Red over Red - Not Under Command (NUC) Lights

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by jrd22

There is no "nap" light configuration or dayshape. It is not NUC, not RAM, not anything except "failure to maintain a proper watch". Just because you choose to violate one of the most basic regs does not make it right to use an incorrect light signal. If you choose to do so, at least acknowledge that that is what you are doing, don't try to rationalize it because it doesn't conveniently fall into another legit classification. If I were going to solo I would mount red over green lights and hope for the best, but I would not display red over red or any other combination unless the situation qualified under the rules. Any time you start changing the rules to suit yourself someone else (that knows the rules) is going to misinterpret what you doing and could not only put you in danger but the other vessel as well.

Wow....ever spend much time in the middle of the ocean with large commercial traffic going by???? A small sailboat with red over red is hardly going to hazard anyone....

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Bash

If I saw an anchor light mid-ocean I'd probably assume I was seeing a stern light. Or maybe a steaming light.

Either way, it's probably not the message you want to send.

So you’d run them down?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Are you advocating no single handing or doing nothing to suggest a "status change" if the crew does nap???

Personally I would make an extended solo trip that required me to sleep. I would also not want to be in the vicinity of anyone doing so.

I have extensive experience in both passages, overnight sails and 48 hours sails. In total I have about 1200 hours of night sailing accumulated; all with crew.

If you wish to do so, please feel free, knowing that you are quite possibly in violation of the ColRegs. But that is for a court to decide.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capngeo

So you’d run them down?

If you think you see a stern-light, you would be an overtaking vessel and be required to keep clear. If you think you see a steaming light, you would be in a crossing situation and you would look for a side-light (or two) to determine who was stand-on and who was give-way.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Wow....ever spend much time in the middle of the ocean with large commercial traffic going by????

Yes.

A small sailboat with red over red is hardly going to hazard anyone....

They could well be. Anyone prepared to violate one of the ColRegs, may be just willing to violate others.

Heave-to, leave your nav lights on (stern and sidelights), make sure you have a good radar reflector, set a radar alarm, set an AIS alarm and be prepared for the consequences.

[psneeld]

I think the joke is that small sailboats should do whatever necessary not to get run over...THAT'S THE TRUE SPIRIT of the COLREGS!!!!!

While sailboats have the right of way in open water...we all know how effectice COLREGS lighting really works for small sailboats. AND DOES ANYONE THINK THE POWERS TO BE CARE?????? If they did...there would be a lot more going on in the maritime community to change things a lot faster...probably because there's just such a low number of collisions based solely on lights.

So discuss all you want but until there's clear direction or even some interest at international organizational level...I doubt it really matters no matter what you do...so do whatever you think will prevent you from getting run over.

[Boracay]

Showing any recognizable lights may not be desirable. I thought flashing yellow was a high speed craft (hovercraft, hydrofoil..).

But any non standard collection of lights may be better than nothing. Something that registers in the sleepy brain of the watchkeeper on a freighter.

I'll suggest flashing blue, maybe one over the other. Those police lights are pretty hard to ignore.

[evm1024]

First off you would be in violation of rule 5 See: Ask Attorney at least this lawyer thinks so.

I*'m at a bit of a loss as to the point of some of the posts on this thread. It appears that some are trying to make an exception to rule 5 for single handers.... But the modified rule could apply to others as well.

I would hate to be run over by a bulk oil carrier with no one at lookout (ot any other way for that matter).

[jackdale]

Interesting portion of an article.

How far does this pattern of thought go? In a 1984 court case (Granholm v. TFL
Express), a singlehanded yacht, Granholm, was run down from behind by the freighter
TFL Express (WindCheck, “Rules of Engagement,” October 2010.) The owner of the
Granholm sued the Express for failing to maintain a proper lookout (Rule 5) and to give
way to the overtaken vessel (Rule 13). The court agreed – but found the skipper of the
Granholm equally at fault. He was sleeping and thus had no lookout. “The obligation to
maintain a proper lookout falls upon great vessels and small, alike.”
But what of the singlehander who must sleep at some point? In fact, there is a widely
sanctioned race of singlehanders who race around the world. In the three-plus months
they are at sea, they must be asleep for the equivalent of a month! The courts have ruled
that the failure of the singlehander to maintain a proper – constant – lookout is
irresponsible in the context of Rule 5 AND Rule 2 (see above.) In summary, long,
singlehanded passages are by their very nature irresponsible and contrary to the
COLREGs – which govern all of us every time we leave the dock.

http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.c...12-colreg5.pdf

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by jackdale

If you think you see a stern-light, you would be an overtaking vessel and be required to keep clear. If you think you see a steaming light, you would be in a crossing situation and you would look for a side-light (or two) to determine who was stand-on and who was give-way.

Exactly! Regardless you’d stay out of the bludi way, no?

One thing I’ve learned (outside of that required for my first license 25 years ago) is that regardless of COLREGS, the rule of gross tonnage supersedes all other rules. YOU may be correct in the application of the rules, and in the eyes of the court, you’d be right......DEAD RIGHT!

If you’re singlehanding in a small boat and you HAVE to sleep, ANYTHING that attracts the attention of the watchstander of a ship bearing down on you is the CORRECT signal. Book learning is but ONE tool in your bag of tricks called experience... and 90% of it goes out the window when you slip the dock lines!

[jackdale]

From another sailing forum

As a follow up I emailed the USCG and talked to a friend who is an admiralty law attorney. Scraph's original interpretation of the rule was incorrect, for bad or good, but single-handed sailors are not absolved of rule 5 and keeping a look out via sight and eharing:

Here's the response:

"Sir,

Regarding single-handed lookouts, the 'best input' has been provided by the Court(s): "It may seem unfeeling to condemn single handed transatlantic sailors for sleeping at night. But they pursue this hazardous avocation voluntarily, and are not exempt from the requirements of prudent seamanship...[this sailor's] decision to go below during the nighttime was negligent. The obligation to maintain a proper lookout falls upon great vessels and small alike."
--GRANHOLM v. TFL EXPRESS, 576 F.Supp. 435, 1984 A.M.C. 943

We hope this answers your inquiry and we exhort you to always navigate safely,

U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Navigation Systems
Washington, DC 20593-7851"

And a brief excerpt from the ruling (Camera was the sailboat and Express the ship):

"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."

As I read that the judge gave more weight to the fact that he did not maintain a proper look out than the fact that the ship was over taking and give way to a vessel under sail.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Interesting portion of an article.



http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.c...12-colreg5.pdf

Right, Jack, they apportioned equal blame... but the monetary judgement was against the ship and in favor of the yacht, DESPITE his failure to stand watch.

There seems to be a mixed message here.

In the case of approaching a vessel showing only an anchor light -- when they look for a side light and don't see one, they must assume that it is a stern light, and thus need to keep clear as an overtaking vessel. Not how it is supposed to work, but this should avoid the collision.

Cheers,

Jim

[cdennyb]

So what I get from the core of this thread is...

Singlehanding beyond one's ability to stay awake and fullfilling the rule #5 makes for an illegal passage.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Right, Jack, they apportioned equal blame... but the monetary judgement was against the ship and in favor of the yacht, DESPITE his failure to stand watch.

There seems to be a mixed message here.

In the case of approaching a vessel showing only an anchor light -- when they look for a side light and don't see one, they must assume that it is a stern light, and thus need to keep clear as an overtaking vessel. Not how it is supposed to work, but this should avoid the collision.

Cheers,

Jim

Just show a red over green (in addition to nav lights), or a tricolour.

[sailorboy1]

all this rule debate, since it is so debated what do you think the chances are that others are going to know them and understand them the same way as you?