Red over Red - Not Under Command (NUC) Lights

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by David M

The purpose of NUC is if you are unable able to maneuver in order to avoid a collision through a propulsion or steering failure or for some other mechanical reason. It really is that simple.

If you need to attract attention then show a light that cannot be confused for a navigation light.

Only to you and some others it's that simple.

[David M]

Originally Posted by psneeld

You like others are only interpreting the rule...you are quoting no DEFINITIVE example or court case.

My knowledge of the COLREGS is from two text books that define what the COLREGS mean, taking a number of courses about the rules, spending hundred and hundreds of hours studying the rules, reading quite a number of court cases that I was required to study and and having learned from a few professional retired licensed mariners with unlimited masters tickets at Cal Maritime Academy. In addition to that, I received a 100% grade in the Rules section on my Third Mates Unlimited exam.

If that is not good enough then what is?

Do I need an unlimited tonnage/any oceans masters ticket to have any idea of what I am talking about? Do I need to be a maritime attorney to have any idea of what I am talking about?

The bottom line here is that the Rules are very well defined. They are just not completely defined within the Rules themselves. You have to STUDY the Rules to learn their meaning. You CANNOT read the Rules themselves and then say you fully understand what they mean.

This is the greatest "problem" with the RULES...that boaters don't know this concept.

I wish more people understood this, especially recreational boaters.

This thread has me particularly frustrated. The Rules were written to save lives. By reinterpreting their meaning to suit what someone wants them to mean is unsafe. Professional mariners have spent untold tens of thousands of hours writing these rules and attending meetings and confrences in order to reduce the chance of collison. A LOT of thought has gone into the COLREGS and how they are worded. Many think the COLREGS are something the Coast Guard thought up and published....not true.

I can guarantee that anyone who puts up the NUC day shapes or lights and then goes to sleep with a resulting collision WILL be found at least partially guilty in court.

For anyone who is serious about thoroughly learning the rules and their true meaning, then there are a number of books out there for this.

[jackdale]

David

Great post.

Handbook of the Nautical Rules of the Road is free and online.

The authors are:

Chris Llana is a former Coast Guard officer with a B.S. in naval architecture and marine engineering and advanced degrees in marine affairs (MMA) and law (JD). During his tenure as a civilian at Coast Guard Headquarters, he drafted the annexes to the Inland Navigation Rules and wrote other regulations implementing both International and Inland Navigation Rules. Subsequent to that, he worked for Comsat Corporation on policy issues concerning the International Maritime Satellite Organization. He currently writes novels and maintains a web site on the U.S. transition to the ATSC digital TV standard.

George Wisneskey is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and holds a master's degree in education from the George Washington University. As chief of the Coast Guard's Rules of the Road Branch before his retirement in 1982, he oversaw the drafting of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980. He is currently an active player in the Neuse River Foundation from his home base on North Carolina's coast.

[jrd22]

David- well said!

[Gracies]

David , spot on there chap.

Although sitting at anchor now in Formentera, off Ibiza, with about 20 Cigarette top guns charging about at 50 knots, 100 sailing boats trying to make fair of the wind to southern spain and of course the fast cat ferries doing the tourist routes, i find it difficult to understand how my knowledge of the rules and my hours in school and written/oral exams can make life safer for me. It only means that i should win any law case should a collision occur, due to me following the rules. The biggest issue is that follow them or not if a kid on a jet ski rams this yacht, the kid will still die.

The point being that even if you are disabled or damaged and have the 100% right to show your N.U.C if the tanker doesn´t see you then you´re still gonna die.

Dont sleep in shipping lanes
Dont sleep in a TSS

If you have to sleep set an AIS watch alarm and maybe reduce your periods of rest to every 10-20mins,

AND IF as someone posted earlier you are too tired to stand watch due to some extreme weather or other circumstances, then perhaps an all stations securité would be more prudent. As you would be admitting that your vessel is soon to become a danger to navigation due to the skipper being in bed. ; )

[Astrid]

You like others are only interpreting the rule...you are quoting no DEFINITIVE example or court case.

I think that is the crux of the matter. Regulations concerning safety and navigation are published in the COLREGS, and one can interpret the meanings of each to a degree, but what really counts is the determination of fault when collisions take place. That is a matter for the courts to decide and one often has to be a specialized lawyer in such cases or have a considerable body of knowlege to work with, since maritime law, like both US and British laws are based on precedent--determination of fault is heavily influenced by adjudication of preceding cases.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by David M

My knowledge of the COLREGS is from two text books that define what the COLREGS mean, taking a number of courses about the rules, spending hundred and hundreds of hours studying the rules, reading quite a number of court cases that I was required to study and and having learned from a few professional retired licensed mariners with unlimited masters tickets at Cal Maritime Academy. In addition to that, I received a 100% grade in the Rules section on my Third Mates Unlimited exam.

If that is not good enough then what is?

Do I need an unlimited tonnage/any oceans masters ticket to have any idea of what I am talking about? Do I need to be a maritime attorney to have any idea of what I am talking about?

The bottom line here is that the Rules are very well defined. They are just not completely defined within the Rules themselves. You have to STUDY the Rules to learn their meaning. You CANNOT read the Rules themselves and then say you fully understand what they mean.

This is the greatest "problem" with the RULES...that boaters don't know this concept.

I wish more people understood this, especially recreational boaters.

This thread has me particularly frustrated. The Rules were written to save lives. By reinterpreting their meaning to suit what someone wants them to mean is unsafe. Professional mariners have spent untold tens of thousands of hours writing these rules and attending meetings and confrences in order to reduce the chance of collison. A LOT of thought has gone into the COLREGS and how they are worded. Many think the COLREGS are something the Coast Guard thought up and published....not true.

I can guarantee that anyone who puts up the NUC day shapes or lights and then goes to sleep with a resulting collision WILL be found at least partially guilty in court.

For anyone who is serious about thoroughly learning the rules and their true meaning, then there are a number of books out there for this.

yours is big and mine is just as big...your study of the rules lead to one cdonclusion...mine another...neither is right and neither is wrong until it's heard in court...BECAUSE ONE MORE TIME FOR THE CHEAP SEATS...IT'S NEITHER SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AREN'T INDIVIDUALLY SPELLED OUT....so my experience with the law is that you, me, and the LEOs don't have final say...only the courts...

And when all said and done...if you were sleeping below...you are far more in non-compliance with the rules than just showing the wrong lights for the right reasons.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by psneeld

yours is big and mine is just as big...your study of the rules lead to one cdonclusion...mine another...neither is right and neither is wrong until it's heard in court...BECAUSE ONE MORE TIME FOR THE CHEAP SEATS...IT'S NEITHER SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AREN'T INDIVIDUALLY SPELLED OUT....so my experience with the law is that you, me, and the LEOs don't have final say...only the courts...

And when all said and done...if you were sleeping below...you are far more in non-compliance with the rules than just showing the wrong lights for the right reasons.

Spelled out for you.

Examples of vessels which are likely to be accepted "not under command":

1. a vessel which have had breakdown of her engine(s);
2. a vessel which have had breakdown of her steering gear;
3. a vessel which have lost a propeller;
4. a vessel which have lost her rudder;
5. a vessel with her anchor down but not holding;
6. a vessel riding to anchor chains with anchors unshackled;
7. a sailing vessel becalmed;
8. a vessel affected in such an exceptional way by weather conditions, that she is unable to keep out of the way of another vessel by alteration of course and/or speed, thus justifying her showing of not under command signals.

With reference to "A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules" by A.N. Cockcroft and J.N.F. Lameijer.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post757143

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Spelled out for you.



http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post757143

Those are from a guide....have any directly from an "approved copy" of the rules??....even then...courts have allowed interpretation of many
laws well beyond even well spelled out ones.

The reason I don't think it is even addressed is because the rules make you have a lookout...so no example would be given under NUC involving improper lookouts...but singlehanded voyaging has been around for a long time... therefore because NUC isn't specifically spelled out as prohibited from being used, maybe it isn't such a big deal anyhow....

[jackdale]

Step by step:

The definition

The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel

This rule applies to a vessel - not the crew.

which through some exceptional circumstance

Single-handed sailors sleeping is not exceptional, it is quite common.

is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

The vessel is able to maneuver, the crew just chooses not to do so.

If you choose to single-hand and sleep, show the appropriate lights: red over green. You are still stand-on to power-driven vessels, seaplanes and WIGs; but give-way to vessels engaged in fishing, RAMs, NUCs, overtaken vessels or anchored ones.

Realize that not maintaining a watch will make you culpable.

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by highseas

That was my point.Physical,mental exhaustion is an impairment(though not the vessel).It takes a person to command a vessel.

...And it is the impairment of the vessel with which the definition of NUC is concerned. NUC means that the vessel is not capable of answering command given by her skipper - it does not mean that command is not being given. These two things are totaly different.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by psneeld

out of post #27


a vessel affected in such an exceptional way by weather conditions, that she is unable to keep out of the way of another vessel by alteration of course and/or speed, thus justifying her showing of not under command signals.

With reference to "A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules" by A.N. Cockcroft and J.N.F. Lameijer.

If I'm hove to for survival....and below...seems "published" authors think it's OK to show NUC

I dont believe either of the authors imply that when hove to in exceptional weather conditions that it was Ok to go below (and by implication not keep a lookout)

I've read this book numerous times back in the 80's prior to sitting my Master Mariners Foreign Going Certificate, and I know the book pretty well-
I've been at sea for over 30 years, 20 as Master, and I would agree whole heartedly that single handed, asleep, no lookout, does not constitute NUC.
Right now, I'm in the Baltic, been running anchors continuously last 5 days, I'm tired, the weather is crap, the noise and sea conditons dont help, but I'm not about to put up two reds and turn in while on my watch
I also sail single handed, if I chose to sleep, then its a case of I pays me money and I take me chances.

What was the outcome of young Jessica after her boat was run down while she was turned in.I believe some fault was attributed to her for failing to keep a proper lookout, and at no time did the court suggest she should have exhibited NUC signals.
If an authority such as the ATSB felt it was prudent to display NUC signals when single handing, it would have been a recommendation in their report

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by nigel1

I dont believe either of the authors imply that when hove to in exceptional weather conditions that it was Ok to go below (and by implication not keep a lookout)

Agreed

[Boracay]

I've picked two flashing blue strobes as I don't believe that they could be confused with any other signal.

So I'll admit to some confusion. I can see the argument why i should not display NUC lights but then neither should I display (my choice) flashing blue strobes as this would admit that I am not keeping a proper look out.

Rather I should accept the increased risk of being run down by another ship who cannot see my dim (but legal) navigation lights while I am getting some essential sleep.

And have the increased risk that in my sleep deprived state I might make some navigational or other error.

To a lookout high up on a large ship blue strobes could be visible up to 20 NM giving them up to an hour to change course.

I should imaging that any captain of a large boat that was awoken by flashing strobes would have some very unkind and maybe permanent things to say to the lookout.

The only problem with blue strobes that I can see is that there is some incredibly small chance of annoying someone in authority, and for that I (and every other boat running short crewed) am expected to risk my life?

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by markpierce

(From post #10) ... the rules presume that a proper watch will always be maintained. If that is not the case, "not under command" is useful to warn other craft your vessel will not maneuver. Such a signal is a lesser sin than not keeping proper watch.

Doesn't seem the scores of subsequent posts have moved the subject much further along.

Let's not forget rule #2 which states, in part, "Merely complying with the Rules is not enough. If, in fact, strict compliance with the Rules would result in immediate danger, a departure from the Rules (to the extent necessary to avoid the danger) is required."