Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

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.

But lack of wind is not an **exceptional** reason for the inability to maneuver is it?

I do agree these angels-on-a-pin distinctions would be unlikely to actually be of practical relevance,

the pitiful singlehander certainly doing his best to be as safe as possible either way

[JPA Cate]

Yes, it is not that there is no skipper in command, but that the ship cannot answer the command.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

. . . We do differ in opinion on the phrase "by the nature of her work". It does not imply a commercial operation to me. It says: by the nature of the vessel's operating characteristics and limitations, under its current operating conditions. I see no distinction or reference to commercial versus recreational operation in that, or any other, COLREGs rule. Does a rowboat ferrying paying passengers come under a different set of COLREGs rules from the same rowboat operating beside her being used recreationally? Does the recreational rowboat have a different "nature of her work?" . . .

Well, the COLREGs are laws, and subject to interpretation by the courts, not by every sailor according to his own individual whim. "Nature of her work" has a specific legal meaning, and it does not indeed mean "the vessel's operating characteristics". RAM status is not applicable here.

[Sojourner]

Gonna follow this thread... On the way down last winter from Montpellier France to Mallorca, wind AND engine quit 30 miles outside of palma, and we were dead in the water for about 16 hours right where all the carnival cruises were rounding the southwest corner. Didn't think of Colregs too much to be honest, just radioed them one by one as they approached and told them I ain't moving. They were all very nice

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by J.stange

I am new and have only been sailing for a couple of years, nearly all of it on the Columbia River. I guess I am confused about the discussion. If you are unable to change your course and have the ability to warn vessels around you in advance, wouldn't you want to? Or is the debate just about the correct label for your inability to change course?

Good question!


The COLREGS define different statuses, which change the way vessels are required to interact with each other. These statuses are communicated by certain signals.



When you use a certain signal defined in the COLREGS, you are communicating that you are under a certain status.



We are discussing whether or not difficulty in maneuvering due to this or that combination of circumstances in fact amounts to this or that status, such that it would be correct to use this or that set of signals.


Is that more clear now?


Claiming a special nav status is not indeed the only way to let others know you are having trouble maneuvering. Of course you should communicate anything which makes navigation safer (Rule 2), but not necessarily by claiming some special nav status, which you should not do, if the circumstances do not objectively amount to such status.


See Post #9 for an example of how difficulty in maneuvering was communicated in a real life situation, without claiming any special nav status.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Sojourner

Gonna follow this thread... On the way down last winter from Montpellier France to Mallorca, wind AND engine quit 30 miles outside of palma, and we were dead in the water for about 16 hours right where all the carnival cruises were rounding the southwest corner. Didn't think of Colregs too much to be honest, just radioed them one by one as they approached and told them I ain't moving. They were all very nice

An interesting point is that if your boat is a pure sailing vessel not equipped with an engine, and you are becalmed, then there is no basis for any special nav status. However, if you are equipped with an engine and it has broken down, then that is a classic NUC situation and you are justified in showing NUC.


Note however that the ordinary practice of seamen is not to be all that didactic about these statuses. For example, it is extremely common for tankers which are drifting and waiting for a load to show NUC. This practice has gone on for years. If their engines are shut down intentionally and there is no mechanical fault, there is no justification for NUC status in this case, and there have been a lot of complaints about it, but the practice continues. The explanation given by shipping companies is that although it's not strictly by the book, it's a good practical solution which gives other vessels the correct information they need, to know how to deal with such vessels, so promoting safety in a practical, if not strictly legal way.


So following that logic I doubt that anyone would be too upset if you showed NUC while being becalmed in sailing vessel not equipped with a motor, but strictly speaking, it does not fall within the legal definition of NUC.


I say again, however -- why is it even necessary? If your sails are up and you are dead in the water, and especially if you are broadcasting AIS showing that you are not making way, then that's all the information other vessels need, in order to know that they MUST give way and avoid you. Why would you bother with any special signals? Even if you were entitled to show them? What difference would it make?

[requiem]

Originally Posted by john61ct

But lack of wind is not an **exceptional** reason for the inability to maneuver is it?

If you have no other means of propulsion fitted, then it would be wise to indicate that you are unable to move to avoid others.

If you do have an engine fitted, then you would be expected to use it. Cockcroft also mentions a case in '86 of a prosecution for failing to cross a traffic lane at right angles: the ship was under sail and the officer of the watch was concerned about an accidental gybe, but the ship did have an engine and he did not make use of it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Yes, it is not that there is no skipper in command, but that the ship cannot answer the command.

You are right about the meaning of the phrase "not under command" -- it indeed means that the ship cannot answer the command. But interestingly the law cases do say that the crew being disabled, is also correct basis for NUC status.



Remember the old mnemonic for NUC signal -- "Red over red; captain's dead".

[Sojourner]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

An interesting point is that if your boat is a pure sailing vessel not equipped with an engine, and you are becalmed, then there is no basis for any special nav status. However, if you are equipped with an engine and it has broken down, then that is a classic NUC situation and you are justified in showing NUC.


I say again, however -- why is it even necessary? If your sails are up and you are dead in the water, and especially if you are broadcasting AIS showing that you are not making way, then that's all the information other vessels need, in order to know that they MUST give way and avoid you. Why would you bother with any special signals? Even if you were entitled to show them? What difference would it make?

Well, that's why I was radioing them in any case. Better safe than sorry. But to further complicate matters, my sails were furled. When I say no wind, I mean ZERO, and there were 3 meter swells on the beam from a storm a ways away. The mainsail even sheeted tight was not liking that at all, so I put it away, made bloody marys, and spent the night on the VHF Ahhh good times

[jmorrison146]

My two cents:

Dockhead is correct about Restricted in Ability to Maneuver (RAM). The rule states specially "by the nature of its work" (such as servicing aids to navigation, dredging, diving, etc).

When becalmed you are underway, but not making way, neither Not Under Command (NUC) or RAM.

When streaming a drogue trying to survive mountainous seas, you are along for the ride and NUC. You could argue that sailing from Point A to Point B is your "work" but RAM implies some ability to maneuver, but a restricted ability.

[Tillsbury]

I guess the problem might be that, becalmed, I can't comply with my part of colregs. An idiot motoring towards me should get out of the way, but I'm not able to intentionally maintain course and speed or indicate clearly that I'm doing that (I might be going sideways, for example). And at the final point I can't do much if anything to avoid the collision myself.

Because of this, a becalmed sailing boat showing no signals hit by an errant motorboat could be considered at least in some way responsible in the final reckoning. I don't really like being in that position, and so am also interested in this discussion.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Sojourner

Well, that's why I was radioing them in any case. Better safe than sorry. But to further complicate matters, my sails were furled. When I say no wind, I mean ZERO, and there were 3 meter swells on the beam from a storm a ways away. The mainsail even sheeted tight was not liking that at all, so I put it away, made bloody marys, and spent the night on the VHF Ahhh good times

OK, I see. With sails down, then it would have been useful after all to show NUC. Otherwise other vessels might be assuming that you have a working engine which you would use when necessary.


We should probably all have NUC signals. I have the two balls but not the two red all around lanterns.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

I guess the problem might be that, becalmed, I can't comply with my part of colregs. An idiot motoring towards me should get out of the way, but I'm not able to intentionally maintain course and speed or indicate clearly that I'm doing that (I might be going sideways, for example). And at the final point I can't do much if anything to avoid the collision myself.

Because of this, a becalmed sailing boat showing no signals hit by an errant motorboat could be considered at least in some way responsible in the final reckoning. I don't really like being in that position, and so am also interested in this discussion.

If you get involved in a collision, then no matter what the court is going to have a hard look at what you might have done to fulfill your obligations to avoid the collision as soon as it became clear that the other vessel wasn't going to do it. Rarely will the court fail to find SOMETHING which you could have done differently.



You're not legally entitled to claim any special status just because you are becalmed (in a sailboat not equipped with an engine), so I doubt that anyone will blame you for not showing incorrect signals. HOWEVER, you most definitely are required to attempt to get the attention of the other vessel, you are required to give sound signals, and use any other means available to you, and if you fail to do that, then you will be blamed. If there is anything whatsoever you can do to move the boat, you are also required to do that -- sculling the rudder, whatever.

[john61ct]

Doing the best he can

is all can be asked

of any man

[RaymondR]

At first glance it appears simple:

Rule 3: General Definitions

(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstances is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

The rules are not about any sort of absolutes, they are about the way vessels should behave and respond to each others circumstances during an encounter.

What this means is that the obligations of a power driven vessel, whilst it has the ability to make way, ie. it has an engine and it is immediately available for manoeuvre, differ or exceed those of a powerless sail boat when there is no propulsive force available. However the least able vessel is obliged to indicate it's circumstance with day or night signals, ie. shapes or lights in order that the vessel with the means to do so is aware of the non respondents circumstance.

The "exceptional circumstance" requirement comes into play because it is the normal "circumstance" of the sailing vessel to be sailing and making way, ie. whilst it might be the intention of the person in command of the sailing vessel the intention cannot be exercised because there in no wind. Sailing vessels usually make way exploiting the motive power of the wind except in the subject case there was no wind. The cirumstance is that it is "unable to manoeuvre as is required" under the Rules no matter the intention of the person in command.

The Rule proceeds: "and is therefor unable to keep out if the way of another vessel."

The party of the first part, ie. the sailing vessel without any other means of propulsion, is unable to "keep out of the way" by any available and reasonable action on their part.

To my way of thinking it appears that by the "Definitions" included in the "Rules" the vessel was "a vessel not under command", that it was the decision of the person in command that the vessel could not be anchored ie. it could not be placed into a circumstance where it was rendered stationary, and consequently the signalling for the circumstances of a "vessel not under command" was appropriate.

It is inherent in the interpretation of the Rules that there is a person in command of the vessel and that that person is in a circumstance that allows action to comply with the rules or to signal otherwise.