Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

. . . 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.
.

That's fine; but the cited quote is not talking about collision regulations (and in 1882 or whatever, the concept of NUC in collision avoidance didn't even exist), so this is not really relevant.


On the other side of the balance, however, another important authority, Llana & Wisneskey, agrees with Cockcroft and believes that a becalmed S/V may be NUC:



Rule3.html


As I've stated -- I do think NUC status for a becalmed S/V is logical; just it doesn't quite fit the letter of the Rule.

[Montanan]

Further reference for Navigation Rules of vessels claiming to be [i.e, at the discretion of the master] Not Under Command and list of specific examples of conditions that could result in determination of a not-under-command status:

Handbook of the Nautical Rules of the Road by Chris Llana & George Wisneskey published by The Naval Institute Press, 1986
Link:
Rule3.html


"A vessel claiming not-under-command status must (1) find itself in exceptional circumstances, and (2) thereby be unable to maneuver as would ordinarily be required by the Rules. The following are examples of conditions that could result in not-under-command status:

Vessel with anchor down but not holding
Vessel riding on anchor chains
Vessel with inoperative steering gear
Sailing vessel becalmed or in irons
Exceptionally bad weather (relative to vessel claiming status)

Vessels claiming not-under-command status are considered to be underway. That is, they re not considered to be at anchor, made fast to the shore, or aground.

Rule 18 assigns the privileges and obligations of not-under-command vessels with respect to other classes of vessels. Rule 27 prescribes the lights and shapes to be displayed by npt-under-command vessels."

About the authors:

Chris Llana is a former Coast Guard officer with a B.S. in naval architecture and marine engineering and advanced degrees in marine affairs (MMA) and law (JD). During his tenure as a civilian at Coast Guard Headquarters, he drafted the annexes to the Inland Navigation Rules and wrote other regulations implementing both International and Inland Navigation Rules. Subsequent to that, he worked for Comsat Corporation on policy issues concerning the International Maritime Satellite Organization. He currently writes novels and maintains a web site on the U.S. transition to the ATSC digital TV standard.

George Wisneskey is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and holds a master's degree in education from the George Washington University. As chief of the Coast Guard's Rules of the Road Branch before his retirement in 1982, he oversaw the drafting of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980. He is currently an active player in the Neuse River Foundation from his home base on North Carolina's coast.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's fine; but the cited quote is not talking about collision regulations (and in 1882 or whatever, the concept of NUC in collision avoidance didn't even exist), so this is not really relevant.


On the other side of the balance, however, another important authority, Llana & Wisneskey, agrees with Cockcroft and believes that a becalmed S/V may be NUC:



Rule3.html


As I've stated -- I do think NUC status for a becalmed S/V is logical; just it doesn't quite fit the letter of the Rule.

Per the USCG, claiming RAM, NUC is at the master's discretion.

Discretion: Noun. The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

Note that one's discretion could be a wise or unwise utilization of freedom.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Per the USCG, claiming RAM, NUC is at the master's discretion.

Discretion: Noun. The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

Note that one's discretion could be a wise or unwise utilization of freedom.

That does not mean that the legal right to claim NUC status is determined at the master's discretion.



If for example the master decides to let everyone go below and get drunk, and just show NUC, without any "exceptional circumstance" -- he will go to prison (in charge of a British Ship) if another vessel plows into his vessel and lives are lost. He cannot say that "I called it in my discretion; therefore we were NUC". NUC is defined by the Rules, objectively.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's not what the Conference decided:

Which does beg the question, does Dockhead with his experience in both the law and at sea wear his wig while sailing, and if so does he remove it when winds rise above F8? *grin* My apologies for a warped sense of humor. I believe Dockhead knows I hold his opinion in regard, in part because he so well separates fact from opinion.

Originally Posted by Montanan

The determination of whether a vessel is restricted in their ability to maneuver is at the master’s discretion.

In which case the USCG website FAQs are incorrect. RAM is pretty well defined and not at the master's discretion. NUC provides some more flexibility but is still not simply at the master's discretion.


It was well of you to bring this to attention. I am convinced that the USCG, not that the matter has been raised, will correct the language that is so prone to being misconstrued.


I'll point out that NO status is up to the master's discretion outside the definitions in the rules. All the head boats and recreational boats with lines in the water, including those with planer boards, are NOT fishing boats under the rules no matter how much crew and passengers jump up and down yelling "we're fishing."


That's why they're called "rules."

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's fine; but the cited quote is not talking about collision regulations (and in 1882 or whatever, the concept of NUC in collision avoidance didn't even exist), so this is not really relevant.


On the other side of the balance, however, another important authority, Llana & Wisneskey, agrees with Cockcroft and believes that a becalmed S/V may be NUC:



Rule3.html


As I've stated -- I do think NUC status for a becalmed S/V is logical; just it doesn't quite fit the letter of the Rule.

Perhaps not NUC in 1882, but in the early 1890's avoidance of collisions and enhanced communication of intentions for maneuvering where at the lead of the British navy subjects. Some snipets taken from wiki regarding Penrose-Fitzgerald and Tyron and enhanced signaling and the collision that resulted in the sinking of the fleet's flag ship, HMS Victoria and took Tryon's life and 358 crew members during practice maneuvers.

"On 7 November 1889 Penrose-Fitzgerald was made captain of HMS Collingwood in the Mediterranean. He was a proponent of rear-admiral George Tryon's ideas that a simplified system of flag signals was needed for particularly for battle conditions. After Tryon's death, he distributed a pamphlet seeking to continue the campaign for their adoption. Tryon drowned when his flagship HMS Victoria was sunk by a collision with HMS Camperdown during fleet manoeuvres, which caused both public and naval opinion to turn against him and his ideas. Tryon was held responsible for the sinking and his flag system also blamed. Fitzgerald wrote a biography describing Tryon's achievements during his career, but these efforts rebounded to the detriment of his own career.

As to Tryon, in January 1878 he was appointed to a committee set up to revise the general signal book. President of the committee was Rear Admiral Hope, other members were Captain Philip Colomb, Captain Walter Kerr, Commanders Bruce and Romilly. Colomb and Tryon represented divergent views on signalling, but all members of the committee were experts in the field while Kerr and Hope held the balance.

Admiral Tryon was concerned that the normal system of signalling between ships would become unworkable in real war conditions. To send a signal required hoisting a flag sequence, waiting for all ships to raise flags to confirm they had seen and understood, and then lowering the initial flags to signal everyone to carry it out. The signals book had grown to hundreds of pages describing the many possible flag combinations and virtually no one knew them all. In a real battle this process might take too much time, or might be entirely impossible if enemy fire had destroyed the masts from which the flags must fly, or smoke made them impossible to read. Instead, Tryon proposed a simple signal, using the letter-flags T and A, which simply instructed captains to follow their leader. Other flag signals might be used additionally as circumstances allowed, but once the initial order was given, the ships simply had to follow the movements of their leaders. A few, basic, single flag signals were designated for particular movements, which would simply be flown without needing acknowledgement.[79] This was a radical departure from contemporary practice, in which all movements were precisely signalled from the flagship and acknowledged by their recipients. Opinion was fiercely divided about it, for instance The Times newspaper considered it "unsound in theory and perilous in practice",[citation needed] whilst Rear-Admiral William Kennedy on the East Indies station declared following experiments with it that "the officers commanding thoroughly appreciated the idea which would be invaluable in time of war"

A link to a details regarding the collision occurring under the "TA system", a new system he had developed himself by which complex manoeuvres could be handled by only a few simple signals, but which required his ships' captains to use their initiative;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887)


On 22 June 1893, the fleet was on exercises when Tryon's flagship, HMS Victoria, sank following a bizarre order from him which brought it in collision with the flagship of his second-in-command, Rear Admiral Sir Albert Markham. Tryon went down with his ship, his last reported words being "It is all my fault". Tryon was considered by many of his contemporaries to be a supremely competent yet radical officer, but with a strong and sometimes overbearing personality. This manner was felt to be a contributory cause to the accident. For instance, an article in Society Journal Talk in July 1893 (following the accident) said, "Much has been said about George Tryon's charm of manner, and the rest of it, but in truth he was, at any rate when officially engaged, a very brusque and dictatorial man. Unfortunately he was a 'viewy' man too, a man of theories..."

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That does not mean that the legal right to claim NUC status is determined at the master's discretion.



If for example the master decides to let everyone go below and get drunk, and just show NUC, without any "exceptional circumstance" -- he will go to prison (in charge of a British Ship) if another vessel plows into his vessel and lives are lost. He cannot say that "I called it in my discretion; therefore we were NUC". NUC is defined by the Rules, objectively.

As the USCG states: It goes to How one knows whether a vessel is RAM, NUC or Constrained by Draft.

Claiming: Verb. State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

Discretion: synonyms: choice, option, judgment, preference, disposition, volition; pleasure, liking, wish, will, inclination, desire.

NUC pertains to the status of the vessel, and not the status of the crew. Ships don't get drunk, albeit if the Captain is drunk, the ship may well become sunk.

If a ship is claiming NUC or RAM and displaying signals or lights then it is up to your discretion whether to heed their claim of their inability to get out of the way and for you to navigate to avoid a collision or to navigate so as to have a collision. That is your right and power. Others may judge otherwise as to whether your claim or discretion was appropriate for the circumstances, or whether the other boat was unable to get out of the way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

As the USCG states: It goes to How one knows whether a vessel is RAM, NUC or Constrained by Draft.

Claiming: Verb. State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

Discretion: synonyms: choice, option, judgment, preference, disposition, volition; pleasure, liking, wish, will, inclination, desire.

NUC pertains to the status of the vessel, and not the status of the crew. Ships don't get drunk, albeit if the Captain is drunk, the ship may well become sunk.

If a ship is claiming NUC or RAM and displaying signals or lights then it is up to your discretion whether to heed their claim of their inability to get out of the way and for you to navigate to avoid a collision or to navigate so as to have a collision. That is your right and power. Others may judge otherwise as to whether your claim or discretion was appropriate for the circumstances, or whether the other boat was unable to get out of the way.

I don't really quite understand what you're getting at. So I'll speak plainly:


NUC status is defined objectively in the Rules. The master's discretion doesn't change the Rules and doesn't change the definition of NUC status. To illustrate: the master also has discretion to decide whether to give way or stand on, but that doesn't mean that he's right every time he exercises that discretion.


Hope that makes sense.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

....
NUC status is defined objectively in the Rules. .....

One can easily infer from that statement that the rules are clear though I doubt that was your implication.

If the rules were clear we wouldn’t have 10s of pages of discussion and argument every time the subject is broached.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Adelie

One can easily infer from that statement that the rules are clear though I doubt that was your implication.

If the rules were clear we wouldn’t have 10s of pages of discussion and argument every time the subject is broached.

No one said the Rules are so clear that they need no interpretation. But that is like almost any law. Clear as can be for the broad majority of cases, but requiring interpretation at the edges -- that's par for the course. Here we are really talking about an edge case -- how many sailing vessels are out in the sea lanes with no auxiliary propulsion?



But what is the proper basis of NUC status is a matter of law as defined in the Rules. If interpretation is required, then it will be a judge who has the final word, not the master. Montanan is misunderstanding what "discretion" is talking about in the CG notes. The master's discretion doesn't change the law. Indeed it is the master who decides whether to declare a certain nav status, but if he declares it, in his discretion, without a proper legal basis for it, then he (and the ship owner) will bear the legal consequences if it gets into court for some reason.


To give another example -- you can't just exercise your "discretion" to determine that your tubby full keel sailboat is fundamentally "restricted in its ability to maneuver" at all times, and weld the day shapes to your mast and show RAM signals all night every night. The legal basis for RAM status is established in the Rules, not in your discretion.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

In which case the USCG website FAQs are incorrect. RAM is pretty well defined and not at the master's discretion. NUC provides some more flexibility but is still not simply at the master's discretion.

It was well of you to bring this to attention. I am convinced that the USCG, not that the matter has been raised, will correct the language that is so prone to being misconstrued.

I have heard back from the Nav Rules people at USCG HQs. It is worth noting that while the USCG does not speak for the IMO they are very tightly engaged. In US waters their interpretations, subject to court decisions, are the word. I think we can count on them to identify perspectives that might be different in international or foreign waters.


They said, in part:

Originally Posted by USCG

Once the master has made a determination based on the above that the vessel falls into a special status category (e.g. restricted in a ability to maneuver, or not under command); in order to actually attain or declare that status to other vessels, 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.

The USCG Nav Rules folks cited a good chunk of the same portions of the rules (Inland and International) we have that they refer to as 'above.' They made a major point of the phrase "exceptional circumstances" with regard to NUC and to the list of representative conditions in the rules for RAM.


The upshot is that the master does not have the unilateral discretion to determine their status. The master has the discretion to determine if s/he falls into a particular status under the rules. That is all.



So the Mako trolling is not a fishing boat under the Rules regardless of the master's discretion (the USCG cited this example specifically in their communication with me). A solo sailor hove to and sleeping is not NUC regardless of the master's discretion. A sailboat towing a dinghy is neither towboat or RAM.

[Montanan]

There are instances wherein there is an inability to be able to make your [non-engine powered] sailboat maneuver because it is misstayed / becalmed / in-irons which means that you can't get out of the way and thus can not abide to the rules of navigation, hence since you can't command your vessel to maneuver [your sailed vessel being a drift and underway], then claiming NUC status is applicable under those circumstances so as to communicate to other vessels that they must maneuver to keep out of the way because you can't. All quite logical.

Reference:
Not Under Command, authored by
Carlos F. Salinas, Victoria Peña, Gonzalo Pérez and Tricia L. Horton
(Spanish Maritime Safety Agency)
THE JOURNAL OF NAVIGATION (2012), 65, 753–758. © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2012


https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...73463312000203


NOT UNDER COMMAND IN PRACTICE. An important fact
to be underlined is that if there is an accident where a vessel exhibits the NUC lights or shapes, that vessel will have to effectively prove that it was not qualified to carry out a manoeuvre to prevent the collision (see Figure 2). In this sense, the most illustrative case was ZIEMIA SZCZECINSKA versus DJEREDA, where both vessels collided in a crossing situation in the Strait of Dover in 1969. Specifically, DJEREDA, which had the ZIEMIA SZCZECINSKA on her starboard side, was sailing exhibiting its NUC
lights, based on the fact that because of bad weather conditions she could not alter her course. Nevertheless, after hearing both sides, the Court did not accept the DJEREDA to be in a NUC situation, as it was shown that DJEREDA was sailing at more than 6 knots, with full use of her engines and steering at that time. For that reason DJEREDA was declared responsible and sentenced to pay 3/5ths of the damages (UK Court of Appeal, 1976).

Among the different circumstances a Court of Law accepts for a vessel to be in a NUC situation are the following:
. A breakdown of engines or steering gear.
. The loss of the propeller or the rudder.
. A sailing vessel becalmed (as long as she does not have an engine).
. A vessel with her anchor down but not holding.
. Exceptional weather conditions (we emphasize here the importance of the
adjective “exceptional”).

NOT UNDER COMMAND VERSUS UNDERWAY. Rule 3(i) of the COLREGs) states that:
The word “underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.

Although it may seem an obvious definition, different interpretations have
originated to the point that the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued further guidance to make some aspects clear in order to find a homogeneous interpretation of the concept. It has been made clear that a stopped vessel with no engine or steering problems is considered to be an underway vessel (IMO, 1982). This means that a vessel drifting with no other apparent problem shall have her engines ready to manoeuvre, and in case a risk of collision may happen, she is forced to respect the full Rules. Logically, and under such circumstances, a vessel shall not exhibit NUC lights and shapes,
but instead those stated in Rule 23, because the term ‘underway’ includes when the vessel is ‘making way through water’ but also when it is ‘making no way through water’ (as stated in Rule 35(a) and 35(b). That is, ‘underway’ is not a synonym for ‘making way’ (a typical misunderstanding of a non-English speaking mariner) but a hierarchically higher concept which includes the possibility or not of the use of the engine

[evm1024]

As an example only of my thinking -

Coming out of Neah Bay one morning our engine failed (water pump shaft broke!) and with no wind we were drifting on the tide. Turning the helm gave no response to the ships heading. I considered us NUC.

We raised the spinnaker and for the first 30 minutes or so it hung limply, still no response to the helm. Still NUC.

Then there was a very light wind that was able to give us some headway. The helm was responding but oh so minutely. I considered us RAM at this point. We could barely get out of the way of a feather drifting on the wind.

Later as the wind built (as it does in the Straights) we were no longer RAM.

We were not in the VTS but were in the local traffic lane. The USGC did not have any objections to us declaring NUC and later RAM.

Of course that was a few years ago and just how I did it then.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

There are instances wherein there is an inability to be able to make your [non-engine powered] sailboat maneuver because it is misstayed / becalmed / in-irons which means that you can't get out of the way and thus can not abide to the rules of navigation, hence since you can't command your vessel to maneuver [your sailed vessel being a drift and underway], then claiming NUC status is applicable under those circumstances so as to communicate to other vessels that they must maneuver to keep out of the way because you can't. All quite logical.. . .

If this were true, then any time you "can't" maneuver, you are NUC. But it's not true -- the Rule demands more than just "inability" to maneuver. The whole point of the cited article is that according to the Rules, your inability to maneuver must result from an "exceptional circumstance". Specifically, a ship drifting with engines shut off and showing NUC is NOT NUC, since voluntarily shutting down the engine is not an "exceptional circumstance," although the crew is unable to "command" the vessel.


As to whether courts would accept being becalmed as a basis for NUC -- that is speculation on the part of the authors. Some courts probably would, but it's by no means clear or obvious. There are few cases, especially since WWII, and those cases that did consider this question are contradictory.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by evm1024

As an example only of my thinking -

Coming out of Neah Bay one morning our engine failed (water pump shaft broke!) and with no wind we were drifting on the tide. Turning the helm gave no response to the ships heading. I considered us NUC.

We raised the spinnaker and for the first 30 minutes or so it hung limply, still no response to the helm. Still NUC.

Then there was a very light wind that was able to give us some headway. The helm was responding but oh so minutely. I considered us RAM at this point. We could barely get out of the way of a feather drifting on the wind.

Later as the wind built (as it does in the Straights) we were no longer RAM.

We were not in the VTS but were in the local traffic lane. The USGC did not have any objections to us declaring NUC and later RAM.

Of course that was a few years ago and just how I did it then.

Well, you were never RAM. Don't forget the phrase "nature of her work" in the Rule. Discussed above in the thread.


NUC might have been applicable during part of this story, but you would need to show signals, without which you aren't NUC. Did you?



I actually do have two anchor balls which would work as the day shape, but not the two all-around red lights.