Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, but even to the non-legal mind, how can you possibly read it that way?

The important part is "shall at all times maintain a proper look-out ... so as to make a full appraisal of the situation". The "sight and hearing" part simply specifies that your "full appraisal" must take into account what you can see and hear. If your appraisal is that there will be no risk of collision for the next five minutes, as long as this appraisal is correct, there is nothing requiring you to look or listen for the next five minutes.

But I guess you are correct that it is always possible that there will be a small boat just over the horizon heading straight for you at 50 knots, or that a submarine will surface just half a mile ahead ... you can never be absolutely sure what will happen in the next five minutes, a "full" appraisal should account for these circumstances too ... So that settles the legality.


In which case I am now confident that it is not immoral ... Since some here are certain it is illegal, then the authorities have the power to arrest any single-hander arriving from a long passage ... and if it is also immoral, then they also have a duty to do so ... but they don't.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Curious, the nav-center has the following in its FAQ on the rules: (note especially the final sentence)

Yes. As they explained to me - it is viewed as a process designed to keep a “proper watch”, and there is a definitive mandate for it to have a human sight and sound component, for it not to totally rely on electronic gear watching.

That is clear.

The question/uncertainty is different - it is if the by sight and watch is a direct clause of at all times, or if it is an as necessary component of a proper watch (with proper watch being the component which is at all times).

I have probably not phrased that very well but I see at least one person up thread understood the point. Kolkata has used other and more words which may be better - but I don’t really expect DH to ever agree there is even the slightest possibility of ambiguity.

Rule 5 could use some punctuation, which would clearify this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

....
LOL....you wrote “Which leads me to my opinion about single-handing, which may seem paradoxical to some -- I really don't condemn it, although it is a clear violation of the COLREGS in my opinion”.

Are you saying you did not write that?

OK, it's clear what we're dealing with here. If you can't understand that "although it is a clear violation of the COLREGS" means the same as "it is a clear violation of the COLREGS" -- condemning or not condemning it having nothing to do with whether it is a violation -- then naturally it's going to be hard to discuss the difference between the meaning of "proper lookout at all times by sight and by hearing" and "proper lookout, possibly by sight and by hearing, but maybe by some other means." They are not the same.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

That is not incorrect as written. Single handing is NOT a violation of the Colregs per say. Improper watch keeping is. The two are not the same.

The text of the Rule itself, contains the answer to this question.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

i’l be honest. Your response(s) here surprise me a lot. I just expected you to say to my first post “yes you are right, thanks for the pedantic correction”.i did not expect all the defensiveness. I would have skipped making my post if I had realized you found such corrections so unwelcome.

People who know me on here, know that I am very glad to be corrected when I am wrong, which happens often enough. I am always very grateful for it -- it's the best kind of learning experience and saves me from further wasting time on an error. And if you're never wrong in any of these discussions, you're not pushing the boundaries of your knowledge. There's no shame in it.



What I don't find pleasant, and I guess no one finds it pleasant -- is to have an interesting discussion thrown off the rails just to "put me in my place", with a meaningless nit which has nothing to do with the substance of the conversation -- "You said single handing for 24 hours! But that doesn't necessarily mean without sleep!". There is meanness at the heart of this, not an honest quest for knowledge, and the two things are not compatible.



It's also disappointing, that you think that this is what I do to other people. Sure, I've been known to have a vigorous debate about something like, for example, the idea of "right of way" in the COLREGS. You really think that was a meaningless nit, intended just to put someone down? On the contrary, that's a question of real substance, a question I have a deep interest in. Disagreeing with someone, even vigorously, is not in itself an expression of disrespect, not at all. Picking nits for no reason other than putting someone in his place, is.

[Kelkara]

I've been trying to think of an appropriate analogy, but having trouble coming up with one ... all analogies will fall short somewhere, but this is the best I can do:

Every person shall at all times maintain a proper diet by eating fruit and vegetables as well as all other available nutritional means appropriate so as to maintain a healthy body.

That is about as close to the wording of rule 5 as I can manage. Do you read this as: a proper diet is having to eat fruit and vegetables at all times? or that fruit and vegetables are a necessary part of a proper diet which must be maintained at all times?

Is it clearly one or the other? or is there some ambiguity?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, it's clear what we're dealing with here. If you can't understand that "although it is a clear violation of the COLREGS" means the same as "it is a clear violation of the COLREGS"

what?! Why would you say I can’t understand those two statements have the same (general) meaning?! I agreed they do, and they are both incorrect. Improper watch keeping is a clear violation of the Colregs. I believe we agree on that. Single handing is not. Single handing, in certain circumstances, certainly can meet either interpretation of rule 5; and in a much broader range of circumstance meet one of the interpretation. And as I have said, no “expert” I have asked has thought it a clear obvious unambiguous violation. Thus i disagree with either the above statements.


Either of your statements is a blanket condemnation of singlehanding. You may understand that you meant to include some set of qualifications. But a thread reader may not, and may believe you believe exactly what you wrote - which is incorrect. I obviously thought, and think, worth correcting.


The text of the Rule itself, contains the answer to this question.

so you assert. Some others disagree.




“off the rails” and “meaningless nit“ are certainly in the eye of the beholder. I obviously disagree, otherwise I would not have taken the time to make my comments. Do you believe your idea of what is important or on topic to this thread is the only one (of any value)?

I have in the past been interested enough in this question to do some specific research on it. If you are not interested in the results of that research, well then perhaps you are not as open minded as you think you are.

.........

[magentawave]

Originally Posted by john61ct

https://youtu.be/LRpeOuBk5yQ

WHOA!

[TrentePieds]

@ Pelagic #445:

Ah, yes. 20 minutes south of where we park, and a short walk for one of our other members.

Could there be anything sweeter than such a manifestation of true entrepeneurship? MyBeloved forbids me to go there on the alleged grounds that I'm insufferably sweet already :-).


TP

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes. As they explained to me - it is viewed as a process designed to keep a “proper watch”, and there is a definitive mandate for it to have a human sight and sound component, for it not to totally rely on electronic gear watching.

That is clear.

The question/uncertainty is different - it is if the by sight and watch is a direct clause of at all times, or if it is an as necessary component of a proper watch (with proper watch being the component which is at all times).


Rule 5 could use some punctuation, which would clearify this.

Aboard no other vessel would it be considered acceptable to stand your watch while sound asleep in your bunk. If you were the only person designated to be on watch and you were having an extended snooze in your bunk, it would be considered that your crew had failed to comply with rule 5 and the same is true whether you are on an aircraft carrier, a 50’ crewed yacht, or a 35’ singlehanded sailboat because rule 5 applies to “all vessels.”

I can understand your desire for different punctuation in rule 5 because a couple of well placed comma’s or rearrangement of a few words could change its meaning to support your position that it’s possible to keep a proper watch while asleep. Maybe the writers intended it as you claim they did and were such poor grammarians that they didn’t quite know how to express that. Or maybe they knew exactly what they wanted to say and did say it very straightforwardly with the appropriate punctuation to support their clear intent. Which do you think is more likely? If they had meant what you claim they did don’t you think they would have started off with something like, “every vessel at all times must maintain a proper watch to appraise the risk of collision by using appropriate means such as sight and sound and other electronic aids” or something similar? If they had worded it that way, then you could argue that as long as your appraisal turned out to be correct you must have been keeping a proper watch and whatever mix of sight and/or sound and/or electronics you used to make your appraisal was acceptable. But instead of doing that they spelled out the who, when, and what pretty clearly for us, “every vessel at all times, by sight and hearing and all available means.”

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But instead of doing that they spelled out the who, when, and what pretty clearly for us, “every vessel at all times, by sight and hearing and all available means.”

So if you have six GPS instruments all available do you have to be using them all, all the time or does the skipper manage his instruments use according to proper judgment and need ?

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But instead of doing that they spelled out the who, when, and what pretty clearly for us, “every vessel at all times, by sight and hearing and all available means.”

Indeed it's very clear ... who: every vessel; when: at all times; what: maintain a proper watch so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and risk of collision; how: by sight and hearing and all available means. If they had meant continuous unbroken visual and auditory observations why didn't they say so?


Clearly there are two ways of reading that sentence ... and unless someone can come up with a precedent of a single-hander who wasn't involved in an accident being either convicted or acquitted of failing to maintain a proper watch, purely because they made a passage longer than is humanly possible to stay alert without napping, we're unlikely to find out the correct way ... and it doesn't matter, a proper watch does not result in a collision and that is what we care about ... and clearly that's all the law cares about too, since single-handers don't routinely end up in court.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, it's clear what we're dealing with here. If you can't understand that "although it is a clear violation of the COLREGS" means the same as "it is a clear violation of the COLREGS" -- condemning or not condemning it having nothing to do with whether it is a violation -- then naturally it's going to be hard to discuss the difference between the meaning of "proper lookout at all times by sight and by hearing" and "proper lookout, possibly by sight and by hearing, but maybe by some other means." They are not the same.







The text of the Rule itself, contains the answer to this question.





People who know me on here, know that I am very glad to be corrected when I am wrong, which happens often enough. I am always very grateful for it -- it's the best kind of learning experience and saves me from further wasting time on an error. And if you're never wrong in any of these discussions, you're not pushing the boundaries of your knowledge. There's no shame in it.



What I don't find pleasant, and I guess no one finds it pleasant -- is to have an interesting discussion thrown off the rails just to "put me in my place", with a meaningless nit which has nothing to do with the substance of the conversation -- "You said single handing for 24 hours! But that doesn't necessarily mean without sleep!". There is meanness at the heart of this, not an honest quest for knowledge, and the two things are not compatible.



It's also disappointing, that you think that this is what I do to other people. Sure, I've been known to have a vigorous debate about something like, for example, the idea of "right of way" in the COLREGS. You really think that was a meaningless nit, intended just to put someone down? On the contrary, that's a question of real substance, a question I have a deep interest in. Disagreeing with someone, even vigorously, is not in itself an expression of disrespect, not at all. Picking nits for no reason other than putting someone in his place, is.

I don't want to be misconstrued as being argumentative but the wording to me is completely unambiguous.


Sight and hearing are specifically stated as being a required element of keeping a lookout and any additional methods on board, if any, are also to be utilized.


Pretty clear.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

So if you have six GPS instruments all available do you have to be using them all, all the time or does the skipper manage his instruments use according to proper judgment and need ?

I summarized the first part of the rule, assuming that the experienced mariners on this forum would be familiar with the rest of rule 5 which deals with the reason you must use sight and hearing and all available means and that is to learn about your situation so you can most accurately determine your risk of collision. Though knowing your own geographical position is important, to avoid a collision, experienced sailors would understand that looking at other instruments such as radar or AIS would be more profitable to them in determining their position relative to other vessels so they can avoid colliding. But if you feel that you need 6 GPS’s in order to help avoid collisions, and they are available to you, then you should look at them all, and then seek the help of a mental health professional at your earliest convenience.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But if you feel that you need 6 GPS’s in order to help avoid collisions, and they are available to you, then you should look at them all,.....

One on the boat, one for the life raft, one on the ipad, one a friend gave me on departing and the crew brought their own It is important to know where you are.

So your interpretation of the rule says the skipper has no discretion and all available means have to be used all the time.

Just because they are available doesn't mean they are needed.
I argue that avoiding collision means the skipper has to use all available means where they are useful or needed including his/her brains to "keep proper lookout at all times" and it includes looking after the health of the crew which could mean all going down below and closing the hatch.

[Pelagic]

It will be interesting to review this lookout question in 10 years time when remote controled, unmanned cargo ships are plying the oceans.

[four winds]

An interesting discussion that I have enjoyed following. As a single handed sailor, that strives to be the best skipper my abilities allow, it is important to me. I can make it 36 hours without issue, 48 hours has proven to be my limit on a stormy day hop that turned into a 48 hour bash. Mid summer, central Florida, forecasts mean almost nothing.


I am surprised no one pointed out the oddity in question 12 from the navcenter faq. copied below. Seems to imply single handing in itself is not illegal. And also, unmanned vessels don't have sight and hearing. At least not human sight and hearing.

As the kids say, "what's up with that?"








12. When do I need a Look-out? According to Rule 5, all vessels are responsible for maintaining a proper look-out at all times - this includes one-man crews, unmanned crafts, and recreational boats.