Red over Red - Not Under Command (NUC) Lights

[daddle]

All the sea lawyers on CF won't be able to resolve this. That is the job of a court. Has any such case ever tested these rules? Otherwise it's all just idle armchair speculation.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by daddle

All the sea lawyers on CF won't be able to resolve this. That is the job of a court. Has any such case ever tested these rules? Otherwise it's all just idle armchair speculation.

This is a re-post

FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS

But I conclude that there is no basis to distinguish between the faults of the EXPRESS and the CAMERA. The CAMERA's failure to maintain an attentive lookout rises to the level of that of the EXPRESS; indeed, the failure to maintain any lookout at all at night constitutes a more severe degree of neglect. That is sufficient to overcome any advantage which the CAMERA might otherwise enjoy as (1) an overtaken vessel which (2) was under sail. *fn7" The CAMERA's basic lookout deficiency condemns her to an equal proportion of the fault for the collision.

[Viking Sailor]

There where problems with the GRANHOLM case. One was that his account of going below to sleep is not consistent with the timeline of event leading up to the collision. He could just as easily been reading in the cockpit and not looking around at all. Based upon his account, he should have seen the EXPRESS's lights before going below to sleep. So why didn't he see the lights? The judge could only presume that he wasn't keeping a lookout. He also didn't address why he decided to sleep at night instead of his usual practice of sleeping during the day. All of this while being in an area where ships were known to transit.

Simply put, there was reasonable doubt that he was keeping a lookout as required under the rules. He didn't show any reason why he wasn't keeping a proper lookout. There was no underwater leak that needed to be fixed to avoid sinking, no medical issue that needed immediate attention, no physical exhaustion due to fatigue, or any other exceptional circumstance.

Assuming Granholm had been able to justify not keeping a lookout and that his vessel was showing some form of light, the EXPRESS might have been in some serious trouble. Especially, since vessels are not allow to hit anything with a light on it under the rules. Who knows, that little white light that you just ran over could have been someone in a life jacket with a light powered by a single "D" cell battery.

I believe that the best light for a sailboat at sea is the biggest and brightest LED Tri-color you can stick on top of your mast. It is specifically allowed under the rules, is commercially available, and provides the best power saving option.

The real problems with using NUC lights is that you will need to figure how how to mount two lights 3 feet apart, and they will use twice the power to be seen at the same distance as a single Tri-color. Also, they might attract some kind offers of help.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by daddle

All the sea lawyers on CF won't be able to resolve this. That is the job of a court. Has any such case ever tested these rules? Otherwise it's all just idle armchair speculation.

Thank you...

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by daddle

All the sea lawyers on CF won't be able to resolve this. That is the job of a court. Has any such case ever tested these rules? Otherwise it's all just idle armchair speculation.

I don't know, but I suspect that there are very few of these cases that actually make it to court. The shipping and insurance companies most likely settle these out of court. For the most part the cost of settlement is just the cost of doing business. Running down single handed sailboats is not their only liability. They are also on the hook for crew accidents, various discharges, and the occasional bridge bump.

[Captain Paddy]

It is just not good seamanship to put yourself in a position that you cannot comply with the rules (keeping a watch) and then to use that as an excuse to vary the rules.

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by daddle

All the sea lawyers on CF won't be able to resolve this. That is the job of a court. Has any such case ever tested these rules? Otherwise it's all just idle armchair speculation.

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

It is not the destination, but the journey that really counts

[Wavewacker]

Had no idea! Red over red, red & white, green, ....I've never seen all these colors on a mast, just white. Isn't there a length limit for a yacht or pleasure crafts?

24/7 watch? Only from what I have read, is that a tanker is not going to change course regarless of what you might show, you just better stay clear of them....like that saying, you could be dead right?

What happens sailing alone if the captain becomes incapacitated? Getting too sick....and then if you can get too sick, what about sleep deprevation that causes all sorts of mental disabilities?

And what is this about getting a ticket, say 50 miles out and a naval court? And in the ICW area, you can't sleep while anchored? What the heck is going on in the real world?

[Gracies]

Originally Posted by Wavewacker

Isn't there a length limit for a yacht or pleasure crafts?

Read Annex 1
Positioning and technical details of lights and shapes

[Wavewacker]

Originally Posted by Gracies

Read Annex 1
Positioning and technical details of lights and shapes

Thanks,
I don't mind looking something up, Annex 1 of what?

What about the watch and sleep deprevation or incapactation? Opinions....

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by Wavewacker

Had no idea! Red over red, red & white, green, ....I've never seen all these colors on a mast, just white. Isn't there a length limit for a yacht or pleasure crafts?

24/7 watch? Only from what I have read, is that a tanker is not going to change course regarless of what you might show, you just better stay clear of them....like that saying, you could be dead right?

What happens sailing alone if the captain becomes incapacitated? Getting too sick....and then if you can get too sick, what about sleep deprevation that causes all sorts of mental disabilities?

And what is this about getting a ticket, say 50 miles out and a naval court? And in the ICW area, you can't sleep while anchored? What the heck is going on in the real world?

For the majority of vessels, a white masthead light is all they ever will show... These other lights that we are talking about are called special lights, and are used to communicate the status and capabilities of the vessel, esp. when it will have a negative impact on the vessels around it. So even small craft need to know these lights. Special lights are all-round lights in a vertical configuration below the masthead. As follows:

1. Red-Green = Sailing vessel
2. Red-White = Fishing vessel
3. Green-White = Fishing trawler
4. White-Red = Pilot boat
5. Red-White-Red = Working Vessel restricted ability to manouver
6. Red-Red = Vessel not under command (ie. out of control)
7. Red-Red-Red = Big ship in shallow water
8. Green-Green-Green = Minehunter clearing mines - you see one of these on the horizon, you stop!

[Gracies]

The International regulations For Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (colregs)
After the rules you have annex´s I, II, III and IV

Regarding Sleep dep. etc. i assume this would lead to a pan pan or even a mayday so lights are the last thing on my mind

[capn_billl]

I was originally on one side of this ..."discussion", but have been swayed by the few actually thought out posts. The arguements for using NUC for nap, while I believe are technically correct, (repeated posts by the "experts" aside), serve no purpose as they do not substantially change the status of a sailboat under colregs.

If displaying the proper lights the sailboat is already the stand on vessel. (it is unlikely the bridge crew of a freighter will see a red over green, or a tricolor, and say ok to run her over, no wait red over red we should go around).

The problem is the fact that sailboats are hard to see and don't show up well on radar, and the bridge crew of a large ship is primarily concerned with things that are big enough to sink them, and take several miles to make a course change.

NO lights or combination of lights is going to change that. The major shortcoming of sailboat lights required to be visible at 2nm in clear weather is that they will not be seen in time to be avoided.

Suggestion 1, insure you are displaying the proper red over green for a sailboat under sail.
Suggestion 2. make them as bright as you can, 20nm lights on mast might be a good start.
suggestion 3. modern bridge crews spend most of their time watching the radar, and chartplotter, (sorry just a fact of life, right or wrong you don't exist unless you can make a light flash on the dashboard), RADAR, AIS, securite' sent on VHS, they can't avoid you unless they know you are there.

suggestion 4. Start a campaign for sailboat awareness among freight companies, maybe petition to governing authorities for a non emergency "don't hit me" signal. This could be a combination of a distinctive lights and sound with a radio "splash" that can be easily detected by any equipement.

The simple fact that some, even famous sailboats, have been hit shows there is a problem. Sailboats have been hit that WERE keeping a watch, (a 8kt sailboat cannot out maneuver a 40KT freighter no matter what). It is really up to the freighter to avoid a collision, but first they must see you.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

There where problems with the GRANHOLM case. One was that his account of going below to sleep is not consistent with the timeline of event leading up to the collision. He could just as easily been reading in the cockpit and not looking around at all. Based upon his account, he should have seen the EXPRESS's lights before going below to sleep. So why didn't he see the lights? The judge could only presume that he wasn't keeping a lookout. He also didn't address why he decided to sleep at night instead of his usual practice of sleeping during the day. All of this while being in an area where ships were known to transit.

Simply put, there was reasonable doubt that he was keeping a lookout as required under the rules. He didn't show any reason why he wasn't keeping a proper lookout. There was no underwater leak that needed to be fixed to avoid sinking, no medical issue that needed immediate attention, no physical exhaustion due to fatigue, or any other exceptional circumstance.

Assuming Granholm had been able to justify not keeping a lookout and that his vessel was showing some form of light, the EXPRESS might have been in some serious trouble. Especially, since vessels are not allow to hit anything with a light on it under the rules.

The point was neither one saw anything so both have the blame.. no excuses..

[Surfer Girl]

Some people aren't going to like this but I don't care - what's more important than you or me is the safety of everyone who takes to sea on a boat! That over rides what is convenient. If you cut corners, you increase risk and decrease safety. The word seamanship doesn't just mean how well you can sail a vessel, it encompasses the history, courtesies, selfless help of others in need and practises that make being at sea safe for all!


It basically comes down to people taking responsibility for there own actions, something that is happening less and less in society. People these days are always looking for a way to blame someone else or the system...
As a single hander on long passages, you are taking a risk and not just for yourself. When you are asleep you are breaking maritime law; no ifs, no buts, no it's open to interpretation! You are not keeping proper lookout.... an important regulation for obvious reasons! When you are asleep and not anchored, your vessel is still 'underway' and 'normal' nav lights and signals apply - you are not NUC, not constrained by draft, not restricted in manoeuvrability, etc and not exempt from the ColRegs!

Displaying false signals (like NUC) is deferring responsibilty - you chose to sail single handed, so you chose the risk that goes with being asleep whilst not keeping proper lookout. That could mean a collision with another vessel and if that vessel had my wife and kids on it (or what if it was yours), I'd be ramming your NUC signal right up your kazoo!! Or it could also mean you sail onto a reef....

Now realistically, when single handing crossing an ocean, there is little chance of a collision and sailors have been doing it for over a hundred years. Although, with short crewed container ships these days who are often also not keeping proper lookout in the middle of the ocean, there's a chance you'll be sliced in two and the container crew wouldn't even know it. But again that's the risk you take.

Personally, I wouldn't single hand on a long passage (for many reasons). When I skipper a boat across an ocean or overnight, there is always someone on watch with their safety line always attached to the vessel, no exceptions.

If you singlehand across an ocean, I respect your choice and admire your grit. If you singlehand coastal hopping and allow yourself to sleep instead of making safe harbour to rest before going on, then I neither admire you nor want to be within 500NM of you.