Do you keep a Constant Lookout?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

I guess you'll need to add "the WAFI who hasn't slept enough in days.."

Oh, not at all. I think that a WAFI sound asleep below, while his autopilot steers a steady course, is a Godsend to a well-run commercial bridge
compared to the well-rested, wide awake WAFI without a clue about how to do collision avoidance, who is prone to sudden and unpredictable maneuvers.

For example, the sailor who sees red and green sidelights and thinks that, without further analysis of the situation, he should just turn perpendicular to the course of the ship and hop "out of the way". There is a chance approaching 50% that "hopping out of the way" like that is actually hopping right into the path of the ship, whose bridge long ago calculated a safe CPA and altered course. Long before the sailor was even aware the ship was there. Something the sailors can't even perceive just by looking at side lights. Speaking of Russian roulette -- this is actually much worse!


I'm not, with this, saying anything pro or contra on the original topic of this thread. I think both sides have some very strong points, and don't agree with either extreme position.

What I AM saying is that lack of understanding of collision avoidance is a much, much bigger problem than how intensely one keeps a visual watch. If you keep a perfect watch, and see the ship in plenty of time, what good does it do you, if you don't have a clue what to do? You'd be better off below and asleep, in order at least not to interfere with the professionals on the ship's bridge, for whom the failure of a WAFI to give way when he should is not usually any kind of challenge or problem, at least not in open water.


It's also worth pointing out once again that all this is just totally different in open water compared to coastal areas where 99% of sailing takes place. The visual part of the watch is vastly more important in constricted waters, than it is in the open ocean, and collision avoidance is one differently. It is perilous to transfer experience from one environment, into different ones, with different principles.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I do think it's pretty irresponsible for anyone to operate a several ton vessel at speeds fast enough to severely damage or sink another ocean going vessel that might be out there, and not even be watching where they're going for significant periods of time, which is essentially what many short handed or singlehanded sailors are accustomed to doing.

This is really the crux of your argument, as echoed in numerous previous posts. It comes down to the difference between "significant" and "adequate and proper". I would agree that anyone who goes to sleep for any period longer than a quarter of an hour at a time is is not maintaining a proper watch. Every single hander that I know catnaps between scans and does not exceed that schedule.

When I'm single-handing I set my watch to beep every 10 minutes. If I'm napping I am located where I can quickly scan the horizon and and get back to my next sleep period without so much activity that I totally disrupt it.

I used to set my watch to every 15 minutes until one instance where I awoke to find a ship couple of miles off. It was too close for comfort and I adjusted my schedule.

I believe I'm keeping a proper and adequate watch, and know for a fact that I do a better job of keeping watch than many people on watch on fully crewed boats.

You're maintaining that it is not possible to maintain and proper and adequate watch on any longer single-handed passage at all and are interpreting Rule 5 through the lens of your own subjectivity. You may not have the right physiology for for single handing a longer passage, but that does not mean that others do not.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Isn't the purpose (and the sole purpose) of the COLREGS is to prevent collision at sea?

If so, then then only time you can in breach of the COLREGS is when a collision occurs. Then fault can be established (in part) by reference to the COLREGS.

Unlike say the road rules where one can be held accountable for say speeding by the mere act of speeding, the COLREGS aren't actually enforced in that manner. Not only aren't they enforced as such, they weren't intended to be (AFAIK).

The skipper (captain / whatever) is the one who decides how the vessel is operated, if a collision occurs, then they are held responsible for failing to comply with the COLREGS; if no collision occurs, then by definition, non-compliance hasn't occurred.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet against this argument.

You can breach COLREGS without a collision-- an example would be forcing a deep draft ship out of the lanes. No collision, but you broke the COLREGS, and then the ship avoided a collision. If the ship avoids a collision and runs aground, according to your version of the COLREGS, there was no breach since there was no collision.

And I have serious doubts about whether that's the case.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet against this argument.

You can breach COLREGS without a collision-- an example would be forcing a deep draft ship out of the lanes. No collision, but you broke the COLREGS, and then the ship avoided a collision. If the ship avoids a collision and runs aground, according to your version of the COLREGS, there was no breach since there was no collision.

And I have serious doubts about whether that's the case.

I AM a lawyer, and use to teach the stuff in law schools, too. I can confirm that Jammer Six is correct here.

Unlikelihood of enforcement makes it easier to violate a rule, but it doesn't mean that a violation doesn't exist.

[MarkJ]

I sleep for 20 minutes, wake up have a quick look around and sleep for another 20. Its easy. I do i a few times during the day too. The trick is to do plenty.

That Polyphasic sleep stuff seems to say oly have 3 hours sleep per day. That would kill me. I get loads of sleep, just at 20 min blobs.

[JPA Cate]

Mark J,

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but based on what I read yesterday, you are doing polyphasic sleeping, and have adjusted your schedule to fit your own body's rhythms, and will be getting enough deep sleep and enough REM sleep. Incidentally, as you age, you may find that your resistance to fatigue changes.

Since there are two of us, we do our sleeping in two batches: a long night time off watch while the other is on watch (6 hrs.), and a nap of whatever length we need during the daytime.

For singlehanders, the 10 min. catnaps seem to work very well, as Suijun mentioned above.

Ann

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Foolish

There are some very serious rebuttals to Claudio Stampi's technique. It should be studied carefully before a singlehander assumes it is the ultimate solution. You might remember the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer attempts to use it. I wrote in my book:
Dr. Piotr Wozniak has studied polyphasic sleep and does not believe it is possible to perform adequately using these techniques. Another excellent counterview is expressed in a video on YouTube titled “Polyphasic Sleep Experiment,” where the best line is “I can’t tell if I’ve been getting sleep or not. I don’t know. I might be. I’ve got memory gaps. I want some pancakes.”

Thanks for the headsup, Foolish.

One point the two men seem to have in common is that the biphasic sleep pattern is deeply embedded in our genetic makeup. FWIW (maybe not much, 'cause this isn't my field), for sailors, I think it is important to learn to work with our natural proclivities to extend our watchkeeping abilities. For that, one has to pay attention and keep aware of oneself.

Ann

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

I sleep for 20 minutes, wake up have a quick look around and sleep for another 20. Its easy. I do i a few times during the day too. The trick is to do plenty.

Beer doesn't affect me until I've had at least six, and I'm certain I can drive up to about twelve, because after all the times I've done it without hurting anyone, now I can tell whether or not I'm impaired.

It's easy. I do it all the time. Haven't had an accident yet.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Beer doesn't affect me until I've had at least six, and I'm certain I can drive up to about twelve, because after all the times I've done it without hurting anyone, now I can tell whether or not I'm impaired.

It's easy. I do it all the time. Haven't had an accident yet.

yep, the amount of drivers I've breathalysed over the years and they claim not to be affected by liquor at all and would not accept the impact it was having on their driving.

and the amount that reverted to 'havn't had an accident yet'. yep, you keep on believing that.

[jongleur]

[QUOTE=Rustic Charm;1660133] yep, the amount of drivers I've breathalysed over the years and they claim not to be affected by liquor..."

There has never been a drunk driver in the history of
the world, because, if you ask why a person who has
been drinking is operating a vehicle, they will
invariably answer, "I'm not drunk." (no funny faces here)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

yep, the amount of drivers I've breathalysed over the years and they claim not to be affected by liquor at all and would not accept the impact it was having on their driving.

and the amount that reverted to 'havn't had an accident yet'. yep, you keep on believing that.

I think you missed that invisible "SARC" tag

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I AM a lawyer, and use to teach the stuff in law schools, too. I can confirm that Jammer Six is correct here.

Unlikelihood of enforcement makes it easier to violate a rule, but it doesn't mean that a violation doesn't exist.

Hmm... perhaps I'm splitting hairs and like Jammer Six, I ain't no lawyer but surely a violation exists only after a matter has gone to a court and the defendant is found guilty. Prior to that, no violation existed. It really doesn't matter what the enforcement agency says, what the prosecution says, what CF members says, what the 5 or 6 billion people who weren't there says but is does matter what the big fella (or lassie) in the says court.

However I accept that the legal beagles can run rings around me so my language I used maybe incorrect.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Hmm... perhaps I'm splitting hairs and like Jammer Six, I ain't no lawyer but surely a violation exists only after a matter has gone to a court and the defendant is found guilty. Prior to that, no violation existed. It really doesn't matter what the enforcement agency says, what the prosecution says, what CF members says, what the 5 or 6 billion people who weren't there says but is does matter what the big fella (or lassie) in the says court.

However I accept that the legal beagles can run rings around me so my language I used maybe incorrect.

yep, your splitting hairs. Your actually referring about guilt and conviction which is a little different than the initial transgression. Dockhead and Jammer are correct, you may not have been to court, let alone prosecuted but you have transgressed the law.

But, they are also splitting hairs, because some parts of Colregs in relation to avoidance of a collision, by avoiding a collision and taking avoidance action then you don't transgress. It's similar to a local (by that I mean Tasmania, Australia) there is a law that you only commit if you have an accident. It's called 'fail to avoid an accident'. I presume it's still exists. Typical example of this is knowingly going through a Green traffic light and insisting on right of way and this action,ends to an accident. You don't transgress the law unless you fail.

Likewise, as others were pointing out, your not transgressing the law if you avoid an accident, 'unless', you transgressed a set Colregs that is a breach regardless, e.g failing to display lights required.

That's my take anyway.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Mostly correct, but be aware especially of Rule 10, a number of ships and indeed a few yachts have fallen foul of Vessel Traffic Services which monitor the TSS, and have been subjected to heavy fines.

But, in the main, out at sea, a collision is needed before you can be held accountable.

I'm with ya

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

yep, your splitting hairs. Your actually referring about guilt and conviction which is a little different than the initial transgression. Dockhead and Jammer are correct, you may not have been to court, let alone prosecuted but you have transgressed the law......
..................

That's my take anyway.

Let's split some more hairs

Surely you mean an alleged transgression of the law...