdale]

I found this page from Cockcroft re:NUC

TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL

Dragging anchor is NUC
Sailboat becalmed is NUC
Broken down engine is NUC
Rudder failure is NUC

All of these are beyond the control of the vessel's crew.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Other than the rules that specifically state a geographic limit, the canmods apply in all Canadian waters - Collision Regulations

Agreed. However most of the Canmods specify the areas in which they are pertinent whether it is the Great Lakes Basin, the St Lawrence east of The Rouge, narrow channels or fairways, roadsteads, harbors,etc.. For example, outside of roadsteads, harbours, etc.. the inverted cone is a requirement for motorsailing vessels

Those without specific demarcations apply throughout Canada and include such requirements as the special yellow flashing light and the blue flashing light.

One needs to be very careful in reading Canadian ColRegs.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Dragging anchor is NUC
Sailboat becalmed is NUC
Broken down engine is NUC
Rudder failure is NUC

Hey thanks! I've spent all these years knowing the rule but having no idea where it might apply.

[Pyxis156]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Nice sleight of hand there with the words Wotname to make your point. (but sorry no cigar)... it was the "at all times" bit that sunk you

In terms of reality and a courts appraisal, there should also be enough crew to maintain a proper look-out at all times. An impossible feat for the long distance single hander!

I look at singlehanding as a choice, not a condition forced upon you. If I got off work after pulling a double shift and fell asleep driving home and caused an accident, I would be at fault. It was my choice to drive when I was in that state. Just as it is one's choice to sail singlehanded KNOWING that there will be periods when they cannot keep watch.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I have always wondered if a solo sailor would not be better rigging NUC signals when he/she is getting some sleep and trusting their luck to the Gods.

Be interesting to see how that would be judged

This makes sense to me... In the world of my (admittedly lame) driving a car analogy, wouldn't rigging the NUC signals be the equivalent of pulling off to the side of the road and turning on your hazard lights before taking a nap? You could still get hit by someone not paying attention, but it seems like a much better choice than to keep on driving (sailing). I guess the bigger question here is if you rig the NUC signals, does that excuse you from following other regulations like having to keep watch?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by ;458588

Perhaps the most important thing to remember as we discuss these rules is that it is impossible to reduce good seamanship to a finite code. While we each hold our own opinions of the specific meaning of each rule, the rules are only interpreted FOR us AFTER A COLLISION HAS OCCURRED. The courts APPORTION blame. .......

Originally Posted by Pelagic

...........
So as LtBrett reminds us, blame will always be proportioned after a collision, and in Jessica’s type of case, no proper lookout was maintained on her part, so she has little recourse against the ship.........

Just to confirm, the Colregs really only come into effect when a collision occurs?

There is (I have always assumed) no penalty for just failing to meet them on your average incident free day of sailing unlike say offenses under the traffic act where you must obey the speed limit, red light or whatever at all times.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The section you quoted was in the "as well as" section of the rule. The most pertinent part is "all vessels shall at all times maintain a proper lookout" so by that test, singlehanders fail to follow the Rule.

Does it ??
The rule tells us what to do, when to do it and how to do it. So the what is "maintain a proper lookout", the when is "at all times" and the how is described by"sight, hearing, other available means" appropriate to the circumstances. All three "hows" are "anded" together and conditioned by the circumstances. In the circumstance of sleep, then the "how to" has to be appropriate to that condition so providing a suitable "how to" is employed when sleeping, then the rule is satisfied (in my very humble opinion).

Of course my opinion is irrelevant to a court of inquiry but extremely valid on the internet

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pyxis156

I guess the bigger question here is if you rig the NUC signals, does that excuse you from following other regulations like having to keep watch?

No. You're still expected to maintain a lookout as a NUC vessel. I think a better option for a solo sailor would be to be to go to a sea-anchor and use anchor lights/shapes. You're still expected to maintain a watch at anchor, but I believe it's generally expected that a vessel at anchor is entirely incapable of manoeuvring, and therefore not necessarily maintaining a vigilant watch.