Restricted in ability to maneuver?

[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.)

[requiem]

Cockcroft, writing in A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, mentions that such cases were considered at the 1972 conference, and are likely to be considered as justifying NUC status. The weather conditions must of course be exceptional to the particular vessel, such that she would be unable to keep out of the way of another vessel by altering course or speed. At the other end of the weather scale, being becalmed and without an engine would be no different from a power vessel that had an engine failure.

[Cpt Pat]

Communicating Navigation Status:


I have had these sets of light on my mast: red above the masthead. Green and white one meter below the red light. Red one meter below the green and white lights. All lights are configured as "all around" lights, which entails four sets of lights for each color below the masthead, with overlapping sectors.


Red over green: normal operation. COLREGs rule 25(c).
White: at anchor (or aground). COLREGs rule 30(b).
Red over red: not under command. COLGREGs rule 27(a).
Red over white over red: RAM. COLGREGs rule 27(b).

[john61ct]

Yes personally it seems crystal clear.

The fact that you have AIS yet voluntarily do not equip your boat with an alternative mode of propulsion may seem antiquated even iconoclastic, but

should not count against you.

Passage-making in even a cockleshell should be the cherished right of every sailor.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes personally it seems crystal clear.

The fact that you have AIS yet voluntarily do not equip your boat with an alternative mode of propulsion may seem antiquated even iconoclastic, but

should not count against you.

Passage-making in even a cockleshell should be the cherished right of every sailor.

I keep thinking about nuclear propulsion as an alternative to burning dead dinosaurs, but the regulatory hurdles are just too high to scale.

When do we get fusion power?

[Kenomac]

You are NOT a RAM “restricted in ability to maneuver,” you would be “under way but not making way” according to the rules. An entirely different day sign, audio signal and night time lights.

You’d be a sailboat underway (not attached to the dock or at anchor) but not making way (not under power... drifting).

I’m not a lawyer, but I do know the rules.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by requiem

Cockcroft, writing in A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, mentions that such cases were considered at the 1972 conference, and are likely to be considered as justifying NUC status. The weather conditions must of course be exceptional to the particular vessel, such that she would be unable to keep out of the way of another vessel by altering course or speed. At the other end of the weather scale, being becalmed and without an engine would be no different from a power vessel that had an engine failure.

Thanks for that comment. I once proposed NUC here, and got skewered for it. But I agree it's a better status to communicate that I'm holed up in the cabin, wishing I'd installed seatbelts, and not opening the hatch for fear of letting in the entire Pacific. I've been there: in wicked cross-sea and 40 knot winds against the swells off Pigeon Point, California one night - hanging by a sea anchor, and heeling past 60 degrees (the indication limit of my inclinometer down below). It's good it was dark so I couldn't see the swells. I learned that night that, when my boat is heaved 20 feet in the air and then dropped to the surface - it doesn't have enough reserve buoyancy to keep the sea from covering the port lights on both sides. If someone had told me to give way, I would have just laughed and asked them not to entangle in my sea anchor.

"... being becalmed and without an engine would be no different from a power vessel that had an engine failure." True, which would also prevent the power vessel from maneuvering.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You are NOT a RAM “restricted in ability to maneuver,” you would be “under way but not making way” according to the rules. An entirely different day sign, audio signal and night time lights.

You’d be a sailboat underway (not attached to the dock or at anchor) but not making way (not under power).

OK. Let's unpack that logic. Then a RAM boat is only a RAM boat when it's not underway?

And what, pray tell, are those signs, signals and lights signifying: "“under way but not making way”?

And more accurately, I am making way when hove to or using a sea anchor. I'm not moving fast, but I am moving. Hove to: about 1.5 knots ahead and athwart. With a sea anchor, I'm moving astern and athwart very slowly (my vessel with my sea anchor: about 0.4 knots in a 40 knot wind).

BTW, my strategies (generally) are: lee shore - sea anchor. Windward shore - heave to. No shore - heave to till it gets really nasty, then deploy the sea anchor.

[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.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Thanks for that comment. I once proposed NUC here, and got skewered for it. But I agree it's a better status to communicate that I'm holed up in the cabin, wishing I'd installed seatbelts, and not opening the hatch for fear of letting in the entire Pacific. I've been there: in wicked cross-sea and 40 knot winds against the swells off Pigeon Point, California one night - hanging by a sea anchor, and heeling past 60 degrees (the indication limit of my inclinometer down below). It's good it was dark so I couldn't see the swells. I learned that night that, when my boat is heaved 20 feet in the air and then dropped to the surface - it doesn't have enough reserve buoyancy to keep the sea from covering the port lights on both sides. If someone had told me to give way, I would have just laughed and asked them not to entangle in my sea anchor.

"... being becalmed and without an engine would be no different from a power vessel that had an engine failure." True, which would also prevent the power vessel from maneuvering.

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).

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

. . . And what, pray tell, are those signs, signals and lights signifying: "“under way but not making way”?


And more accurately, I am making way when hove to or using a sea anchor. I'm not moving fast, but I am moving. Hove to: about 1.5 knots ahead and athwart. With a sea anchor, I'm moving astern and athwart very slowly (my vessel with my sea anchor: about 0.4 knots in a 40 knot wind).

BTW, my strategies (generally) are: lee shore - sea anchor. Windward shore - heave to. No shore - heave to till it gets really nasty, then deploy the sea anchor.

"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

[Cpt Pat]

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.

Thanks Dockhead for a very thoughtful response. I appreciate your account that illustrates your opinion. I'm impressed with how you handled a very challenging situation. I carry both a drogue for stern deployment and a sea anchor for bow deployment. I much prefer running with a drogue, but the entire California Pacific Coast is often a lee shore, that I'd be running to, when the wind gods don't cooperate.

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?"

I agree I wouldn't show NUC when becalmed. RAM maybe, if I was in a very busy seaway. And maybe it wouldn't help, but good navigation is using every available tool to safely operate your vessel. And if I had a way to signify an unexpected (to other skippers) navigation status in my "tool kit," I'd use it. I'm sometimes surprised by the depth of knowledge of "recreational" boaters in my waters. Many are retired Navy noncoms who really know their bow from their sterns. I try not to pessimistically underestimate the understanding of nautical signals of skippers around me. But then... I'm not sailing in the SF Bay where, there's often more money than navigational knowledge afloat, and pessimism generally applies.

[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?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

OK. Let's unpack that logic. Then a RAM boat is only a RAM boat when it's not underway?

And what, pray tell, are those signs, signals and lights signifying: "“under way but not making way”?

And more accurately, I am making way when hove to or using a sea anchor. I'm not moving fast, but I am moving. Hove to: about 1.5 knots ahead and athwart. With a sea anchor, I'm moving astern and athwart very slowly (my vessel with my sea anchor: about 0.4 knots in a 40 knot wind).

BTW, my strategies (generally) are: lee shore - sea anchor. Windward shore - heave to. No shore - heave to till it gets really nasty, then deploy the sea anchor.

Seems like you posted just to argue, sorry.... not interested. You might wanna brush up on your book learning. Good luck

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Communicating Navigation Status:


I have had these sets of light on my mast: red above the masthead. Green and white one meter below the red light. Red one meter below the green and white lights. All lights are configured as "all around" lights, which entails four sets of lights for each color below the masthead, with overlapping sectors.


Red over green: normal operation. COLREGs rule 25(c).
White: at anchor (or aground). COLREGs rule 30(b).
Red over red: not under command. COLGREGs rule 27(a).
Red over white over red: RAM. COLGREGs rule 27(b).

Hi Pat,
In the two exceptional circunstanced you described i believe it fits NUC rather than Restricted (which implies you can still maneuver "somewhat"

For what its worth " legally"
NUC has pecking order over Restricted, but reality out there is both Storms and sailboats becalmed require good seamanship to avoid and an ability to communicate.

I do specify NUC lights for Super yachts as we operate in a commercial way in congested waters worldwide with licensed crew.

The*COLREGs*state in Rule 3(f): 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.

[Dockhead]

This may be helpful in understanding the variations in signals which result from being making way vs. merely under way:







From The Colregs Guide, Klaas van Dokkum, 4t ed., 2012, p. 134.