Keeping a Proper Lookout -- A Cautionary Tale

[weavis]

Originally Posted by monte

I had a quick look at that YBW discussion Weavis, but didn't find anything different to this one. People debating a fairly straightforward sentence/rule and in many cases twisting it or trying to find fault with the wording to suit their own agendas and beliefs. I have my own belief about what the rule means and for me it's unambiguous and I don't believe the writer intended it to be ambiguous or open to interpretation for any reason. Obviously some others disagree with my belief and I'm open to changing my beliefs when presented with facts I'm unaware of. Post collision legal discussion and comments like "why do countries allow single handed races" really have nothing to do with the rule.

Well I respect your comprehension of the rule and what it means. Single handed races comes into because people go to sleep.

So at the end of the day, I will do my best to keep a good watch and out of everyones way. ANd I know you will.

So this debate has legs. It can go on forever. I have a kid with peanuts stuck up his nose and the salt is burning him......... screaming the place down. Going for my forceps now.........

Later.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think what's hard for some, and justifiably so, is the language in Rule 5 that a watch must be maintained "at all times." As it should be in many situations such as the first two examples you cite. And as it should be at all times with, for example, larger commercial vessels traveling at much higher speeds. I think the vastly different scenarios & wide-ranging types of vessels is why the Rule is intentionally vague. Thus, a watch maintained "at all times" must be accomplished by a "proper lookout," namely one which, as the Rule also says, can fully appraise whatever situation exists so as to avoid any risk of collision.

The reality is that this is exactly what you describe in your third scenario, namely open, largely empty ocean with horizon scans every 10-15 mins. Under this regimen, you have eliminated any risk of collision, thereby satisfying the underlying reason Rule 5 & the Colregs exist. Nevertheless, while you are certainly avoiding any risk of collision "at all times," you are not maintaining a visual watch "at all times." So some ambiguity exists but, as you point out, not so hard to resolve.

I'd tend to agree with that as an acceptable of looking and listening so as to constitute a "proper watch" as long as during most of the 10-15 minutes in between scans of the horizon, radar, AIS, etc, the watchkeeper is present and awake and looking around for smaller, closer in targets that he may have missed while he was scanning the horizon and using his longer range high tech equipment that would show him where the container ships are but maybe not where the smaller vessels are. Of course, no singlehander can even come close to complying with this sort of regimen for more than a single night.

Those who are determined to pretend that singlehanders can "at all times keep a proper watch..." frequently mention 30 minute naps as the standard, but anyone who has tried to stay up for several days with only 30 minute naps knows this is only wishful thinking, something that sounds good in theory but is impossible in practice. It's a recipe for severe sleep deprivation and very poor decision making capability, similar to having a blood alcohol level equivalent to being too drunk to legally drive. Also, IF someone could actually repeatedly sleep for 30 minute intervals for weeks on end, upon waking how long would it take before their eyes and mind clear adequately to take a comprehensive look around and make an accurate analysis of all nearby targets? I have a lot of experience flying internationally and have learned first hand that there's a very good reason there's always at least a crew of 3 (or 4 for longer flights) pilots required. After just one night, with a chance for a 2 hour nap for each pilot during that time, by the time we're getting ready to land in Europe, all 3 pilots need to be actively engaged and backing each other up or you'd be pretty surprised at the stupid mistakes that would be made and not noticed right away by just one other pilot who has his own things to do, mistakes that neither pilot would ever make or go unnoticed if he were adequately rested and in phase with his circadian rhythms. I realize that sailors don't need to constantly have the same level of mental alertness as pilots shooting an approach in bad weather but I think it illustrates the point that none of us are remotely close to at our best when severely sleep deprived. Even when pretty well rested, it's not realistic to think one can instantly wake up and completely perceive and accurately assess the situation all around you every 30 minutes, and then go back to sleep. The human mind just doesn't work that way and that's especially true when it's been deprived of adequate sleep for long periods. So, either singlehanders are napping (nobody on watch) for much longer periods of time than the 30 minutes that they claim, or they are nearly mental zombies when they are supposedly assessing and analyzing the situation around them every 30 minutes. Either way, they're not "at all times keeping a proper watch."

[weavis]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'd tend to agree with that as an acceptable of looking and listening so as to constitute a "proper watch" as long as during most of the 10-15 minutes in between scans of the horizon, radar, AIS, etc, the watchkeeper is present and awake and looking around for smaller, closer in targets that he may have missed while he was scanning the horizon and using his longer range high tech equipment that would show him where the container ships are but maybe not where the smaller vessels are. Of course, no singlehander can even come close to complying with this sort of regimen for more than a single night.

Those who are determined to pretend that singlehanders can "at all times keep a proper watch..." frequently mention 30 minute naps as the standard, but anyone who has tried to stay up for several days with only 30 minute naps knows this is only wishful thinking, something that sounds good in theory but is impossible in practice. It's a recipe for severe sleep deprivation and very poor decision making capability, similar to having a blood alcohol level equivalent to being too drunk to legally drive. Also, IF someone could actually repeatedly sleep for 30 minute intervals for weeks on end, upon waking how long would it take before their eyes and mind clear adequately to take a comprehensive look around and make an accurate analysis of all nearby targets? I have a lot of experience flying internationally and have learned first hand that there's a very good reason there's always at least a crew of 3 (or 4 for longer flights) pilots required. After just one night, with a chance for a 2 hour nap for each pilot during that time, by the time we're getting ready to land in Europe, all 3 pilots need to be actively engaged and backing each other up or you'd be pretty surprised at the stupid mistakes that would be made and not noticed right away by just one other pilot who has his own things to do, mistakes that neither pilot would ever make or go unnoticed if he were adequately rested and in phase with his circadian rhythms. I realize that sailors don't need to constantly have the same level of mental alertness as pilots shooting an approach in bad weather but I think it illustrates the point that none of us are remotely close to at our best when severely sleep deprived. Even when pretty well rested, it's not realistic to think one can instantly wake up and completely perceive and accurately assess the situation all around you every 30 minutes, and then go back to sleep. The human mind just doesn't work that way and that's especially true when it's been deprived of adequate sleep for long periods. So, either singlehanders are napping (nobody on watch) for much longer periods of time than the 30 minutes that they claim, or they are nearly mental zombies when they are supposedly assessing and analyzing the situation around them every 30 minutes. Either way, they're not "at all times keeping a proper watch."

You need to distinguish between short single handed trips and much longer ones. Myself its 24-40 hour max and I can manage very well on short 30 minutes sleep.

Longer transatlantic trips, I have no experience with as a single hander.

Anyone who knows me, even on this board will see me sign off at 4 or 5am and be at the clinic for 8am. I will often be awake till the following morning. Sleep deprivation as a med student ruined my ability to sleep for more than 4 hours at a stretch. That is over 30 some years of low hours of sleep. If Im working a 30 hour stint, I will take a 30 minute nap after 16 hours.

Thats the way it is.

Each person must assess their own abilities and capabilities and take the route that they can live with. I live with a cautious approach to life and am fully aware of the ability for it to change in a second. I think I was born on watch.........

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Either way, they're not "at all times keeping a proper watch."

As are an overwhelming percentage of Mom & Pop cruisers out there...

:-)

They were sailing in the dark west of Tahiti when they heard scraping on the bottom of the boat. Jean Silverwood looked at her husband. "What was that?" John didn't know, not right away. He thought maybe they had hit something floating in the water. Then this man who considered himself a born sailor recognized the sound, and what Jean saw on his face was shock.

The Emerald Jane was running up on a coral reef.

...

... He and Jean rushed up from their stateroom to the main salon, where the kids – Ben, 16; Amelia, 14; Jack, 9; and Camille, 5 – were watching the movie "Drop Dead Gorgeous" on a flat-screen TV.

The boat hit again, harder. To Ben it sounded like bones crunching. The DVD player crashed to the floor. Water poured in from the starboard hull. The two youngest kids started shouting: "I don't want to die! I don't want to die!"

John was frantic. The 53-year-old developer was the one who had coaxed the family out of its comfortable suburban life, away from the big house with the long driveway and the pool out back, to see the world. Trust me. I know what I'm doing. He couldn't understand where he had gone so wrong.

Chasing down a dream | The San Diego Union-Tribune

[poiu]

Originally Posted by monte

I have my own belief about what the rule means and for me it's unambiguous and I don't believe the writer intended it to be ambiguous or open to interpretation for any reason.

I agree it is unambiguous, on the other hand I do believe it is very much open to interpretation. Here are a few thoughts:

The bit that is of particularly critical in the context of it being legal to go below to take a pee or to solo sail for that matter is "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing.."

There is one area of flexibility built into the words intentionally and that is what constitutes a proper look-out: The people who drafted those words will have known that it is impossible to maintain a constant scan of the horizon. If you are checking the port side you are not checking the starboard, even if it is for less than a minute. So the quickest scan will leave part of the horizon not receiving a look out at all times and therefore the word proper was introduced to allow the look-out or horizon scan frequency to be adapted to circumstances.

So what constitutes a proper look-out and how frequently must a scan be done? The definition is alluded to in the same rule "...so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision"

If let's say for the sake of argument that it is sufficient and rule compliant to check the stern of a fast container ship every sixty minutes then that would be a proper look-out. On the other hand a ferry crossing the English Channel at 35kts might require a scan ahead every 10 seconds.

Now if you are sailing across a quiet ocean and you haven't seen a boat for days and all the crew goes below to enjoy a nice dinner together for 20 minutes then is that a proper look-out. Should 10 minutes break be allowed only? There could be a 25kt container ship just behind the horizon. Or how about a solo sailor in the same circumstances who takes a 30 minute nap? Or an hour or longer?

Another area for interpretation is if the use of electronic aids extends what constitutes a proper look-out by "sight and hearing" as required under the rules? In the context of foggy night time rain shower it is clearly impossible to maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing in the strict definition of what sight and hearing is, yet voyages go on reliant on radar. An interpretation of the rules might be that by looking at your radar screen and listening for its alarms you are using sight and hearing and so complying with the requirement to use sight and hearing under the rules. If the use of radar as the prime anti collision device is accepted and alarms can be put in place to allow it to function automatically then it surely is acceptable to allow its use to extend the frequency of scan such that longer absences may be taken from the watch and the definition of a proper-look out be adapted in that circumstance. If so by how much and would it extend the frequency of scan in the above scenarios? As a frequent solo sailor this is of particular interest.

This isn't clear cut to me. It is a lawyer's paradise surely.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by poiu

I agree it is unambiguous, on the other hand I do believe it is very much open to interpretation. Here are a few thoughts:

The bit that is of particularly critical in the context of it being legal to go below to take a pee or to solo sail for that matter is "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing.."

There is one area of flexibility built into the words intentionally and that is what constitutes a proper look-out: .

This isn't clear cut to me. It is a lawyer's paradise surely.

This Rule is what simply can be called a "self fulfilling prophecy"

If you have been maintaining a proper look out.... You will have seen any vessel change its CPA and or bearing to make a collision possible... Thus prompting you to take the appropriate action outlined in the rules.

If you do not see that vessel (or appreciate the danger too late)..... then you are judged to have failed to have maintained a proper look out and whatever happens afterwards... is judged to have had a shared responsibility.

Simple as that!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by weavis

I think you will find that is precisely what I have said all along. There is a "vagueness" in the description so as to NOT legislate every action or reaction under every circumstance. The guidelines leave latitude for the Master to implement.
It only ever comes into question when there is an incident. It throws the responsibility into the legal scene onto each master of the vessel that there was adequate watch keeping.

Rule 5 does not require the installation of radar, but if radar is installed it must be used whenever it would contribute to the quality of the lookout. What are your obligations if radar is installed on your vessel but is not working properly? Rule 5 does not require that mafunctioning radar be used. If the problem is temporary, such as signal blockage caused by a heavy rainstorm, the use of radar can be suspended but not abandoned.

Radar can be carried one step further by incorporating a computer to calculate the courses and speeds of other vessels the radar detects. The computer than relates that information to the vessel's own course and speed. The automated radar plotting aid (ARPA) displays position, course, and speed for each target and signals when it detects risk of collision. Some ARPAs will also display the projected future track of each vessel, all against the background of an electronic chart of the area. Same goes for AIS.

On this basis, the court will more than likely assume that in the event of an incident, that RADAR SHOULD have been used. Is it fair? Well in the absence of that information, in clear weather visibility, an incident occurred. Courts apply the law to apportion blame and responsibility AFTER an event.

The bottom line of adherence to the principle and obligation of rule 5, is that each one of us has the responsibility to collect information to assess the risk of collision. It only ever becomes an issue if an incident occurs.

Each Master of a vessel will apply the law regulation as they see fit. It is common sense to have a methodology that gives continuous information or an alarm when a vessel or object is in the proximity. My Visual and hearing abilities are not as good as my RADAR for distance, and upon the information received FROM THE RADAR as well as my own observation, I may go down for 4 minutes to make coffee. My "assessment" of the situation has been made for a 4 minute absence. But the Radar is still on as an extension of the circumstance based on my assessment at the time. In case something changes.

So. Yes it has gone to the leagalese-but only in as much as that is where it ends up if a failure of the intention of the requirement ends up in a collision.

That is me done. Once again, I URGE you to read Is it legal for a single handed skipper to sleep? for a more in depth discussion and thought process of the whole debate.

Once again an outstanding synopsis, with helpful, illustrative examples. Thank you.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This Rule is what simply can be called a "self fulfilling prophecy"

If you have been maintaining a proper look out.... You will have seen any vessel change its CPA and or bearing to make a collision possible... Thus prompting you to take the appropriate action outlined in the rules.

If you do not see that vessel (or appreciate the danger too late)..... then you are judged to have failed to have maintained a proper look out and whatever happens afterwards... is judged to have had a shared responsibility.

Simple as that!

Exactly. Which is why, as Weavis & others have pointed out, the Rules have enough flexibility to allow the master to modify his watch practice & routine to accommodate changed conditions & circumstances. For example, throw one of many possible variables into Terra Nova's description of the type of benign circumstances where he might have his radar turned off, and he could be deemed at least partially responsible for a collision scenario that may develop. Some people resolve these grey areas by interpreting the Rules as having a visual watch deployed literally "at all times" (akin to a commercial vessel), and also having their radar turned on "at all times" when in fact it's not always needed (my personal m.o.).

Since the entire point of the Colregs is to avoid collisions, I suppose one could say they are there to guide you in accomplishing that beforehand, and penalizing you after-the-fact should a collision actually occur.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by poiu

I agree it is unambiguous, on the other hand I do believe it is very much open to interpretation. Here are a few thoughts:

The bit that is of particularly critical in the context of it being legal to go below to take a pee or to solo sail for that matter is "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing.."

There is one area of flexibility built into the words intentionally and that is what constitutes a proper look-out: The people who drafted those words will have known that it is impossible to maintain a constant scan of the horizon. If you are checking the port side you are not checking the starboard, even if it is for less than a minute. So the quickest scan will leave part of the horizon not receiving a look out at all times and therefore the word proper was introduced to allow the look-out or horizon scan frequency to be adapted to circumstances.

So what constitutes a proper look-out and how frequently must a scan be done? The definition is alluded to in the same rule "...so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision"

If let's say for the sake of argument that it is sufficient and rule compliant to check the stern of a fast container ship every sixty minutes then that would be a proper look-out. On the other hand a ferry crossing the English Channel at 35kts might require a scan ahead every 10 seconds.

Now if you are sailing across a quiet ocean and you haven't seen a boat for days and all the crew goes below to enjoy a nice dinner together for 20 minutes then is that a proper look-out. Should 10 minutes break be allowed only? There could be a 25kt container ship just behind the horizon. Or how about a solo sailor in the same circumstances who takes a 30 minute nap? Or an hour or longer?

Another area for interpretation is if the use of electronic aids extends what constitutes a proper look-out by "sight and hearing" as required under the rules? In the context of foggy night time rain shower it is clearly impossible to maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing in the strict definition of what sight and hearing is, yet voyages go on reliant on radar. An interpretation of the rules might be that by looking at your radar screen and listening for its alarms you are using sight and hearing and so complying with the requirement to use sight and hearing under the rules. If the use of radar as the prime anti collision device is accepted and alarms can be put in place to allow it to function automatically then it surely is acceptable to allow its use to extend the frequency of scan such that longer absences may be taken from the watch and the definition of a proper-look out be adapted in that circumstance. If so by how much and would it extend the frequency of scan in the above scenarios? As a frequent solo sailor this is of particular interest.

This isn't clear cut to me. It is a lawyer's paradise surely.

I agree with you except don't understand how a Rule which has the force of law can be both unambiguous and "very much open to interpretation." Instead, I believe it's makes more sense that the Rules are open to interpretation by design, and to accomplish that some of them like Rule 5 are deliberately ambiguous. They are primary law, after all, akin to a statute, and had to be drafted to satisfy every seafaring nation, every type of vessel and its potential speed, every crew configuration, every body of water, and every weather scenario.

There are obviously those who quite reasonably believe that the first component of Rule 5 requires mandatory visual & audible lookouts at all times, regardless of conditions & circumstances. But as you noted, this would conflict with a scenario where weather & sea conditions may make that futile or even impossible. It would also conflict with the video of "the world's largest congainer ship" I recently watched where the containers were stacked so high as to completely block the view aft of the bridge. While I suspect the crew have cameras or otherwise a way of "seeing" from behind, this would also arguably be in conflict with those who interpret Rule 5 as requiring a full appraisal via a manual watch at all times.

Rather than poorly conceived & drafted, I think the Rules are rather brilliant in that they promote flexibility & innovation for each type of vessel & crew in achieving the ultimate goal of avoiding collisions.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

This Rule is what simply can be called a "self fulfilling prophecy"

If you have been maintaining a proper look out.... You will have seen any vessel change its CPA and or bearing to make a collision possible... Thus prompting you to take the appropriate action outlined in the rules.

If you do not see that vessel (or appreciate the danger too late)..... then you are judged to have failed to have maintained a proper look out and whatever happens afterwards... is judged to have had a shared responsibility.

Simple as that!

I agree in broad terms. There will be the the odd exception I imagine like the drunk boat driver or the 5 year old child at the helm of the other boat who makes it impossible to avoid.

I can't think of any other law where you are found guilty only if caught red handed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Correction! SOME Regulations apply to moored vessels as well. Rule 5 doesn't.

Rule 5 is in PART B - STEERING AND SAILING RULES. A boat at anchor is neither steering nor sailing.

Rules which do apply to moored vessels such as required lights/shapes and sound signals appear in other parts of the ColRegs such as PART C and PART D.

Very interesting point, but one I'm not sure the answer to. My reasons for uncertainty are that neither Part B in general nor Rule 5 in particular expressly limit their application to vessels that are "not underway" or similar such language. Parts C & D (light, shape & sound signals), moreover, similarly don't limit their application to whether vessels are underway or anchored.

Maybe you and/or others can help clarify.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Exile

I agree with you except don't understand how a Rule which has the force of law can be both unambiguous and "very much open to interpretation." Instead, I believe it's makes more sense that the Rules are open to interpretation by design, and to accomplish that some of them like Rule 5 are deliberately ambiguous.

Rather than poorly conceived & drafted, I think the Rules are rather brilliant in that they promote flexibility & innovation for each type of vessel & crew in achieving the ultimate goal of avoiding collisions.

I think the rule is brilliantly drafted, concise and unambiguous. That it is open to interpretation as to what circumstances comply with the rule does not make it an ambiguous rule. Not that it matters much; it is debating semantics. I think we understand the rule.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by poiu

I think the rule is brilliantly drafted, concise and unambiguous. That it is open to interpretation as to what circumstances comply with the rule does not make it an ambiguous rule. Not that it matters much; it is debating semantics. I think we understand the rule.

Maybe semantics, but then there's part (a) of Rule 7, titled "Risk of Collision":

Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.


No explicit mention of the mandatory provisions of the first component of Rule 5, namely a lookout by sight & hearing. What's required instead under 7(a) is only "all available means appropriate." This seems consistent with the ambiguity (according to some, incl. me) created under Rule 5. IMHO, reconciling the two Rules requires the inclusion of sight & hearing as one of many appropriate means which may be available, and not necessarily parceling out sight & hearing as a separate component and thus at all times mandatory. Of course, the reality is that sight & hearing is more often than not the best available means, and will therefore be utilized the most often and to the greatest effect.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe semantics, but then there's part (a) of Rule 7, titled "Risk of Collision":

Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.


No explicit mention of the mandatory provisions of the first component of Rule 5, namely a lookout by sight & hearing. What's required instead under 7(a) is only "all available means appropriate." This seems consistent with the ambiguity (according to some, incl. me) created under Rule 5. IMHO, reconciling the two Rules requires the inclusion of sight & hearing as one of many appropriate means which may be available, and not necessarily parceling out sight & hearing as a separate component and thus at all times mandatory. Of course, the reality is that sight & hearing is more often than not the best available means, and will therefore be utilized the most often and to the greatest effect.

I think if you change the term ambiguous to vague.......... it works better. I dont believe it is ambiguous. I think it leaves the decision under a broader scope of avoiding a collision to the Master.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by monte

comments like "why do countries allow single handed races" really have nothing to do with the rule.

As Evans S. pointed out in the YBW thread, apparently the race organizers of the Transpac event in the US are required to apply to the USCG and be granted a license before the event can be held. This is a long-distance, singlehanded race from CA to HI and obviously the USCG knows it. While there may be some participants who are trained for 20-30 min. (polyphasic) sleep patterns the entire time, many others probably are not and, as JT pointed out several posts ago, would necessarily require more extended intervals of sleep.

Since the USCG is the agency with primary if not exclusive regulatory & enforcement authority over the Colregs in US waters, and since there does not appear any mechanism for exempting any particular vessel or fleet of vessels from the requirements of Rule 5, the grounds for granting a license for this type of event seem to fall into one of two categories:

1. The Rule is unambiguous as you suggest, i.e. a manual watch is mandatory at all times on deck and other available means may also be utilized as may be appropriate given the prevailing conditions & circumstances. Under this scenario, it would be impossible for any participant to comply, and the USCG must necessarily be looking the other way, I suppose, as is every other agency throughout the world which is governed by the Colregs but has legal authority over these types of events.

2. Rules 5 (& 7(a)) have enough ambiguity to allow the use of electronic aids & good seamanship to supplement and at times substitute for the necessary visual & audible watches on deck. With required sleep undertaken during appropriate times and at reasonable intervals, this is deemed a "proper lookout" that is sufficient to avoid collisions and thus satisfy the Rules.

Either way, I wouldn't agree that the sanctioning of long-distance singlehanded race events by nations otherwise bound to follow the Colregs isn't relevant to how the Rules are interpreted. Either these events comply with the Rules, the governing agencies are looking the other way, or what is deemed to be in compliance is only determined after the fact and in the event a colllision occurs. To suggest otherwise is to ignore how the primary regulator & enforcer of the Rules is actually interpreting them.