What do single handlers do at night?

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

The COLREGs don't say: "human watch." One could argue that, with an AIS-triggered collision warning and the radio on you are keeping a: "continuous electronic watch."

The COLREGs also don't say vessels: "must keep a watch with a sleep-deprived and disabled, hallucinating zombie single-hander." Some latitude and judgement must apply to the situation. If it ever comes up, I expect judges to act like humans - not binary robots. But I don't know of a case where this has ever come before a court. Does anyone else?

I was thinking the same thing. There may come a time in the not so distant future when a human watch won't be necessary once well outside the harbor.

[DefinitelyMe]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I was thinking the same thing. There may come a time in the not so distant future when a human watch won't be necessary once well outside the harbor.

There have already been trials of un-manned vessels. There's this one:

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/29/sea...with-draft-rfp

And this one:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...nment-48216966

[roverhi]

I was in a Navy VC squadron in at Barber's Point NAS in Hawaii in the late '60s. We were responsible for providing drone targets for the fleet. One was an Aviation Rescue Boat with twin 6-71 GM diesels and radio control set up that I delivered from Pearl to Barking Sands on Kauai in preparation for it getting blown up in an exercise. Seem to remember that it actually survived one exercise with major damage. It was patched up as best we could and sent it out again but it wasn't so lucky the second time. So there have been unmanned Navy vessels for years.

IIRC the USS Utah Battle Ship sunk at Pearl Harbor on December 7th was also a target ship though don't know if it was remotely controlled.

[Mr B]

Its a bit pointless if we already have driverless cars, Trains and trucks,
The skys are full of unmanned Drones carrying explosives to blow up other countrys infrastructure and people,
The are working on unmanned shipping,

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by David M

Technically you are breaking the law (COLREG's) by not having a "proper watch", so single-handers don't have any choice but to break the law. That's how it is.

I had to wait until I stopped laughing to write a rebuttal.

First, COLREGS are not law. It is a United Nations agreement. No person has, and never will be subpoenaed by an international court for sailing alone.

COLREGS are used by maritime courts to help adjudicate incidents that occur at sea (high seas). Inland rules apply for near coastal and inland waters.

"Proper watch" is not defined in the COLREGS. So, in fact electronic watch keeping is being used more and more, and required by COLREGS if the equipment is aboard a vessel.

As mentioned the Navy has unmanned vessels of all sorts, and there are more and more unmanned drones on the high seas.

Finally, there is always the alternative to place the vessel in a "not under command" status (showing appropriate lights/day shapes).

So, the short and sweet of it is that single handed sailors are not breaking any laws (unless there are specific state or local laws that I am unaware of that specifically forbid a single person from sailing or operating a vessel).

That's how it really is.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

The COLREGs don't say: "human watch." One could argue that, with an AIS-triggered collision warning and the radio on you are keeping a: "continuous electronic watch."

Is an "electronic watch" while you sleep the same as "at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing"? I think not!





(How many times have we gone through this same old argument? )

[Tillsbury]

I think I'd trust an unmanned vessel to manage to avoid me somehow, rather than a freighter who's supposed to have someone on watch but doesn't...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

I had to wait until I stopped laughing to write a rebuttal.

First, COLREGS are not law. It is a United Nations agreement. No person has, and never will be subpoenaed by an international court for sailing alone.

COLREGs are law in every maritime nation. Each country has enacted it into law through their own national legislation.


COLREGS are used by maritime courts to help adjudicate incidents that occur at sea (high seas). Inland rules apply for near coastal and inland waters.


COLREGs have been used to prosecute people.


"Proper watch" is not defined in the COLREGS. So, in fact electronic watch keeping is being used more and more, and required by COLREGS if the equipment is aboard a vessel.


Here's one case:



http://www.lexcanada.com/libraries/case-comment-charges-under-the-canada-shipping-act/


"Before the Court of Appeal, Captain Ralph argued that the vessel had been equipped “more thoroughly and extensively than most, if not all, other comparable vessels” and was very “technologically advanced”. The court did not accept this argument, noting that nothing in the regulatory provisions allows for the substitution of a person on the bridge with advanced technology.Rule 5 of the Collision Regulations requires every vessel to maintain a proper lookout “by sight and hearing…in the prevailing circumstances…so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and the risk of collision”. Captain Ralph relied on his advanced technology argument once again. In convicting him on this charge, the trial judge incorporated his findings on the deck watch charge and also noted that the captain could not have been keeping a proper lookout while he was “in the galley making sandwiches”."


So, the short and sweet of it is that single handed sailors are not breaking any laws (unless there are specific state or local laws that I am unaware of that specifically forbid a single person from sailing or operating a vessel).

That's how it really is.

That's how it really is!

[StuM]

And in the UK:
Merchant Shipping Act 1894


(similar legislation in other countries)

[Sailing4Jesus]

If Tristin Jones or Joshua Solcum were still alive they could advise you. If you have seven miles of Anchor Chain that would help also, but Seriously there is HOPE on the horizon. There are Robots these days doing almost anything, so it probably won't be too long until there will be A Robot Seaman you can purchase to stand those watches, and you won't even have to feed him, and he will probably be sharper than many Junior Officers I served with in The Navy.

Senior Chief, U.S.NAVY, RETIRED

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by David M

Technically you are breaking the law (COLREG's) by not having a "proper watch", so single-handers don't have any choice but to break the law. That's how it is.

I believe we are all reasonable people here who understand single-handed sailing is not illegal, and that we have judges because application of the law isn't black and white. But since the COLREGs are referenced in this thread, I'll quote Rule 2(b) which states the need to depart from the rules when strict adherence to them creates a danger:

Rule 2
Responsibility:
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. *

Application of this rule: In order to remain competent at seaman's duties, biological necessities must be accommodated when the vessel is operated by a single seaman, because termination of those biological necessities will result in incompetence and thereby create a dangerous condition. At those times when the seaman is preparing food, using the head, or sleeping; a continuous electronic watch is maintained, with appropriate aural alarms to alert the seaman of the need to temporarily suspend those biologically-necessary activities. The seaman shall use good prudence when deciding when to attend to biological necessities.


* Quoted from https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pdf

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I believe we are all reasonable people here who understand single-handed sailing is not illegal, and that we have judges because application of the law isn't black and white. But since the COLREGs are referenced in this thread, I'll quote Rule 2(b) which states the need to depart from the rules when strict adherence to them creates a danger:

Rule 2
Responsibility:
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. *

Application of this rule: In order to remain competent at seaman's duties, biological necessities must be accommodated when the vessel is operated by a single seaman, because termination of those biological necessities will result in incompetence and thereby create a dangerous condition. At those times when the seaman is preparing food, using the head, or sleeping; a continuous electronic watch is maintained, with appropriate aural alarms to alert the seaman of the need to temporarily suspend those biologically-necessary activities. The seaman shall use good prudence when deciding when to attend to biological necessities.


* Quoted from https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pdf

Where did you get the section Application of this rule? It isn't in your link. I'm surprised that sleep would be included in those exceptions, as it is not an immediate danger.

[Mr B]

When theres a full moon, I dance naked on the Bows and change into a Wherewolf,
Then I get all these long dog hairs all over the cushions in the Salon,

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Where did you get the section Application of this rule? It isn't in your link. I'm surprised that sleep would be included in those exceptions, as it is not an immediate danger.

It's my own personal application of the need for sleep in the context of Rule 2(b). Humans need sleep to function. Otherwise, the vessel is not being competently commanded, which creates a danger.

A constant and continual danger (a single-hander who is disabled by sleep deprivation) is at all times an immediate danger.

A less legalistic, less black and white paraphrase of Rule 2(b) is: "Do what's safe and prudent when the rules conflict with good judgment." Being severely sleep deprived is definitely not safe or prudent. Sleeping while out in open ocean entails less risk. Stay awake long enough and you'll sleep regardless - just with your eyes open.

If you hit another vessel out there - you must have offended Poseidon.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's how it really is!

Stu, I suspect we are picking at bones, but facts do matter.

Every signatory of the UN convention on COLREGS was required to enact their own set of laws to govern their territorial waters. Those nation states were also required by the UN convention to be responsibile to investigate and prosecute any vessel flagged under that nation state that is involved in an incident on the high seas (international waters). Most nation states adopted the COLREGS with some minor differences. Even the US Inland Rules are not a direct word for word adoption of the COLREGS convention.

For example, in the US the specific law is United States Code: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1608.

This is a good read on the law with some specifics and exclusions...https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?....especially subsection 1608 (b).

In the case you cite, Captain Shawn Ralph was convicted under the Canada Shipping Act, which is the Canadian implementation of the COLREGS convention agreement. So, in fact it was not the UN COLREGS convention that Cape. Raplh was tried and convicted under, but it was the Canadian laws (specifically the Canada Shipping Act). (Also...as an aside...the Canadian Supreme Court later stayed the deck watch conviction.)

Finally, not all countries are signatory to the COLREGS UN convention. Mostly land-locked nation states. But Costa Rica, Guinea, Haiti, Mali, Federated States of Micronesia, Somalia, Suriname, and Timor-Leste are not signatories to the convention and these countries are not land-locked nation states. These countries may or may not have 'laws' regarding maritime traffic.

Here is a nice article to understand maritime 'non-laws' in Costa Rica. https://news.co.cr/costa-rica-needs-...irector/55907/ as recent as 2017.

This is all a digression from the topic, and completely tangential to the OPs original questions. But, I think he can rest safely at night or day while single handing across an ocean knowing he's not going to be hunted down and convicted in some "international court" for violating a UN convention.