Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

That, sir, is errant pedantry, up with which we shall not put. — Churchill

Ah, ye quoteth the First Lord of the Admiralty. So did ChurchILL heave too, or hove too, that is the question.

That, sir, is errant pedantry, with which we shall not put up with. - said some one, or someone, too.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Happ

But then while we are on to the subject of grammar, I recall learning that a preposition is also a poor choice of word to end a sentence with.

Originally Posted by Bycrick

That, sir, is errant pedantry, up with which we shall not put. — Churchill

Well done all around.



Language is all we have to communicate ideas and if we do not treat it with respect we cannot be surprised to be misunderstood, up with which I will not put.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by exMaggieDrum

Around the Puget Sound the USCG will stop vessels (power, sail, whatever) and do safety inspections (and also look for illegal activities). I am sure they do so in most common shipping and sailing bodies of water in the US. I think Canada does and I know Australia and New Zealand do.


The USCG is pretty strict and they will normally write up a deficiency on a boat which does not meet safety standards. A friend of mine and his wife were sailing on the East Coast going north and they were stopped for an inspection. They were written up for not having a waste disposal placard displayed. The USCG insisted they head to port and get this corrected before continuing their voyage even if it meant going south to the nearest anchorage or dock. They talked them out of that promising to correct it at their next port.


I have spoken and know of many other vessels here who have been inspected with similar results. If you are in port they will basically say you cannot get underway without bringing their vessel up to compliance with these arcane rules (many of which have nothing to do with the COLREGs.


I have never heard of them giving a boat a deficiency because they did not carry a sculling oar and the "proper" means of utilizing it. Nor I have I heard of them writing up a boat because it was not carrying ALL the various balls and lights as would be used for RAM and NUC, except for the little emergency flags (orange background with a black circle) and up to date flares and signaling devices. So it would seem that they don't think not carrying all the black balls and red signals is higher priority than having the waste/oil disposal placards and "standard" flares and other basic signaling devices on board.



Why they do the one and not the other is unknown to me and others in my sailing circle. Seems like this would be a higher priority than the placards.



Just a comment. Personally I have carried large signal flags and flares both inshore and offshore but have not had the balls or a means to hoist red lights separate from my navigation and anchor lights. Australia and New Zealand in my experience and from readings are much stricter in general but I do not know if they require recreational boats to carry the balls/triangles and special lights.

It's been a while, but in my experience, a USCG or US Customs Boarding Officer has some latitude regarding warning vs written violations. Not sure what the standard is now, but we could issue warnings for up to three minor safety or environmental violations. Some violations like overloading, not enough life jackets, or drunkenness will "terminate your voyage" immediately. An unserviceable life jacket or expired flare will likely get a warning.

Just like any law enforcement encounter, Joe Citizen usually determines his own fate. The officer has a sworn duty to be professional, courteous, respectful, and helpful. Joe Citizen has a civic duty to do the same.

[Sailmon]

I’m inclined to agree with NUC. If you are under way & unable to control your boat in such a way as to safely or predictably (to other mariners) fulfill your obligations under colregs, you are NUC (very near the top of the pecking order).

[parkstone bay]

I looked at the original question. The poster did not want bewigged, be-gowned armchair admiralty lawyers, but practical solutions in difficult situations. Unfortunately I don't see that he could claim either RAM or NUC status. RAM defines the restriction in ability to manoeuvre as "from the nature of her work" - it usually covers such eventualities as, for example, nav. mark maintenance, pipeline ops, or helicopter or aircraft work from naval vessels. It doesn't cover fishing, which is a different category,of course. NUC defines the restriction slightly differently, as " from some *exceptional* circumstance" - it usually covers such unforeseen issues as failure of steering gear - I stress "exceptional".
RAM clearly does not apply - his sailing boat is not working on a pipeline, laying nav. marks, or flying off aircraft. His steering gear hasn't failed - if he had one or two knots of way, it'd work fine, and lack of wind can hardly be considered "exceptional"; indeed, we are discussing it right now. So I can't see that he can claim NUC either. The only practical suggestion I can offer is a VHF call on Ch 16, ready to continue the conversation on a working channel, though as his boat has NO means of auxiliary power at all, I wonder if he'll have a working VHF. I do wonder slightly, though, at the boat going blue-water sailing in the 21st century without any auxiliary propulsion at all.

[Lodesman]

Is a power-driven vessel that has run out of fuel, considered NUC?
If it is, then surely a wind-driven vessel that has run out of wind is also NUC.

[Adelie]

A wind driven vessel with no alternative propulsion would be NUC the way I read the 1890s commentary that somebody posted much earlier.

If they had some form of propulsion such as oars for the dinghy then they would be obligated to use them if a potential collision arose but might be considered RAM due to low speed.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Is a power-driven vessel that has run out of fuel, considered NUC?
If it is, then surely a wind-driven vessel that has run out of wind is also NUC.

The difference is that running out of fuel is obviously an "exceptional circumstance", whereas a calm is not obviously that (if not "obviously not that" ).


However, I think wise men may disagree about this. The case law does not give a clear answer. Certainly, a becalmed sailing vessel doesn't fit the letter of the law for NUC, at least, but a number of commentators think that a becalmed sailing vessel IS NUC, nevertheless.




In my own opinion, it doesn't much matter whether it fits the letter of the law or not. If you are becalmed and have no auxiliary propulsion (and are too big to scull), I think it is good and seamanlike to show NUC if you carry the signals. Because it clearly conveys to other vessels the information that you won't maneuver because you can't, and that information is useful and contributes to safety.



There was a terrible accident some years ago where a Sydney Harbour ferry ran down and sank a becalmed racing boat. In court later, the skipper of the ferry said that he didn't understand that the yacht couldn't get out of the way. So here is at least one case where showing NUC, whether or not it was actually justified according to the letter of the law, might have even saved lives.


Looking at it another way -- if you do get into an accident, then you will most likely get blamed one way or the other anyway. So the main point is not to avoid blame, but to avoid the accident. In my opinion it is useful to look at the COLREGS in this light altogether.

However not taking that principle so far as to wantonly disregard the Rules. Because compliance with the Rules and creation of predictability is itself a cornerstone of safety.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The difference is that running out of fuel is obviously an "exceptional circumstance", whereas a calm is not obviously that (if not "obviously not that").

You have clearly not been listening to marine VHF near Annapolis MD during a summer weekend. *grin* That doesn't even count all the boats that don't have or use VHF who call for help using cell phones. *sigh*

Originally Posted by Dockhead

However, I think wise men may disagree about this. The case law does not give a clear answer. Certainly, a becalmed sailing vessel doesn't fit the letter of the law for NUC, at least, but a number of commentators think that a becalmed sailing vessel IS NUC, nevertheless.

At the risk of someone lumping me in with bewigged armchair admiralty lawyers as noted earlier in the thread, I'll reflect further.



If I'm towing a side scan sonar (as I have before) and showing RAM and see another vessel showing RAM I'm going to expect that vessel to act predictably, maintain course and speed until making a change (early and distinct), and frankly expect communication on VHF 13.



If I'm in the same conditions showing RAM and see a vessel showing NUC I'm not going to expect anything of them, although I'll try VHF 13. I'm likely going to prepare to recover my sonar (a significant effort and expensive disruption for the activities I was engaged in). I'll probably call the USCG (or national equivalent) to report a vessel NUC. If this is a single-handed sailor taking a nap there are going to be a lot of cranky people.



Frankly in those conditions showing RAM and seeing a sailboat bobbing around I'm going to treat that boat as a force of nature likely to act unpredictably and erratically until proven otherwise. This is why I work hard while sailing to act professionally, including coordination on VHF 13.



If I am not in a special category my reaction to seeing a sailboat showing RAM or NUC is going to be similar. First is that the crew probably doesn't really understand the rules so I'm going to respond accordingly. *sigh* I'm probably going to call the authorities to report someone who may be in extremis.



So while I personally think NUC is more appropriate than RAM, from a commercial perspective it doesn't matter.



That is not to say that this discussion hasn't been and isn't worth while. It is. Anything that reviews the rules is helpful. In real life real people make real-time and near-real-time decisions based on their understanding of the rules and those around them take action on the basis of their own understanding of the rules. The better we understand them through study and discussion the more likely we are to respond appropriately at sea. That is a good thing.


The best thing you can do is get on the radio and communicate.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

You have clearly not been listening to marine VHF near Annapolis MD during a summer weekend. *grin* That doesn't even count all the boats that don't have or use VHF who call for help using cell phones. *sigh*

My father used to joke about that when we were out sailing towards the end of a long cruise:

"Son, get on the radio and put out a mayday. We're almost out of gin!"


How I miss those days. The old man swallowed the anchor and sold his boat a couple of years ago.

Originally Posted by Auspicious

At the risk of someone lumping me in with bewigged armchair admiralty lawyers as noted earlier in the thread, I'll reflect further.

If I'm towing a side scan sonar (as I have before) and showing RAM and see another vessel showing RAM I'm going to expect that vessel to act predictably, maintain course and speed until making a change (early and distinct), and frankly expect communication on VHF 13.

If I'm in the same conditions showing RAM and see a vessel showing NUC I'm not going to expect anything of them, although I'll try VHF 13. I'm likely going to prepare to recover my sonar (a significant effort and expensive disruption for the activities I was engaged in). I'll probably call the USCG (or national equivalent) to report a vessel NUC. If this is a single-handed sailor taking a nap there are going to be a lot of cranky people.

Frankly in those conditions showing RAM and seeing a sailboat bobbing around I'm going to treat that boat as a force of nature likely to act unpredictably and erratically until proven otherwise. This is why I work hard while sailing to act professionally, including coordination on VHF 13.

If I am not in a special category my reaction to seeing a sailboat showing RAM or NUC is going to be similar. First is that the crew probably doesn't really understand the rules so I'm going to respond accordingly. *sigh* I'm probably going to call the authorities to report someone who may be in extremis.

So while I personally think NUC is more appropriate than RAM, from a commercial perspective it doesn't matter.

That is not to say that this discussion hasn't been and isn't worth while. It is. Anything that reviews the rules is helpful. In real life real people make real-time and near-real-time decisions based on their understanding of the rules and those around them take action on the basis of their own understanding of the rules. The better we understand them through study and discussion the more likely we are to respond appropriately at sea. That is a good thing.


The best thing you can do is get on the radio and communicate.

I guess I agree with all this more or less.


I think there's pretty wide agreement here that RAM is totally inappropriate. If any more or less experienced mariner sees a recreational boat showing RAM then I think 90% of those people will just dismiss the recreational sailor as some kind of fool and will assume that ANYTHING could happen, and try to steer a wide berth. Perhaps that achieves the purpose, but it's a poor way to do it.


NUC, on the other hand, sends a clear message that no maneuvering is going to happen, and I think that's coherent and even appropriate. That this signal, too, will be dismissed by professionals who will assume that it's some kind of WAFI silliness, as you say, can't be excluded, though.


These:

Originally Posted by Auspicious

In real life real people make real-time and near-real-time decisions based on their understanding of the rules and those around them take action on the basis of their own understanding of the rules. The better we understand them through study and discussion the more likely we are to respond appropriately at sea. That is a good thing.

are words to live by.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Son, get on the radio and put out a mayday. We're almost out of gin!"

*grin* I was in a light air "long distance" race (silly buoy racers), only about 25 miles. It was really light air and we were chasing another boat - a yard one way or another over hours. We were really paying attention to timing out; if you don't finish within time bounds your finish doesn't count.


The boat we were chasing suddenly fired up their engine, sails came down, and they turned around. The AHITB started talking about whether they'd decided they couldn't make time or something else was going on.



One of the crew of the other boat yelled across "we ran out of beer."

[Montanan]

Since the 1972 Conference, becalmed / in irons sailing vessels have been classified as Not Under Command whereas previously apparently they were generally perceived to be as Restricted in Ability to Maneuver.

Reference: Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules
By A. N. Cockcroft, J. N. F. Lameijer

https://books.google.com/books?id=dg...calmed&f=false

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Since the 1972 Conference, becalmed / in irons sailing vessels have been classified as Not Under Command whereas previously apparently they were generally perceived to be as Restricted in Ability to Maneuver.

Reference: Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules
By A. N. Cockcroft, J. N. F. Lameijer

https://books.google.com/books?id=dg...calmed&f=false

Extra credit for the research, but if you read the relevant paragraph it was presented as an opinion of the author(s) and not an IMO statement or statement of precedent. Mr. Cockcroft's credentials are certainly worth some respect so his opinion should carry weight.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Since the 1972 Conference, becalmed / in irons sailing vessels have been classified as Not Under Command whereas previously apparently they were generally perceived to be as Restricted in Ability to Maneuver.

Reference: Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules
By A. N. Cockcroft, J. N. F. Lameijer

https://books.google.com/books?id=dg...calmed&f=false

That's not what the Conference decided:






Cockcroft (I corresponded with him before his death BTW) has written elsewhere that he thought a becalmed sailing vessel (with no motor, obviously) might be NUC, but this is not settled law.


Cockcroft writes:


"[E]xamples of vessels which are likely to be accepted as being not under command under the 1972 Rules are: a vessel with her anchor down but not holding, a vessel riding to anchor chains with anchors unshackled, and a sailing vessel becalmed."


Note the word LIKELY.



Where did you get that becalmed sailing vessels were EVER considered RAM? There's nothing about it in Cockcroft's commentary (I just looked through it again), and never heard of a case. As we've discussed, RAM is really just wholly inapplicable to a becalmed S/V.




Whether a becalmed S/V might be NUC is a very exotic question today because sailing vessels without auxiliary propulsion getting into risk of collision situations with ships is exceptionally rare.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Extra credit for the research, but if you read the relevant paragraph it was presented as an opinion of the author(s) and not an IMO statement or statement of precedent. Mr. Cockcroft's credentials are certainly worth some respect so his opinion should carry weight.

Agreed, as Cockcroft stated: "Examples of vessels which are likely to be accepted "not under command":"

Per Cockcroft, misstayed / becalmed / "in irons" sailing vessels are not under command as they are unable to get out of the way and when not moored are a drift and will be underway because of current, or due to very light wind.

The determination of a vessels status as to its ability to maneuver, not under command or constrained by draft is at the master's discretion. Or at the master's opinion.

Reference United States Coast Guard's published guidance [read, yet another opinion] as to Frequently Asked Questions regarding the NavRules: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...sFAQ#Rule%2025

25. How does a vessel know another is restricted in their ability to maneuver, not under command, or constrained by draft?
A vessel’s status is communicated via their display of lights and shapes. The determination of whether a vessel is restricted in their ability to maneuver is at the master’s discretion. Should a master consider their vessel restricted in their ability to maneuver, the vessel shall exhibit the lights or shapes as such (Rule 27) in accordance with the technical specifications (Annex I). If a vessel is not displaying the appropriate lights/shapes for a vessel restricted in their ability to maneuver, then it is assumed that they are not. Thus, the vessel’s conduct is governed by Rules 2-18 when in sight of other vessels and Rule 19 when not (or areas of restricted visibility).

US Code of Federal Regulations:

§ 83.18 Responsibilities between vessels (Rule 18).
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 (§§ 83.09, 83.10, and 83.13) otherwise require:

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) A vessel not under command;

(ii) A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;

(iii) A vessel engaged in fishing;

(iv) A sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) A vessel not under command;

(ii) A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; and

(iii) A vessel engaged in fishing.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:

(i) A vessel not under command; and

(ii) A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

Whereas a Vessel Not Under Command is – A vessel underway, but unable to keep out of the way of other vessels because an exceptional
circumstance is hindering of its maneuverability (e.g., steering failure, propulsive power breakdown, etc.). Since the vessel can't keep out of the way, it is thence not required to "shall keep out of the way" of other vessels. All quite rational alignment of shared responsibilities.


Vessel Restricted In Its Ability To Maneuver – A vessel unable to keep out of the way of other vessels because
the nature of its work is hindering its ability to maneuver (buoy tender picking up a buoy, vessel transferring persons,
provisions or cargo while underway, etc.)

Underway – A vessel not at anchor, aground or made fast to the shore

The difference between RAM and NUC is that a RAM is hindered in ability to maneuver and thus inhibited in its ability to get out of the way [explicitly only by the nature of its work and presumably only during the duration of the specific inhibiting nature of work], all though a RAM vessel is not unable to maneuver, it is merely limited in its ability, particularly as to be inhibited in a timely ability to get out of the way; whereas NUC status implies the vessel is unable to get out of way, albeit due to exceptional conditions and lack of propulsive capabilities due to lack of windage is one of those conditions just as lack of engine power capability [out of fuel, mechanical breakdown] or loss of rudder control or effectiveness can make a powered vessel to be of NUC status.

A further Reference: Seamanship by Admiral Sir William Hannam Henderson, KBE (20 June 1845 – 29 April 1931) was a British flag officer of the Royal Navy, and the first editor of The Naval Review. And which words are copied verbatim from the earlier booklet titled: Hints on boat sailing and racing. Which booklet was published by Griffen, in 1882 and written by Charles Cooper Penrose-Fitzgerald (30 April 1841 – 11 August 1921) who was a Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy and whose career included a stint as Captain of the British Royal Naval college.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PD...page&q&f=false

Stated [opinionated] yet another way for which a snipet of which is attached below: "A boat or ship is said to be "in-irons" when she is not under command, . . . " see image below for completion of relevant quote.

There being many other credible opinions in this subject matter.