Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, the Rules are laws and are interpreted as laws, and are not for just making up our own interpretations according to our whims. The law is clear about this, so there is no need to speculate. The inability to maneuver does not by itself make you NUC. The inability to maneuver has to result from some "exceptional circumstance", and being becalmed is not that.



There is a logical fallacy also in here in assuming that the necessity of communicating one's inability to maneuver, means necessarily that one must be showing some lights or shapes. The lights and shapes defined in the COLREGs are not general purpose communications methods -- they are indications of particular status which are defined by the Rules. There are plenty of other means of communication. Even signal flags, which cover a multitude of circumstances not falling under some special nav status or another.



If you cannot maneuver as required, that does not at all mean necessarily that you fall under one or other of the different special nav statuses. If you need to communicate your inability to maneuver, there are other ways to communicate, than hoisting some shape or light.

[RaymondR]

Or it could mean that he could have moved his sail boat out of the way "except" that there was no damned wind.

Lawyers, being the troublesome hair splitting mongrels that they tend to be, might try to define "exceptional" as encompassing the most improbable of circumstances but be mindful that the Rules evolved with the inputs of practical seamen who would most probably accept the "no damned wind" interpretation.

We should also be mindful that for most of the extended historical period when the Rules evolved seamen existed in an electricity and combustion engine free world.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

IOW, Rule 2 (b) should be applied.


In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved,which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

[StuM]

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.

A becalmed sailboat is in fact complying with COLREGs as stand on vessel - it is maintaining its course and speed Course: in accordance with any current, Speed: speed of any current.


Even if going sideways - Course is not the same as heading

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

Including a flare fired at the oncoming vessel.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

IOW, Rule 2 (b) should be applied.


In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved,which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

I doubt if a court would ever smile on intentionally or ignorantly using incorrect signals -- they focus on "necessary to avoid IMMEDIATE" danger in cases mentioning Rule 2. The very first part of Rule 2 says that nothing in the Rules will exonerate anyone from failing to comply with the Rules.



However, the first part of Rule 2 goes on to speak about "precautions required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or the special circumstances of the case" -- so the main thrust of Rule 2 is not indeed that you can just ignore the Rules when you want to, but rather that your obligations go much further than just following the Rules mechanically -- that you have to do more when necessary, and exceptionally, if it's necessary to avoid immediate danger, something different from what the Rules require.


I think what all this means is that good and practical seamanship is paramount and more important than the letter of the law, but that should not be interpreted to mean that you can be sloppy or ignorant in obeying the law.

[ranger58sb]

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?"

Incorrect. "Nature of her work" isn't about the size, shape, condition, characteristics, or limitations of the ship. (Nor would I say its a difference between recreational or commercial; "governmental" (e.g., USCG) isn't either of those.)

Instead, it's about the mission that ship is meant to accomplish. Buoy setting, dredging, etc.

A ferry (of any sort) has a mission to get from here to there, so the "nature of her work" doesn't cause long dwell (for example) in a given area anyway... so not a relevant analogy. OTOH, a dredge (for example) has a mission causing it to be in a certain location for as long as the work takes -- and during that work she can't navigate to somewhere else, without compromising her mission.

-Chris

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

Including a flare fired at the oncoming vessel.

Absolutely. And this is true even when you are at anchor. Even when you are at anchor you are obligated to keep a good watch and do whatever is possible to prevent a collision, including showing a white hand flare, if a risk of collision arises.


An obligation honored in the breach by cruising sailors, as a matter of practical necessity, including by me, but we should all be aware that we are at risk of sharing the responsibility in case someone plows into us while we're at anchor and we're snoozing obliviously below.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

Incorrect. "Nature of her work" isn't about the size, shape, condition, characteristics, or limitations of the ship. (Nor would I say its a difference between recreational or commercial; "governmental" (e.g., USCG) isn't either of those.)

Instead, it's about the mission that ship is meant to accomplish. Buoy setting, dredging, etc.

A ferry (of any sort) has a mission to get from here to there, so the "nature of her work" doesn't cause long dwell (for example) in a given area anyway... so not a relevant analogy. OTOH, a dredge (for example) has a mission causing it to be in a certain location for as long as the work takes -- and during that work she can't navigate to somewhere else, without compromising her mission.

-Chris

Exactamento. Much better explained than my clumsy attempt.


"Work" is what the vessel is doing, other than ordinary navigation and whatever is normally attendant to that. Recreational vessels almost never have "work" in this sense, which is the only reason why I mentioned that. The exception could be towing IF the towing imposes severe limitations on the ability to maneuver (probably not the usual case of towing, and probably almost never done by recreational vessels).

[Kivalo]

FWIW, as I learned the rules, Dockhead's explanation is the correct one. The rules are laws and not subject to intrepretation & being becalmed is nothing exceptional and when in that situation you are underway not making way.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Who "skewered" you for it? They were wrong.



If you are lying to a sea anchor because of some exceptional circumstance (violent storm), unable to maneuver, and "holed up below", that is a classical NUC situation and totally justified to show NUC.


Note however that you are not NUC if you are not showing the correct signals (two all around red lights at night; two balls in a line in daylight; at night show also your side lights and stern light if you are making way, however slowly).







"Under way but not making way" is not a particular status. But whether or not you are making way may change some of the signals if you are in some other special status; e.g. if you are engaged in fishing but not making way, you don't show side lights or stern light. The sound signals in fog are also somewhat different. Good discussion here: Vessel making way or under way? – Malta Sailing Academy

“Underway but not making way is not a particular status.”

Really, since when? Not according to Rule #35 Section b)

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Absolutely. And this is true even when you are at anchor. Even when you are at anchor you are obligated to keep a good watch and do whatever is possible to prevent a collision, including showing a white hand flare, if a risk of collision arises.


An obligation honored in the breach by cruising sailors, as a matter of practical necessity, including by me, but we should all be aware that we are at risk of sharing the responsibility in case someone plows into us while we're at anchor and we're snoozing obliviously below.

I used to sigh when I read these types of posts.


Until some nincompoop did hit me at 2130 one (previously) lovely evening. T boned me starboard amidships. Like he was aiming right at me! Said he didn't see me, then said he saw me when he came in during daylight but thought I'd left by then...he was in the yacht club bar - can you guess.


It happens more often than you think.


And thanks again to Dockhead who provides well written and helpful responses to this important subject. And good sea yarns, too.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Really? “Underway but not making way is not a particular status.” Since when and not according to Rule #35 Section b)

Whether you are making way or not does not affect your nav status, and does not affect the order of maneuvering or anything else in the Rules. A power driven vessel under way has all the same obligations with regard to other vessels whether it is making way or not. A power driven vessel shows the same nav lights when it is under way, whether or not it is making way.



Rule 35(b) merely requires you to give different sound signals in case you are in restricted visibility and not making way.


See Post 15.

[Montanan]

OP:
"2) I'm either hove-to or hanging from a sea anchor in nastiness and unable to turn more than a few degrees either side of my current course."

By choosing to hove=to or hang from a sea anchor you are in no way restricted in ability to maneuver, you are merely choosing to minimize the degree of your underway travel.

One can easily and instantly shift a sail boat from hove-to status and when you are hove-to you are underway, albeit slowly underway but definitely you are in control and under command as to the direction of travel that your boat is underway while hove-to.

Ditto as to being on a sea anchor. You can always just pull in your sea anchor or uncouple from the sea anchor. The sea anchor does not fix you it merely restrains you at your choosing. The sea anchor does not control the boat or command the boat, the vessel remains free to maneuver.

You must at all times keep a look out and take action to avoid collision when hove-to, on sea anchor or otherwise.

You definitely are not RAM or NUC or other special status.

When you are becalmed you remain underway, even perhaps just drifting with the current, your just slowly underway and to the extent that you can maneuver albeit slowly given your lack of alternative propulsion and minimal primary propulsion you still need to take action to avoid collision and / or to minimize the hazard of collision.

If you are not moored [by temporary anchor or by fixed anchor] or aground you are in essence underway.

[Cpt Mark]

A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver is only for commercial vessels. You will see fishing boats claiming this which is not true unless they are long liners for example and have a mile or more of equipment off the stern or a containership in a narrow channel, river or something that can't move because of obstacles.

Becalmed would fall under NUC, Not Under Command. Sure, you are making way, drifting wherever but you are not in command. You cannot make the boat go in a direction of your choice.

Delivering a 68' sailboat out of the golden gate in SF, smack in the middle of the shipping lanes with ZERO wind the engine dies. I called the Coast Guard and informed them that I was NUC. Bar pilots were pissed because now they had to avoid me and there's just not that much room when you have to aim between the bridge towers. Eventually I got the engine running and we got out of the way but it took 1/2 hour.