Do you keep a Constant Lookout?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by monte

Actually failing to maintain a proper watch is illegal so yes single handlers are breaking maritime law.

Actually, that is arguably technically not the case.

Note the key words in the colregs (quoted below) 'proper' and 'appropriate'. If the singlehander is in fact doing enough to avoid collision, then his procedure is/could in fact be 'proper' and 'appropriate'. If he gets in a collision then by definition it has not been 'proper' and 'appropriate'. The authorities do in fact knowingly allow singlehanders to sail/race, so I would suggest they are following this interpretation - you are ok so long as you are not in a collision, but if you are in a collision you are judged at great % of fault.

Rule 5: "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision."

[monte]

Good luck arguing that
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing


Doesn't mean exactly what it says...at all times...by sight and hearing...

[estarzinger]

Note the word: "Proper" - it means enough/sufficient to avoid collision. If there is a collision, then by definition it was not "proper".

And you do simply have to admit the authorities do in fact know and allow single handers to sail, including in officially acknowledged and authorized races.

[Foolish]

Here is another exert from a book about singlehanding, this time from experts on the subject of keeping watch, giving three opposing views:

Troubled Waters: Bernard Hayman,
For 19 of the 35 years that I worked for the magazineYachting World, I was a member of the UK Safety of Navigation Committee. During those 19 years I never met a single professional mariner be he a shipmaster; a pilot; member of the Nautical Institute; of Trinity House; the RNLI; or what is now the Marine Safety Agency who did not consider that long distance single handed sailing was unlawful. Thus I am dismayed to see a singlehanded Trans-atlantic event promoted by the RIN. Of course I am aware that single-handed events exist but by what right do these 'adventurers' claim that Rule 5 the requirement to keep a proper lookout need not apply to them. If anyone can offer a valid reason why Rule 5 should be rewritten, I should be interested to hear it. Until it is rewritten it is like any other rule in COLREG and should be obeyed. The RYA summed up the situation in its comment: 'This is the most important Rule. If it is not observed, the rest of the Rules might as well not exist'.[end quote]


Even if we recognize that a singlehander can not live within the letter of the rule, is it possible to live within the spirit?
Reply by Michael Richey:
My good friend Bernard Hayman's memory on this occasion seems a bit selective. I too served on that Committee for many years and was far from aware of being isolated in holding that single-handed sailing could be compatible with the Collision Regulations. Rule 5 “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look- out...”') is entirely concerned with the risk of collision so that in the (hypothetical) situation where no such risk exists, it can have no application. From this it is not a long way to saying that where the risk of collision is small, some relaxation of vigilance can be accepted. As one of the authors (Cockcroft) of A Guide to the Collision Regulations put it, no one would admonish a ship's master experiencing continuous fog in the North Pacific Ocean over several days for failing to sound his whistle every two minutes throughout the 24 hours. In other words safety at sea is the criterion and the Regulations should be applied with common sense. The views of the International Association of Institutes of Navigation, incidentally, as submitted to the International Maritime Organisation on this matter and IMO's comments on them are printed in the Journal for January 1979.

Whether we live within the spirit or the letter, we are the only ones who will suffer in any case:
On the Lookout: , Dag Pike
Bernard Hayman in his letter (above) is concerned about single handers flouting the Colregs by not keeping a lookout all the time. The Colregs are flouted by virtually every vessel at sea, particularly small craft. It may be navigation lights not meeting requirements, not sounding fog signals, simply keeping out of the way of larger ships etc. In this radar-governed world, when did you last hear a ship sounding fog signals? Most people, including single handers get away with it and I could be cynical in saying that the Colregs are not there to govern our behaviour at sea but are only so that there is someone to blame when things do go wrong. In the current lawyers paradise where we need to sue someone when an accident happens, the Colregs perform a vital role. In the practical world, I see no problem with single handers keeping the level of lookout they feel comfortable with. After all, they will be the ones to suffer if a collision occurs.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

jtsailj

^^ It is important to understand that this, like all safety decisions, depends on a risk assessment/trade-off.

It is not an absolute thing. If you wanted to make it an absolute thing, then just for one example, every boat should have a 20kw radar (because 4kws are pretty worthless in fog and rain), and they should have it on 100% of the time. Do you have a 20kw radar on all the time? If not, then your own argument would suggest you are taking a risk with my life!

So let's agree that we in fact are not going to do 'everything/anything possible regardless of cost/effort', but rather lets agree what we are going to do is make a risk/return/cost trade-off/optimization. So how do we optimize this?

AIS has fundamentally changed the whole collision avoidance equation. If you are transmitting AIS, I will not hit you. Period. full stop. (mmmm . . . barring some serious act of god) Even when I am very fatigued and singlehanding. Nothing (recreational) but AIS works in really bad conditions - not recreational radar and not the mark I eyeballs either - neither work in well in heavy fog/rain/heavy weather but AIS does. So the priority to pursue here is for you to be transmitting AIS and for everyone else (particularly short handed) to also.

So, are you transmitting AIS?

If both vessels have AIS transceivers then the risk increment between double handed and 'fully crewed' is as close to zero as anyone could want. (remember, even fully crewed ships with every piece of mil-spec gear in the world do still occasionally get into collisions)

All of this is very true.

And especially the bit about AIS, which is a total game changer for collision avoidance. All of sudden you see instantly (no longer any need to record a series of bearings, or let MARPA record a series of bearings) whether there is a serious risk of collision or not, and you can figure out pretty fast whether he's passing ahead of behind. And you can set alarms so that you don't have to be constantly analyzing all of the traffic (as we used to do).

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by accomplice

Last Saturday night, while hove to about 240nm WNW of Bermuda I was awoken by the crew on watch. Using Radar my crew had tracked a vessel off our starboard beam, with constant bearing, now 6 miles away. It was not appearing on AIS - but that might have been because our AIS has exhibited reduced range lately. I observed the vessel on radar and visually for a few minutes. It exhibited white over red with a feint green visible next to the red. Uh oh.

I attempted unsuccessfully three times to hail the unknown vessel on the radio.

We had our tricolor on, but as the other boat neared 1.5 miles I put on the spreader lights to light up the deck and sails. The other boat continued heading straight for us.

I then took out the brightest flashlight I had and began flashing towards the oncoming vessel.

Immediately the other vessel appeared on AIS and hailed us and asked, "Why you flashing that light at me?". I explained that I wanted to make sure they saw us. The other vessel requested that I repeat slower as his English was not good. After repeating myself twice more, he asked if we needed assistance. "Negative," I relied. They passed less than 0.2nm off our bow. They remained visible on AIS and radar for several miles.


I don't know what would've happened had we not been keeping watch.

The interesting thing for me about this encounter is that the other vessel suddenly came up on the AIS and hailed only after the flashlight was used. Prior to that, he wasn't showing on AIS or answering hails. He then remained on AIS.

Here is an instant where the technology failed and I assume probably to lax effort on behalf of the other vessel's skipper / crew.

[Jim Cate]

Re "Breaking the law": It is interesting that in the well publicized case of Jessica Watson's collision with the Chinese freighter, despite her being single handing and being asleep just prior to the collision the majority of the blame was placed on the freighter. The investigators were well aware that she failed to keep "proper watch", yet did not reckon that she was, by that fact, the guilty party.

Cheers,

Jim

[Rustic Charm]

It's interesting that (at least in my understanding of the) COLREGS, there intent is pretty much the same as road rules when it comes to avoiding collisions. That is, regardless of who has 'right of way', it is encumbent on both parties to avoid a collision.

I've explained this previously as explaining a car that has right of way on a green traffic light. If someone travels through a red traffic light and hits a car going through a green traffic light, a civil magistrate will want to know what the green light driver did to avoid the collision. I've once heard a green light driver say in court, 'I didn't do anything as I had the right of way so I just kept going', and the magistrate decided that each person will hence cover their own repairs.

We actually have an offence too, 'fail to avoid a collision'

[Sailormantx]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Nice attempt at creating a strawman but nobody has claimed to keep a "perfect watch," whatever that means, but I do think it's important for everyone at sea to attempt to follow the rules that are designed to keep us from inadvertently running into each other. Even when you have adequate crew and someone on watch, stuff happens at sea that can cause "momentary" distractions that become more than momentary so nobody, whatever their intentions, keeps a "perfect watch" that guarantees they will never be surprised by another boat close aboard. But when both boats involved in a potential collision have someone on watch at all times, it becomes a lot less likely that both watchkeepers will be momentarily distracted at the same time, resulting in a collision. What gives you or anyone else the right to ignore the rule requiring that you keep a watch at all times just because you enjoy putting yourself into a situation where it would be impractical to follow that rule? I'm sure you're very special and everyone else at sea should just get out of your way so you can singlehand and snooze at will, but what makes you think you have the right to give me 100% of the responsibility to ensure that you don't run into me?

Perect watch: scanning the horizon without pause except when checking the radar and other instruments. this is what I do when sailing on my license and I can tell you that it would be highly unusual away from port and near shore areas to see another vessel that has not been detected electronically before it comes within sight. Obviously you have never singlehanded or you would not be talking about snoozing at will! 30 to 45 minute naps is more like it when there is no traffic around and not repairing, reefing and unreefing, adjusting the windvane and whatever else needs attention. Sometimes it can take a few days of naps to get one good nights sleep. Again it takes two to make a collision, are you snoozing when you shouldn't be? If you are that worried about it get an AIS and let the world know where you are, it is far superior than radar for tracking smaller vessels. If you want to avoid collisions with other vessels-and not just singlehanders- it is your responsibility to make your vessel as visible as possible to others. Not just AIS, but radar reflectors, paint and sails that are bright and not blue or white, bright nav lights are but a few things that can enhance your visibility. I can't avoid you if I don't know you're out there.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Sailormantx

Perect watch: scanning the horizon without pause except when checking the radar and other instruments. this is what I do when sailing on my license and I can tell you that it would be highly unusual away from port and near shore areas to see another vessel that has not been detected electronically before it comes within sight. Obviously you have never singlehanded or you would not be talking about snoozing at will! 30 to 45 minute naps is more like it when there is no traffic around and not repairing, reefing and unreefing, adjusting the windvane and whatever else needs attention. Sometimes it can take a few days of naps to get one good nights sleep. Again it takes two to make a collision, are you snoozing when you shouldn't be? If you are that worried about it get an AIS and let the world know where you are, it is far superior than radar for tracking smaller vessels. If you want to avoid collisions with other vessels-and not just singlehanders- it is your responsibility to make your vessel as visible as possible to others. Not just AIS, but radar reflectors, paint and sails that are bright and not blue or white, bright nav lights are but a few things that can enhance your visibility. I can't avoid you if I don't know you're out there.

The Colregs do require that you keep a proper lookout, they do not require that every vessel be equipped with AIS.

[atlantical]

Originally Posted by Sailormantx

Perect watch: scanning the horizon without pause except when checking the radar and other instruments. this is what I do when sailing on my license and I can tell you that it would be highly unusual away from port and near shore areas to see another vessel that has not been detected electronically before it comes within sight. Obviously you have never singlehanded or you would not be talking about snoozing at will! 30 to 45 minute naps is more like it when there is no traffic around and not repairing, reefing and unreefing, adjusting the windvane and whatever else needs attention. Sometimes it can take a few days of naps to get one good nights sleep. Again it takes two to make a collision, are you snoozing when you shouldn't be? If you are that worried about it get an AIS and let the world know where you are, it is far superior than radar for tracking smaller vessels. If you want to avoid collisions with other vessels-and not just singlehanders- it is your responsibility to make your vessel as visible as possible to others. Not just AIS, but radar reflectors, paint and sails that are bright and not blue or white, bright nav lights are but a few things that can enhance your visibility. I can't avoid you if I don't know you're out there.

30 to 45 minute naps? I single handed from the usa to the uk, I didn't have radar or AIS, I don't like putting too much reliance on electronics, because when they go on the blink, you are lost. My grundig yacht boy radio was my most useful tool. But I did sleep a good eight hours at times, and you try fighting a storm for 35 hours, you are wet cold and very tired, and then take a 45 minute nap, its not going to happen, you are going to fall into a deep sleep, and not waken until your body feels like it.

The longest shift I ever did, was a straight 45 hours on a products tanker, I was pumpman, and the pumps packed up, we couldn't get the cargo out, I started to have audio halucenations, that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep, then you make totally wrong decisions, fatigue is probably the biggest danger to anything that floats, on another tanker, I found the watch officer asleep on the bridge while going through the English channel, I also spoke to an airline pilot, who told me, that on a long haul flight to the uk, both he and the co pilot fell asleep at the same time.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

jtsailj

^^ It is important to understand that this, like all safety decisions, depends on a risk assessment/trade-off.

It is not an absolute thing. If you wanted to make it an absolute thing, then just for one example, every boat should have a 20kw radar (because 4kws are pretty worthless in fog and rain), and they should have it on 100% of the time. Do you have a 20kw radar on all the time? If not, then your own argument would suggest you are taking a risk with my life!

So let's agree that we in fact are not going to do 'everything/anything possible regardless of cost/effort', but rather lets agree what we are going to do is make a risk/return/cost trade-off/optimization. So how do we optimize this?

AIS has fundamentally changed the whole collision avoidance equation. If you are transmitting AIS, I will not hit you. Period. full stop. (mmmm . . . barring some serious act of god) Even when I am very fatigued and singlehanding. Nothing (recreational) but AIS works in really bad conditions - not recreational radar and not the mark I eyeballs either - neither work in well in heavy fog/rain/heavy weather but AIS does. So the priority to pursue here is for you to be transmitting AIS and for everyone else (particularly short handed) to also.

So, are you transmitting AIS?

If both vessels have AIS transceivers then the risk increment between double handed and 'fully crewed' is as close to zero as anyone could want. (remember, even fully crewed ships with every piece of mil-spec gear in the world do still occasionally get into collisions)

Within the rules, I agree that achieving safety does involve a certain amount of risk assessment/tradeoff. But deliberately not keeping a proper watch is NOT within the rules and you can't use relativism and talking about equipment that other mariners "should" have to justify small boat sailors breaking a very clear cut rule that applies to everyone. There is no asterisk in the rules that explains that out of all the boats at sea, small boat sailors are exempt from following an important safety rule that everyone else, from fishermen to large commercial vessels, to military vehicles of all types is expected to follow. YOU may feel that equipping every offshore boat with AIS would make a HUGE contribution to safety for all, and I'd agree with you, but until it becomes the law and all offshore boats are so equipped, it doesn't matter what either of us think about AIS or 20kw radars or any other piece of safety gear that everyone "should" have. However, keeping a proper watch all the time IS the law. Either do it or don't do it, but you'll never persuade me that planning ahead of time to ignore a very clear cut and very important rule, without which most of the rest of the rules are pretty meaningless, is optional because you find it to be inconvenient.

As you say, "remember, even fully crewed ships with every piece of mil-spec gear in the world do still occasionally get into collisions," but when all that mil-spec gear lets you down, that's the very time when a low tech watchkeeper looking out the window or at his radar or hearing something or even smelling something, can save the day for both vessels and both crews involved.......unless he's asleep instead. Maybe the guys who wrote the Colreg requiring a proper lookout by EVERY ship at sea were smarter than some are giving them credit for.

I fully understand just how hard it is to stay alert at sea when shorthanded and I also understand not wanting extra people aboard my boat when the odds are that I won't need them anyway. We agree there. But that doesn't allow me or you or a container ship in the middle of the Pacific (haven't seen another boat for days and it's waaaay too boring) or a lobsterman along the foggy Maine coast (got 150 more traps to go and only 3 hours before it's supposed to really start blowing) to exempt himself from keeping a proper lookout because in his judgment, he thinks he's being safe enough without one. YOU may feel that the equipment and automatic sensors you have aboard your boat is an adequate substitute for keeping a proper watch to keep you safe, but until you get permission and agrement from everyone else at sea that you might possibly encounter, they are assuming and depending on you to be following the Colreg requiring that you use appropriate means to keep a proper watch all the time. Very few of them will agree that the inside of your eyelids qualify as "appropriate means" for complying with the Colreg requiring a proper watch at all times.

[estarzinger]

^^ well . . . . all I can say is that so far my watch keeping has been "proper and appropriate", by definition, as we have not gotten into a collision situation.

As I said in a post above . . . I believe you are clearly misinterpreting the regulation, and ignoring the very carefully placed words "proper" and "appropriate".

If the authorities viewed the regulation as you do then they simply would not issue official permits for singlehanded races, yet they do officially approve and permit singlehanded races.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ well . . . . all I can say is that so far my watch keeping has been "proper and appropriate", by definition, as we have not gotten into a collision situation.

As I said in a post above . . . I believe you are clearly misinterpreting the regulation, and ignoring the very carefully placed words "proper" and "appropriate".

If the authorities viewed the regulation as you do then they simply would not issue official permits for singlehanded races, yet they do officially approve and permit singlehanded races.

And I think you are misinterpreting the words appropriate and proper to justify not following this rule so you can keep doing what you want to keep doing. If you get to decide for your vessel when you can safely disregard actually having a human being on watch, then you must think everyone else can do the same. So why even have any standards or any rules about watchkeeping if everybody gets to decide for themselves when they want to actually keep a watch? Obviously much judgment and discretion is required to operate a boat safely but some rules provide a lower limit to how far you can exercise that judgment and I believe this rule is one of them. I understand it's a big mid-ocean out there and that the odds are with you and you've clearly both used some good discretion and had some good luck so far, but when anyone operates a many ton vehicle at speeds that could badly damage or crush anything that it hits, and they try to claim it's safe to do that while everyone aboard is asleep, I think that they are saying what they wish were true rather than what they know to be true.

[estarzinger]

^^If you are really interested or concerned about this I will suggest you ask the USCG and the Gendarmerie Maritime why they explicitly officially permit single handing and how they interpret rule 5 in that context.

I have asked both. Their answer was that the rule means the watch much be sufficient to prevent collisions (and meet the other colregs), but it does not specify how it must be performed. That is left up to the master. And they believe that a singlehander can possibly perform a 'proper' watch, and they will not sanction one until it is proven that he has not.

One of them indicated that without the words 'proper' and 'appropriate' the remaining wording might be considered to imply that a vessel would have to have 8 on watch at all times, each scanning only a 45 degree angle, with no bathroom or drink breaks and the entire watch (of 8) changed every hour. And they know that that is not necessary to prevent collisions, and they want to give the masters flexibility to manage the watch as best for the crew and situation.

But you go ahead and interpret the rule however you want. At least your interpretation will not cause others harm. And please consider getting an AIS transceiver.