Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-03-2008, 20:45   #46
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking Sailor View Post
Beside the fact that a vessel under sail almost always has the right of way at sea, there is always COLREGS Rule 27 (a) (iii) which allows for a vessel not under command but making way. I guess there is a legal way to sail solo after all.

Suggest you go back to the rule book and check rule 3(f):
"The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

Sailing away from dock without sufficient crew to maintain a watch hardly constitutes "exceptional circumstances".

BTW, there is no "right of way" in the Rules.

Kevin
__________________

__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 23:31   #47
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 976
Images: 6
Quote:
A 57 1/2 day circumnavigation is an impressive feat in a fully-crewed boat. At what point do we stop supporting such dangerous adventures? From here on, every attempt to improve on Joyon's record will only be more dangerous, as the boats become faster and lighter, as shorter vs safer routes are taken, etc., etc. Really, is it safe to sail a racing boat at the limits of its performance, essentially unattended during sleep periods? How many deaths will be acceptable?
I guess we will have to wait and see. Space travel still happens, people still race cars, bungy jumping is now done by grannys, and the human spirit has not yet been tamed. Squashed a little perhaps, but a small, dangerous, wonderful glint still occasionally sparks out.....
__________________

__________________
cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 03:22   #48
Certifiable Refitter/Senior Wannbe
 
Wotname's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of 43 S, Australia
Boat: Van DeStat Super Dogger 31'
Posts: 7,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
A 57 1/2 day circumnavigation is an impressive feat in a fully-crewed boat. At what point do we stop supporting such dangerous adventures? From here on, every attempt to improve on Joyon's record will only be more dangerous, as the boats become faster and lighter, as shorter vs safer routes are taken, etc., etc. Really, is it safe to sail a racing boat at the limits of its performance, essentially unattended during sleep periods? How many deaths will be acceptable?

Kevin
OK, enlighten me, when has this become a dangerous adventure - risky perhaps. It may seem dangerous to some as we all have different levels of risk exposure but just because some believe it to be dangerous doesn't make it so.

I suggest it is right and proper to call it dangerous when there is factual evidence to support the claim. I can only recall the death of two solo sailors; Solcum and Crowhurst. Factually the cause of Solcum's death is undetermined while AFIK Crowhurst's death was considered suicide, therefore I can't count them of as evidence that solo sailing is dangerous.

I am sure there are some others but considering the number of solo sailors out there, the number of solo circumnavigators and the number non stop solo circumnavigators; it would appear to me to be factually safe. Probably because those who undertake such activities know the risks, plan very well and are well prepared.

In deed, perhaps given the number of accidents with crewed vessels (of all types), it may be crewed vessels that are less safe and maybe even dangerous. I don't see anyone (yet) suggesting private yachting or commerical shipping be curtailed because accidents and deaths occur.

As to "how many deaths will be acceptable", well that is a minefield. First and foremost, providing the death is only that of the risk taker, I suggest there is no upper limit. It any one wants to take a risk that MIGHT result in only their death, why should they be legally prevented. Discouraged maybe - not prevented.

If solo sailors start killing others in any statistical quantity, then the community has a whole has to make the decisions of what is acceptable and what is not. We seem to be pretty tolerant of drivers (sober or otherwise) killing people so perhaps we could be equally as tolerant of solo sailors IF they start killing others say proportionally to drivers.

Perhaps off the topic but how about divers. Diving seems pretty risky (perhaps dangerous) and certainly results in a lot of death. How many deaths are acceptable there? So far - quite a few it would seem.

Oh and bicycle riding and ......
__________________
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangereous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. T.E. Lawrence
Wotname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 03:39   #49
Certifiable Refitter/Senior Wannbe
 
Wotname's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of 43 S, Australia
Boat: Van DeStat Super Dogger 31'
Posts: 7,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
I would find the thought that one is not responsible for one’s own actions downright uncivilized, as well as distasteful.
I have to agree (totally) and I might add inmoral but I see a difference between "responsible" and "liable". I am aware some others make no distinction between the two.

And IMHO to equate "responsibility" to "legal liability" creates more problems then it solves. Just my view - I defend your right to hold an opposing view (but not to legislate it )
__________________
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangereous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. T.E. Lawrence
Wotname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 06:18   #50
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wotname View Post
I suggest it is right and proper to call it dangerous when there is factual evidence to support the claim. I can only recall the death of two solo sailors; Solcum and Crowhurst. Factually the cause of Solcum's death is undetermined while AFIK Crowhurst's death was considered suicide, therefore I can't count them of as evidence that solo sailing is dangerous.
OK - why don't you google these names:
Harry Mitchell, Mike Plant, Nigel Burgess, Gerry Roufs, Jim Gray, Jacques DeRoux, Alain Colas, Arthur Piver, Eric Tabarly, David Cartwright

All lost at sea while single-handing.

While you're at it, check out:
Ken Barnes, Steven Callahan, Nigel Tetley, Raphael Dinelli

All solo-sailors who needed to be rescued, at least three of them in the southern ocean.

Not only was this activity dangerous for the aforementioned, but there were countless lives put on the line searching for and/or rescuing same.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	I-will-use-Google-before-asking-dumb-questions.gif
Views:	90
Size:	26.7 KB
ID:	2948  
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 07:27   #51
Certifiable Refitter/Senior Wannbe
 
Wotname's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of 43 S, Australia
Boat: Van DeStat Super Dogger 31'
Posts: 7,327
Thanks for the information of others lost at sea, now that I read your list, I do remenber a couple of them.

Please be patient with me but I am still not sure of the connection to the point that I think you are trying to make. That solo sailing is dangerous because it is solo rather than crewed.

Without googling every one of the names, how many do you think (or more importantly - know) have come to grief BECAUSE they where solo rather than some other reason.

Likewise the sailors rescued - were they rescued because of the SOLO sailing.

Let's assume for the monent I agree with your premise that solo sailing is dangerous, I would argue that crewed sailing is dangerous and would cite similar arguments to support this claim. So would you want to limit crewed sailing in the same way?

I think (if I google it ), that I would find many many many more countless lives put on the line searching / rescuing crewed vessels or it is allright if you or I need rescuing just because we have decided to be safe and take a crew with us.

Actually I don't believe I have a moral right to expect rescue if I have voluntarily gone to sea which is a risk in itself - crewed or otherwise.

As to your attached thumbnail - I am assuming that it is tongue in cheek; if not and my "dumb" questions offend you, just don't bother replying
__________________
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangereous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. T.E. Lawrence
Wotname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 08:05   #52
Registered User
 
PBzeer's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cruising
Boat: Ontario 32 - Aria
Posts: 133
Going back a bit, I'm trying to figure out why singlehanding is necessarily a "selfish" pursuit. I can't speak for other's, but for myself, I singlehand from necessity, not because I don't want to share the boat. Finding crew is not always that easy.

In the main though, singlehanding is all about preperation. Understanding what lies ahead, making plans for it, and then adapting to whatever the situation demands.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - "Aria"

Within a dream, we may find a fantasy,
But never within a fantasy, will we live a dream.
PBzeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 08:15   #53
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,571
Images: 240
The original query wondered how sleeping single-handers avoided collisions:

Quote:
Originally Posted by latitude0
I recently read an article about some guy who crossed the Atlantic in a small sailboat. He didn't have a crew to keep a watch schedule, and he would have needed to sleep at some point on the trip. How did he do it? Have modern electronics progressed to the point where sonar and radar can safely keep watch for a few hours at night, waking the singlehanding skipper when the boat is on an intercept course with a radar target or sonar detects a submerged danger? Was this guy just lucky not to hit anything?
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 10:06   #54
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Boat: nebe cape 28
Posts: 65
Images: 25
wotname I think you said all very well. that was my point tooooo
__________________
lived on my pearson 35 for 7 yrs,I now have a nebe cape 28,great pocket cruiser. Can be seen on youtube.
windshadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 11:20   #55
Registered User
 
Bill G's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Boat: Vancouver 32 cutter
Posts: 36
cruising, not racing

I feel that single-handed long-distance cruising can be accomplished safely and for the purposes of our discussion, I think we need to differentiate between single-handed cruising and single-handed racing. Many of the solo sailors lost over the years have been involved in races or in preparing for races, with distinctly greater dangers due to pushing their equipment and physical limits.
__________________
Bill G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 14:21   #56
Registered User
 
Viking Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco Bay
Boat: Fantasia 35 - s/v Feeling Good
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
Suggest you go back to the rule book and check rule 3(f):
"The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."

Sailing away from dock without sufficient crew to maintain a watch hardly constitutes "exceptional circumstances".

BTW, there is no "right of way" in the Rules.

Kevin
A little Goolging yielded the following court document:

852 F.2d 571

This admiralty action for maritime injury stems from a collision on the high seas between the TRYEND and the M/V EASTERN GRACE. On May 10th the crew of the Tryend secured the vessel for the night. The Tryend drifted without power, without a lookout, and without displaying a not-under-command signal in a commercial shipping lane on the high seas.


BTW, even the USCG FAQ on the COLREGS uses the term "right of way".

__________________
Viking Sailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 15:10   #57
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking Sailor View Post
A little Goolging yielded the following court document:

852 F.2d 571

This admiralty action for maritime injury stems from a collision on the high seas between the TRYEND and the M/V EASTERN GRACE. On May 10th the crew of the Tryend secured the vessel for the night. The Tryend drifted without power, without a lookout, and without displaying a not-under-command signal in a commercial shipping lane on the high seas.


BTW, even the USCG FAQ on the COLREGS uses the term "right of way".

Did you read the judgment?

"The district court held that each vessel failed to maintain a proper lookout and that therefore each vessel was equally responsible for the collision. The district court did not determine which vessel was the privileged vessel, or whether a local custom of drifting without a lookout existed in the waters off Oregon. The district court also did not take into consideration whether the Eastern Grace's failure to stand by and render assistance exacerbated the injuries of the Tryend's crew. Appellants moved to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court denied the motion and entered judgment."

Hanging NUC lights and going to bed is not legal nor prudent. Tryend failed to maintain a lookout, and therefore lost their claim for damages against Eastern Grace.
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 15:21   #58
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,632
Wotname,

Yes, the attachment was tongue-in-cheek. It's a fair enough question as to whether those sailors would have come to grief in a crewed boat, but there are no easy answers. It cannot be known in most cases, as there were no surviving witnesses. But one could logically determine that there is a greater risk, when one is doing something that is inherently risky without help. Fatigue probably contributed to some taking the wrong course of action, or failing to notice imminent danger. A small injury could have gotten worse without someone there to apply first aid. Or the lone occupant could have fallen off the boat - in a crewed boat, there is a better chance that someone will hear you scream, or will eventually find you missing and turn around to come get you. Even after a traumatic event such as a dismasting - someone is probably more likely to stay with his boat, if there's someone there to lean on (speaking theoretically of course) - thinking especially of the Ken Barnes story.

Even Joyon is not immune to fatigue - he lost IDEC on the rocks less than a day after setting his record.


Kevin
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 15:25   #59
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking Sailor View Post
BTW, even the USCG FAQ on the COLREGS uses the term "right of way".
Yeah, only to say: "The International Navigation Rules do not confer upon any vessel the right of way however, certain vessels in sight of each other are responsible to keep out of the way of others."


To be fair, they do state right of way is used in the US Inland rules: "The Inland Navigation Rules convey the right of way under limited circumstances in Rule 9(a)(ii) "


Kevin
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2008, 18:34   #60
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Great Neck, N.Y.
Boat: Lancer 30, Little Jumps
Posts: 541
Worried about the single handed sailors? How about those single handed freighters!!! Lord knows some of them could not possibly have watches posted based some of the
odd goings on or lack of anything going on sometimes.
__________________

__________________
hugosalt
s/v Little Jumps
Lancer 30
hugosalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Singlehanded TransPac, 2008 TaoJones Cruising News & Events 3 02-12-2007 18:14
Singlehanded sailing Aquah0lic General Sailing Forum 2 13-10-2007 22:10
cutters-easily singlehanded? Scott k Monohull Sailboats 17 09-10-2005 00:15



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 17:40.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.