What do single handlers do at night?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by JamieDMerrill

Sometimes its a hard decision given the circumstances.

Because the other vessel was traveling almost 5 times my speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and had 5 times my speed, so avoidance by me seemed unlikely at the time. I felt threatened by the other vessel. If I had the same speed or was faster than the other vessel, I could have corrected immediately. But in this case, my best bet was to wait until he altered course or until I knew my correction would put me out of harms way.


Sometimes its a hard decision, especially when the other vessel is completely ignoring you or appears to be bearing down on purpose.

Dockhead initiated a delightful thread on CPA and boats traveling 4:1 or more than your speed. It's long, but I learned a lot, and actually tried it with a local fast ferry:


http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...pa-189919.html

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Paul L

You are mixing up the rules vs what people do in practice. A single hander does not need premission to single hand and they all require sleep. On long passages they fail to maintain the required lookout. It is only an issue if there is a collision. In those cases the single hander failing to keep watch will be assigned a significant portion of the blame should the incident end up in court. There is no defense that says it was safer for me to sleep than keep watch.
Since accidents are so rare offshore single handers rarely end up in court.

Paul, I'm not sure what I'm "mixing up" because your reply paraphrases my own opinion and interpretation. I agree with you!

[Sailing4Jesus]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

The keys is too be able to guide your sleep-deprived hallucinations to be hallucinating that your sailing...

Your hallucinations just may very well bring The Pilot Of The Pinta aboard, so keep on hallucinating but have your camera at hand.

Senior Chief, U.S.Navy, Retired

[Hardhead]

Sorry - off topic

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Student_Driver

A friend recommends commercial class AIS. More power/range but also he feels that many ships ignore or do not monitor standard yachting AIS class signals. Thots?

I was an early adopter of AIS on a recreational vessel here in the SF Bay. I sailed for years with a class B using the old CSTDMA protocol. I never experienced any instance of being ignored. The only problem I had with CSTDMA was its behavior: it would stop transmitting in the presence of high levels of radio frequency interference (RFI) -- principally caused by an unidentified noisy LED and secondarily by a noisy urban environment.

I had intended to upgrade to a class B SOTDMA-protocol (called "B+" by some) transponder. I instead upgraded to a class A "commercial class" transponder because I got one at the same price. Using that transponder, I have no ability to "ignore" any type of AIS transponder, and my chart plotter doesn't support filtering out any targets.

I would recommend a SOTDMA class B ("B+") transponder over a class A for anyone who doesn't enjoy the extra operational complexity (two GPS receivers, programming destination and navigation status) of using class A AIS. Plus, the class A transponders consume a little more power. Mine eats about an amp - my old class B consumed about 500 milliamps. I would not recommend an older CSTDMA transponder because of its vulnerability to going silent in a high RFI environment. CSTDMA is also vulnerable to contentioning (getting stepped on) by other transponders because it doesn't get an assigned transmission time slot.

Power output has much less of an impact on range than antenna height and installation quality. The range improvement between 5 watts and 12.5 watts isn't substantial (4 dB). The extra power is only a beneficial factor way out at the fringes of your line-of-sight range.

One advantage I have experienced with a class A transponder is the ability to send and receive short text messages with other class A vessels. But I've only gotten a few friendly messages like: "What is a little boat like you doing way out here?"

You can read more about the SOTDMA protocol here: http://www.allaboutais.com/index.php/en/component/content/article/105-ais-technicals/technical-lfundamentals/93-sotdma


Patrick
N8QH
Licensed GMDSS Operator/Maintainer

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by Student_Driver

A friend recommends commercial class AIS. More power/range but also he feels that many ships ignore or do not monitor standard yachting AIS class signals. Thots?

Not true. There’s no such thing. Get a class B+ if you’re keen or in extremely busy shipping area, otherwise just class B.

They can’t “not monitor” you. They can ignore you, but that’s nothing to do with what type of AIS you have.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Paul, I'm not sure what I'm "mixing up" because your reply paraphrases my own opinion and interpretation. I agree with you!

You have been claiming the Colregs gives you the right to not keep a watch if you are a single hander and decide to sleep. This is patently not the case.

[svlamorocha]

You are confused. Here is the US law that transcribes Colregs.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

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 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.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Paul L

You have been claiming the Colregs gives you the right to not keep a watch if you are a single hander and decide to sleep. This is patently not the case.

Please feel free to disagree with me. But don't put words in my mouth. I haven't asserted that anyone has any "rights" over another at sea. We only have responsibilities. And our personal assessments of relative risks.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Please feel free to disagree with me. But don't put words in my mouth. I haven't asserted that anyone has any "rights" over another at sea. We only have responsibilities. And our personal assessments of relative risks.

Certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Maybe I misunderstood your argument below that seems to say you believe that rule 2 gives a single hander the premission to not keep a watch.

The "General Prudential" rule, codified as COLREG rule 2(b), provides for non-conformance with stated rules to prevent a collision, because what is paramount is to avoid or minimize the damaging effects of a collision, as opposed to blindly following the rules to the letter. Which action do you assess as posing the lower risk: sleeping in low-traffic waters at least six hours with good alarms and collision sensing systems or … helming your boat in a mentally and physically disabled state?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

You are confused. Here is the US law that transcribes Colregs.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

Indeed!

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 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.

Such a mass of confusion here that you don't even know where to start.


First of all, the COLREGS are the law of the land in every country which signed up to the Convention. LAW, I say. Backed by criminal sanctions in most countries. In the U.S., the COLREGS are made into U.S. federal law, word for word, by statute -- 33 U.S.C. 1601 et. seq. U.S. law provides for a penalty of up to $5000 per violation of the COLREGS. This is mild compared to most countries; in the U.K. you can go to jail for violating the Rules, and the MCA has a whole department for criminal prosecution of violations.


Second, "proper watch" IS defined in the COLREGS. Rule 5 says specifically "at all times", and it says "by sight and by hearing". Electronic aids to watchkeeping are great, but legally they are not a substitute for a live human watch using human eyes and ears. Violation of Rule 5 is the number one cause of adjudicated accidents in courts, and if you get into an accident while not looking out by sight and by hearing don't expect any mercy from the court. You may find yourself losing your house and your boat and your retirement to pay for damage to a ship when it broke some part of its drivetrain trying to avoid hitting you, or if it runs aground, hits another ship, or God forbid, causes an environmental accident. If you survive yourself, of course.


Lastly, Rule 2 does NOT give you the right to ignore the Rules for your own convenience, including as a result of having intentionally set out without adequate crew resources to fulfill the Rules. Courts have consistently held that Rule 2 imposes obligations IN ADDITION to what the Rules require, and do not let you off the hook for fulfilling the Rules themselves except in a dire emergency, not of your own making. There is no way that Rule 2 will exonerate you for failing to keep an adequate watch because you don't have enough crew to do that.




Single handing on a multiday passage is clearly illegal. It is generally tolerated because very few people do it and it's considered to be kind of cool and adventurous. It can be done in a fairly seamanlike and fairly safe manner, if you apply care and intelligence to it. But in any case, do so at your own risk. Don't expect insurance to cover you if you have an accident while single handing and not keeping a watch. If you have a house and retirement at risk, you might think twice about doing it at all.

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.

I suggest reading some case law on Rule 2. Rule 2 does not work this way at all. Rule 2 ADDS, and does not subtract, from the requirements of the other Rules. Departures from the Rules are allowed only in order "to avoid immediate danger", not indeed to allow you to ignore an entire Rule for your own convenience. Paragraph (a) of Rule 2 hammers home the point by stating "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from any neglect to comply with these Rules . . . "



People have gone to jail for making sandwiches when they were supposed to be on watch.




Rule 2 IS black and white. It says "at all times" "by sight and by hearing". This has been consistently interpreted by the courts to mean that you can't leave the bridge even for a moment without calling for someone to take your place. If you fail to take enough crew with you to fulfill the requirement of law, that does not justify anything. The fact that no one stops you from going out single handed has no legal significance. Go, by all means, but at your own risk.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Single handing on a multiday passage is clearly illegal. It is generally tolerated because very few people do it.....
.

Next to no one breaking the law sailing long distance solo compared to the number of people not displaying the correct anchor ball shape going by that thread...


Bit pointless discussing the legal side imho, no sign of any interest from the IMO as there's no real evidence of a problem to fix, seem happy enough to let it lie.

[justwaiting]

Interesting read relevant to this discussion.

https://maritimeaccident.org/2009/10...ang/#more-5368

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Next to no one breaking the law sailing long distance solo compared to the number of people not displaying the correct anchor ball shape going by that thread...


Bit pointless discussing the legal side imho, no sign of any interest from the IMO as there's no real evidence of a problem to fix, seem happy enough to let it lie.

It depends on whether you think the law is important or not. And perhaps on whether you have any assets or not.



There is not much enforcement in the absence of an accident (almost but not none), so probably not much to worry about there. But I would be quite concerned about civil liability if you have any assets, especially in the U.S. The Pennsylvania Rule is a bitch for our Yankee friends -- the violation of the letter of one of the COLREGS creates a strong presumption of liability, and ignoring Rule 5, unlike showing the wrong anchor ball, is a really fundamental violation, Rule 5 is a primary obligation.


The Supreme Court held in the Pennsylvania case: "[W]hen ... a ship at the time of collision is in actual violation of a statutory rule intended to prevent collisions, it is no more than a reasonable presumption that the fault, if not the sole cause, was at least a contributory cause of the disaster. In such a case the burden rests upon the ship of showing not merely that her fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been. Such a rule is necessary to enforce obedience to the mandate of the statute..."

The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1873)




Speaking as a lawyer, that is not an impossible presumption to overcome, but almost. Basically, if you are violating Rule 5 by sleeping with no one on watch, and you get into an accident with significant damage or injury which falls under the jurisdiction of a U.S. court, you are screwed.


Oh, and I always show an anchor ball, too.

[longjonsilver]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Dockhead initiated a delightful thread on CPA and boats traveling 4:1 or more than your speed. It's long, but I learned a lot, and actually tried it with a local fast ferry:


http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...pa-189919.html

87 pages? Is it a lot of fighting? How can there really be 87 pages of useful information? i don't come on the forum for a social life, i come on this forum for information - oftentimes i find info that i didn't even know i needed. Like CPA for instance

jon