Singlehanded passage making, Best Practices

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

Interesting point. My cruising waters include the Coast of Oregon, Washington, and Northern CA as well as the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Salish Sea and the BC Coast. Large floating debris such as logs are very common and a number of vessels have been sunk by striking debris. I have frequently encountered large, hazardous debris myself. I have also encountered fishing vessels drifting at night with the crew asleep but such vessels are generally lit and much easier to see than mostly submerged debris. Some of my fellow boaters mostly avoid night time passages for that reason. I have made night time passages, but with adequate crew so that two people are on duty at any given time so there is always an alert lookout facing primarily to the front. Even under those circumstances, I am clearly accepting a risk. I acknowledge that the further you are from land, the less frequent is floating debris - but a hundred miles offshore there is still quite a bit in my experience. There have been substantial studies in recent years (partially brought on by the Fukushima disaster) about the origin of large debris washing up on the West Coast of the US and BC. Quite a bit of it comes from Asia. That tells me that there is a fair amount of debris in the mid-Pacific, though I would suspect that it concentrates in certain areas as does smaller plastic debris. The question I am posing is whether the better answer for the single handed passage maker is to just ignore this risk and press on, or if a prudent individual would heave to when asleep to largely avoid the possible damage of a collision with large floating debris.

I adjust my technique to meet the circumstances.. in the above situation I would heave to or lay ahull over night if quiet enough.
In open waters I keep sailing.. odds are better than if hove to to my mind.
But thats me..

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Dooglas

Interesting point. My cruising waters include the Coast of Oregon, Washington, and Northern CA as well as the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Salish Sea and the BC Coast. Large floating debris such as logs are very common and a number of vessels have been sunk by striking debris. I have frequently encountered large, hazardous debris myself. I have also encountered fishing vessels drifting at night with the crew asleep but such vessels are generally lit and much easier to see than mostly submerged debris. Some of my fellow boaters mostly avoid night time passages for that reason. I have made night time passages, but with adequate crew so that two people are on duty at any given time so there is always an alert lookout facing primarily to the front. Even under those circumstances, I am clearly accepting a risk. I acknowledge that the further you are from land, the less frequent is floating debris - but a hundred miles offshore there is still quite a bit in my experience. There have been substantial studies in recent years (partially brought on by the Fukushima disaster) about the origin of large debris washing up on the West Coast of the US and BC. Quite a bit of it comes from Asia. That tells me that there is a fair amount of debris in the mid-Pacific, though I would suspect that it concentrates in certain areas as does smaller plastic debris. The question I am posing is whether the better answer for the single handed passage maker is to just ignore this risk and press on, or if a prudent individual would heave to when asleep to largely avoid the possible damage of a collision with large floating debris.

Some possible examples of ways to adjust your lookout procedures:

If there is little debris and little traffic you could long nap at night and/or during the day.

If there is little debris and some traffic you could short nap at night and long nap during the day.

If there is little debris and a lot of traffic you could not nap at night and short nap during the day.

If there is some debris and/or some traffic you could short nap at night and during the day.

If there is a lot of debris you could heave-to at night.

If there is a lot of traffic you could not nap at night and short nap during the day.

[John A]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I adjust my technique to meet the circumstances.. in the above situation I would heave to or lay ahull over night if quiet enough.
In open waters I keep sailing.. odds are better than if hove to to my mind.
But thats me..

Adjusting to the circumstances is the most sensible thing I've read in this thread.
I always planned any extended naps for after 8 am. I figured that the 'A' team was on the bridge of an ships paying closer attention to traffic.

[Toaster]

Originally Posted by john61ct

But I'm curious as to exactly why you think free drifting is safer, you think it mathematically decreases the odds of an encounter?

Offshore, there is little floating debris that can sink you. So, the primary risk of dangerous collisions while you are asleep is from other vessels not keeping proper watch or not seeing you - ie primarily large boats. These are traveling much faster than the average sail boat. So, mathematically, it does not matter whether you are traveling 5kts, or hove to forereaching at 1kt. The probability per unit time of being hit is essentially the same, and is a function of the density of large ships and their speeds.

What does change the likelihood of collisions is the time spent on the water when you are not on watch. Thus, if heaving to each night increases the number of nights you are at sea, then heaving to will increase the odds of collision at some point in your passage.

Therefore, unless you are concerned about stationary debris, it seems to make sense to sail, not heave to, unless heaving to allows you other benefits (like better rest, better food, better arrival time, etc).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Toaster

Offshore, there is little floating debris that can sink you. So, the primary risk of dangerous collisions while you are asleep is from other vessels not keeping proper watch or not seeing you - ie primarily large boats. These are traveling much faster than the average sail boat. So, mathematically, it does not matter whether you are traveling 5kts, or hove to forereaching at 1kt. The probability per unit time of being hit is essentially the same, and is a function of the density of large ships and their speeds.

What does change the likelihood of collisions is the time spent on the water when you are not on watch. Thus, if heaving to each night increases the number of nights you are at sea, then heaving to will increase the odds of collision at some point in your passage.

Therefore, unless you are concerned about stationary debris, it seems to make sense to sail, not heave to, unless heaving to allows you other benefits (like better rest, better food, better arrival time, etc).

I think you definitely make a valid point about time on the water, and that is one good reason not to heave to.


However, I can't really agree that the difference between 5 (or 6, or 7) knots and zero (or 1) is not significant. On the contrary, if you are underway, your motion creates an actual crossing, where you may appear from somewhere off to the side, and where it may not be immediately obvious whether there is a problem or not. Hove to, you will be directly ahead of a ship on a collision course, more noticeable, and very obviously in the way. Furthermore, if you are hove to, it's obvious that you're not maneuvering, and the solution for the ship is easy -- he avoids you like any fixed obstacle.


This may not necessarily override other concerns, but I think it's really worth thinking about.

[danielamartindm]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Couldn't resist having a trifecta of single handing threads!

An AIS transmitter should be required equipment.

But required by whom? Formally mandating required equipment for single-handed passage making would be tantamount to legally endorsing the practice by a government agency- the laws would have to be amended to clarify what exactly constitutes an adequate watch. Personally, I'd like to see this happen to make single-handed passage making safer, and legal.

[john61ct]

I think the solo nutter crossing the ocean in a cockleshell should stay at least de facto legal.

Until there are dozens of instances per year where they threaten others' lives.

So many liberties taken away in the modern world, let's leave the oceans free until the last possible moment before the robotic AI overlords or black UN helicopters or whatever take over.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

I think the solo nutter crossing the ocean in a cockleshell should stay at least de facto legal.

Until there are dozens of instances per year where they threaten others' lives.

So many liberties taken away in the modern world, let's leave the oceans free until the last possible moment before the robotic AI overlords or black UN helicopters or whatever take over.

"De facto legal" is a self contradiction. What is legal is, by definition, de jure.


But if I understand what you're saying, I agree with you entirely. Should be just ignored and tolerated, and meanwhile single handers should strive to do it well and do it in a seaworthy way. Likewise I agree with the many folks here who think that single handed racing in fast sleds present the greatest risk to the tolerance which exists today.




HOWEVER, I do think that technology will advance fast, and that an entirely satisfactory robotic watchkeeper is entirely imaginable. This could be a subset of drone ship technology, and I could easily see it trickling down to us, and quite quickly. I don't think it would take much more than really good analysis of camera data plus AIS and radar data, with a well designed collision avoidance algorithm according to some generally accepted norms (COLREGS plus something else). It's probably less complex than self-driving cars on land.


Such a system would be a great safety enhancement on fully crewed boats as well.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"De facto legal" is a self contradiction. What is legal is, by definition, de jure.


But if I understand what you're saying, I agree with you entirely. Should be just ignored and tolerated, and meanwhile single handers should strive to do it well and do it in a seaworthy way. Likewise I agree with the many folks here who think that single handed racing in fast sleds present the greatest risk to the tolerance which exists today.




HOWEVER, I do think that technology will advance fast, and that an entirely satisfactory robotic watchkeeper is entirely imaginable. This could be a subset of drone ship technology, and I could easily see it trickling down to us, and quite quickly. I don't think it would take much more than really good analysis of camera data plus AIS and radar data, with a well designed collision avoidance algorithm according to some generally accepted norms (COLREGS plus something else). It's probably less complex than self-driving cars on land.


Such a system would be a great safety enhancement on fully crewed boats as well.

And there we have it.. the dream self sailing boat.. just enter a destination.. push a button and go..
Most folk will never 'get long distance' single handing.. but then most are pack animals.. the single hander is not..
Forget racers threatening singlehanding.. to much money, ego and public interest from dreamers, wanna be's.. just look at the threads that pop up here about races.. personally its of little interest to me..
The people doing it come from a different planet and have completely different motives for single handing.. fame, wealth, ambition, contacts.. rarely for the love of it and very few continue past their sell by date.
But now we have had our advisory on 'proper seamanship' from the pack we will be better for it..

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And there we have it.. the dream self sailing boat.. just enter a destination.. push a button and go..
Most folk will never 'get long distance' single handing.. but then most are pack animals.. the single hander is not..
Forget racers threatening singlehanding.. to much money, ego and public interest from dreamers, wanna be's.. just look at the threads that pop up here about races.. personally its of little interest to me..
The people doing it come from a different planet and have completely different motives for single handing.. fame, wealth, ambition, contacts.. rarely for the love of it and very few continue past their sell by date.
But now we have had our advisory on 'proper seamanship' from the pack we will be better for it..

Just one more feature needed for the 'ultimate' cruising yacht. Make it self-sailing and then add full video satellite uplink capabilities. You set a course, perhaps to cross the Pacific and then untie your boat and send it on its may. You go back to your land home and you can watch where 'you' are cruising from the comfort of your recliner. Not only more comfortable but safer too. Probably able to post to You Tube and make some money on the side.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

However, I can't really agree that the difference between 5 (or 6, or 7) knots and zero (or 1) is not significant.

Significant regrading what though? Been done many times so far, ships keep a good look out, very nearly all of them, radar & AIS alarms will pick up very nearly everything nearly all the time.
There could well be just as robust an argument in that you are making things worse by inviting ships to come and have a look to see if all is well by heaving too every night. I've regularly seen ships do a dog leg many miles away to give me more searoom , if you are moving or not they can do it very easily, no need whatsoever to make their life easier.
Stopping at night solo IME is completely necessary, IMHO more than that - it's just plain daft

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by conachair

Significant regrading what though? Been done many times so far, ships keep a good look out, very nearly all of them, radar & AIS alarms will pick up very nearly everything nearly all the time.
There could well be just as robust an argument in that you are making things worse by inviting ships to come and have a look to see if all is well by heaving too every night. I've regularly seen ships do a dog leg many miles away to give me more searoom , if you are moving or not they can do it very easily, no need whatsoever to make their life easier.
Stopping at night solo IME is completely UN-necessary, IMHO more than that - it's just plain daft

Fixed..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Significant regrading what though? Been done many times so far, ships keep a good look out, very nearly all of them, radar & AIS alarms will pick up very nearly everything nearly all the time.
There could well be just as robust an argument in that you are making things worse by inviting ships to come and have a look to see if all is well by heaving too every night. I've regularly seen ships do a dog leg many miles away to give me more searoom , if you are moving or not they can do it very easily, no need whatsoever to make their life easier.
Stopping at night solo IME is completely necessary, IMHO more than that - it's just plain daft

All good points.



Ships coming to see what's wrong might be another argument against it. Although I would think they would radio first, and you would keep the radio on, I think, and wake up if you're called.


Yes, very many ships keep a good lookout, but by going to sleep you are putting your life in their hands. I have encountered more than a few ships NOT keeping a good lookout, even in busy waters like the Channel and the North Sea. I guess far offshore the percentage of ships not keeping a sharp lookout goes up. I don't think it's daft at all, to think about how to reduce the risk of what happens, if you encounter one, and try to reduce the risks involved.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

All good points.



Ships coming to see what's wrong might be another argument against it. Although I would think they would radio first, and you would keep the radio on, I think, and wake up if you're called.


Yes, very many ships keep a good lookout, but by going to sleep you are putting your life in their hands. I have encountered more than a few ships NOT keeping a good lookout, even in busy waters like the Channel and the North Sea. I guess far offshore the percentage of ships not keeping a sharp lookout goes up. I don't think it's daft at all, to think about how to reduce the risk of what happens, if you encounter one, and try to reduce the risks involved.

To my mind having speed up is an asset in collision avoidance.. if one is already moving one can take evasive action so much quicker at 4-6kts than one can stumbling up.. accessing the situation then shaking out the genny or starting the engine (if its working/has fuel) and then getting up to decent speed and onto an evasion course.. or if as I had to do once.. stand in my irons till he passed less than 500m away.. this was 4am and 30nm N of Finisterre in a F8 on a little boat.. hard to spot on radar and near impossible by eye over 1/2nm.
Me.. I am in favour of the 2 Way AIS system.. it makes sleep routine much easier.. plus the knowledge that theres boats over ones horizon should reassure many that they are not as desperately alone as they may think..
I like other boats knowing exactly where I am..
Lets .me get a decent kip..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ships coming to see what's wrong might be another argument against it. Although I would think they would radio first, and you would keep the radio on, I think, and wake up if you're called.

Getting back to another related issue, ships coming to see what's wrong might also be another argument against signaling NUC. I would think that a vessel showing NUC far offshore and hove-to could reasonably instigate investigation by another vessel, maybe more so if a Class-A AIS is being used to transmit the signal over long distances. Has anyone ever encountered a vessel showing NUC on the high seas?