Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[tarian]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The key phrase in the Rule is ". . . by the nature of her work." A recreational vessel cannot be RAM (except arguably if you are towing), and if you were really taught that "restricted in the ability to maneuver (RAM) was a designation left entirely to the master's discretion" then you were taught wrong.


Some of these situations may make you NUC, as mentioned above, IF you can show the appropriate signals. I don't think being becalmed would qualify because the cause must be some "exceptional circumstance", and calms are nothing exceptional. But a violent storm might be.



But I don't know why we should get hung up on this. Why do you need a special status for being becalmed? You are under sail, so most other traffic is required to give way to you in any case. ALL other traffic is required to give way to you once it becomes clear that your maneuver alone will not be sufficient to resolve the risk of collision, and that will be obvious as soon as the other vessel sees you're not making way. If you are broadcasting AIS then the fact that you are not making way will be clear from even over the horizon.


So why would you need a special nav status for being becalmed? What would it change?



The case of lying to a drogue in a violent storm is more complicated, because you are making way and so it's not obvious to other vessels that you can't maneuver. It's clear that NUC is justified if you have a fault in your rudder, lying to a drogue is like not having a rudder, and a storm violent enough to require a drogue would be an "exceptional circumstance" I suppose, so I would not hesitate myself to show NUC if I had the signals on board.


I have actually been in a situation like this. Some years ago crossing the North Sea I got into a terrible storm which caused huge breaking waves. We were knocked down. We did not have a drogue on board at that time (do now!), so the only way to deal with this was to run off slowly under a scrap of jib, maneuvering just so down the wave fronts to avoid speeding out of control and pitchpoling. So it meant that we had no choice of direction -- no way to turn beam to the waves, no way to turn around, no way to do any collision avoidance or even choose which direction to sail in.


But unfortunately this was the North Sea and after some hours of this we found ourselves at the entrance to a TSS, with heavy traffic. No choice but to head the WRONG WAY up the TSS, and as dark was falling no less.



But it was OK. I informed the Dutch Coast Guard what we were doing, then put out a Securite message every half hour, explaining to the oncoming ships what we were doing, then called ships and asked for more room where needed. Everyone was cooperative and helpful and we got through it OK, despite how absurd this sounds -- sailing the wrong way up one of the world's busiest TSS's! And at night!! The storm blew through and we had a splendid day sailing the next day all the way to Helgoland.



I would have showed NUC had I had the signals, but it would not have much changed anything.

This is the most concise and proper protcol you will ever read , it is well understood that commercial vessels have this , Ferries , tankers , Dregers, fishing boats fishing, etc
A good sailor will do what is written above and get on the VHF and contact the Coast guard to let them know the situation and allow for basic common sense to be established, if you want to sit out a storm and argue with yourself About the COLREGS and oncoming commercial vessels without contacting them about your situation then this is IMHO is poor seamanship
Rules are their to adhere to but as life can through up the curve Ball they can be distorted and argued about , that is for the courts to find a solution , me my solution is to light my boat up and tell everyone about my situation

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

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

Hi Ann,
For me, this is the nitty-gritty question when considering a solo sailor on autopilot, or hove to. Exhausted from a storm and who is Asleep.

Showing NUC seems practical and demonstrates proper seamanship for the circumstances.....

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

As to NUC or Restricted signals, I think nighttime lights are of more value in circumstances where you need to show your Aspect, but are unable to maneuver.
Daytime, it is easier to see

As DH notes, communicating your circumstanced is the practical and proper method, but in Third World congested waters, showing a basic signal at night may be prudent. (If not legal)

[boat driver]

ok-
the RAM is designed for situations that the onus is on the vessel and is intended to -with correct signals- intend that own vessel is incapable to keep from the passage of another vessel.
The NUC is a designation for inability to maneuver due to catastrophic issue (grounding, engine failure)
The more "balls" the worse the problem.

In the sailboat issue- restricted in ability to maneuver applies outside the COLREGS and is valid. Onus back on communication.
Inside the COLREGS the constrained to the channel takes effect- and I will only suggest that becalmed sailboat with no alternative power will be correct but then charged with "not seaworthy" vessel which will put most of the onus and responsibility on the sailboat (I am assuming sailboat vs vessel constrained by draft). remember, the Admiralty Law assigns percentages of responsibility.

Then of course if sailboat dead because of poor decision to have no alternative propulsion then percentage of win still a lost.

[jmschmidt]

In the example you offered you said that you were "not an wind assisted motor vessel," you did not say that you had no engine or that it was non-functioning. If you have a functioning engine it is your obligation to use it and get out of the way. If you are anchored or moored there is a rule to apply to that, if you are hove-to that is your choice and your obligation to stay out of the way. Neither is a NUC or RAM.

[Adelie]

No, he pretty clearly indicates he has no working engine even if he doesn’t say it outright.

Reread item #1 from post #1.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

. . .For me, this is the nitty-gritty question when considering a solo sailor on autopilot, or hove to. Exhausted from a storm and who is Asleep.

Showing NUC seems practical and demonstrates proper seamanship for the circumstances.....

This is a bit of thread drift and furthermore something we've discussed before a number of times. There are some strong opinions about this.


But since we're talking about it -- I have always advocated single handers getting a good night's sleep hove to and showing NUC (far from shore and away from shipping lanes of course), although it's pretty clear that needing to sleep is not strictly speaking a legal basis for NUC status. Like you say -- it's practical and seamanlike, making definitely the best out of an inherently bad situation, from a collision avoidance point of view. Rule 2.

[Stmurray62]

As a Delivery Captain, I have had a RAM situation several times.
For example, I was becalmed just 2 miles off shore between Ft Lauderdale & Jupiter Inlet; Motor quit. So there we sat with all kinds of traffic about us . I continuously broadcast a “security” notice that the vessel was disabled and unable to/“restricted” in ability to manuver. In the interim I had called Sea Tow for assistance. Interestingly the tugs in tow, and other commercial vessels were very cooperative; Unlike the case of several pleasure/power boaters in the area.

Eventually Sea Tow came and rescued us. Point is, use channel 13 (commercial)
VHF and describe situation to others and they will assist, if they can; they don’t want to run over u, and certainly after u have communicated with them.

Besides; “rule one” says (essentially) to avoid any collision with all possible action, whether or not it conflicts with the “other” rules....

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Stmurray62

As a Delivery Captain, I have had a RAM situation several times.
For example, I was becalmed just 2 miles off shore between Ft Lauderdale & Jupiter Inlet; Motor quit. So there we sat with all kinds of traffic about us . I continuously broadcast a “security” notice that the vessel was disabled and unable to/“restricted” in ability to manuver. In the interim I had called Sea Tow for assistance. Interestingly the tugs in tow, and other commercial vessels were very cooperative; Unlike the case of several pleasure/power boaters in the area.

Eventually Sea Tow came and rescued us. Point is, use channel 13 (commercial)
VHF and describe situation to others and they will assist, if they can; they don’t want to run over u, and certainly after u have communicated with them.

Besides; “rule one” says (essentially) to avoid any collision with all possible action, whether or not it conflicts with the “other” rules....

According to Rule#3, you were legitimately a NUC and not a RAM.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by StuM

Including a flare fired at the oncoming vessel.

I think you mean "towards" the oncoming vessel. "At"
might open another legal discussion.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I've had a discussion here once before about this definition, and the arm-chair admiralty law attorneys screamed at me, and beat me over the head with their letter-of-the-law-not-its-spirit partial readings of the COLREGs.

But I'm going to bring it up again because these two situations have occurred:

1) I'm becalmed. Mine is a sailboat, not an wind assisted motor vessel. So becalmed means: unable (not just "restricted") in my ability to maneuver. I don't carry oars on board to maneuver Viking-style.

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.

I was taught that restricted in the ability to maneuver (RAM) was a designation left entirely to the master's discretion. If the vessel can't maneuver normally such that it can't behave the way the masters of other conflicting vessels can reasonably expect, it is RAM. More legalistically:

As defined in Rule 3(g) of the Navigation Rules, a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver (also called a RAM vessel) is one “which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by [the Navigation Rules], and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.”

That sure seems to be the case if I'm becalmed, hove to, or using a sea anchor. The only available alternative is to scuttle my boat to move vertically (down) out of the way.

The whole point of RAM is to alert other vessels that you can't give way in order to prevent a collision. And I'm not going to sit there, shaking in my boots that I might offend a lawyer, and get crunched because I didn't communicate my situation (not everyone speaks good English on the radio - but they can see a RAM status from a Class A AIS transponder). I doubt the Coast Guard would accept a fear of arm-chair lawyers as an excuse for a collision.

So Sea Lawyers, put on your powdered wigs and black robes and tell me: what other options do you propose? Anti-gravity hovering over the surface, maybe? Shouting "sécurité" on the radio with long descriptions every few minutes when becalmed - for hours on end (until someone mercifully puts a torpedoe into my boat to make me stop)?


(It's easy to spot the folks who have little or no open-sea experience. They don't understand that the rules are solely intended as a practical set of guidelines to prevent collisions -- not to satisfy their pedantic proclivities.)

It sounds like your just SOL.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

I could find very little legal case law on the topic of RAM navigational status, but I did find this:

Gerald P. Garrett, Plaintiff-appellee, v. C.c. Higgenbotham, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 800 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1986)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...0/1537/271177/

"Reason might suggest that any vessel whose maneuverability is impaired--regardless of the cause of impairment--should be statutorily required to display the appropriate warning signal. Nevertheless, from the wording of the INRA, Congress apparently intended otherwise..."

Dockhead, with further reading into that case, and from everything else I could find; you are right, and I stand corrected.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I could find very little legal case law on the topic of RAM navigational status, but I did find this:

Gerald P. Garrett, Plaintiff-appellee, v. C.c. Higgenbotham, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 800 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1986)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...0/1537/271177/

"Reason might suggest that any vessel whose maneuverability is impaired--regardless of the cause of impairment--should be statutorily required to display the appropriate warning signal. Nevertheless, from the wording of the INRA, Congress apparently intended otherwise..."

Dockhead, with further reading into that case, and from everything else I could find; you are right, and I stand corrected.

Is it not balls for daylight and lights at night. It all sounds academic since most are not equipped or even knowledgeable. It was fine during days of yore. I'm not sure what someone does becalmed in a shipping channel? Those ships cannot turn on a dime. A good radar reflector might be the best thing to have. A class transponder is probably great however if you don't even have power do you have one? Just asking.

[RaymondR]

We can wander off into esoteric discussions regarding what the courts and lawyers, or even the US Congress might, or might not, read into the Rules, however the important question is how we, the folks who are actually wandering about on the water should interpret them to keep from running each other down.

We are assisted in our interpretation by the section of the Rules described as "Definitions" and in the context of whether "Not under command" or "Restricted in ability to maneuver" is the correct signal to exhibit in a certain circumstance - it being in the case under discussion an inability to navigate a vessel because of a lack of motive power.

The relevant section reads:

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.

It is argued that the term "some exceptional circumstance" in the above commands a particular relevance in the interpretation of the Definition. However the drafters of the definition very much limited the scope of any interpretation by proceeding to state "is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel". The effect of this part is that it does not allow of any interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" other than the person in command's inability to maneuver the vessel in order to prevent collision from whatever cause.

In contrast it is implicit in the interpretation of the "restricted maneuver" rule that the vessel is under command and has an ability to maneuver but however, that due to the nature of the activity the vessel is involved in it may not be able to fully respond as required by the person in command.

[slipaway]

Lot's of good discussion as there always is when a COLREGS question comes up. Regarding Restricted in Ability to Maneuver, I believe it has been pretty clearly pointed out that RAM status must be related to the actual work a vessel is engaged in. The US Federal court case cited: Gerald P. Garrett, Plaintiff-appellee, v. C.c. Higgenbotham, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 800 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1986), held that when Congress enacted the Inland Navigation Rules, they intended a specific meaning of "nature of their work."

For those who do like to dive into the intricacies of the COLREGS and the reasoning and court decisions that define them, I recommend you get yourself a copy of "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road." The latest edition is 2004 by Craig H. Allen a retired CG officer and law professor at the University of Washington and Yale Law School. Prof. Allen's work is loaded with all the examples you may care to see for Inland and International Rules along with the court cases that define them.

[Montanan]

Definition of NUC -

The COLREGs state in Rule 3(f):
The term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptionalcircumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

Reference: https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...73463312000203 from which snipets are posted below.

A 'Not Under Command' (NUC) vessel is at the mercy of winds and seas. ... 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.

[B][SIZE="3"]3. NOT UNDER COMMAND IN PRACTICE.

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”).

5. 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.