All about the Colregs no 3 - single handed sailing and keeping a look out

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Exile

RC & others -- Don't forget that Colregs Rule 1 (Application) lists some fairly broad categories which expressly contemplate "Special Rules" which may be enacted by signatory states for various purposes. In other words, it might be correct that the Colregs themselves must be adopted "word for word" by every state and that modifications also exist, since those very modifications are specifically authorized in the Colregs themselves. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, just that to make your point the modifications you cite must not already be authorized by the rather broad language in Rule 1.

Yes, Rule 1. certainly does allow for that. Perhaps it's my black and whiteness, but I fail to comprehend how 'must be adopted word for word' but then modifications are specifically authorized exist together. Personally, I'm not aware of any requirement by the IMO that they have to be adopted 'word for word'. The wording is, "shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules".

And certainly the fact that South Africa even has an exemption clause, what was not anywhere included in the rules, seems to indicate that the states are pretty free to do as they wish, as long as they 'conform' as closely as possible. Interesting.

[Jim Cate]

Avoiding the pedantic discussion for a moment, I'd like to consider the case of a single hander needing desperately to sleep displaying the NUC signals when in the open ocean. Apparently this contravenes the colregs, and we know that some folks believe simply that he shouldn't be there... but looking at it realistically, what harm is done? The worst seems to be that an approaching vessel avoids the NUC chap when he should not have to. Since this should only involve a small course change, there is little to complain about. "No harm, no foul" and all that. It seems to me that given the choice between NUC and NOT NUC, given that the SHer is going to sleep anyway, the NUC presents the least likelyhood of a disasterous encounter. Yes, it isn't according to the rules, and yes, it means that the SHer is selfishly causing additional (but very small) risk to others, but in the great scheme of things it seems trivial to me.

Consider that at this time... any time of day or y ear... there are some 10 or 20 large bulk carriers drifting off of the east coast of Australia, displaying NUC lights and AIS signals. They are not in distress, their engines and steering are in good nick, but they are avoiding harbour fees whilst awaiting their turn at the coal loader in Newcastle, Gladstone or some other Aussie port. The authorities are well aware of this practice, it obviously contravenes colregs, but nothing iis done about the practice. Compared to this, the SHer seems small potatoes to me.

Any comments?

Jim

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Avoiding the pedantic discussion for a moment, I'd like to consider the case of a single hander needing desperately to sleep displaying the NUC signals when in the open ocean. Apparently this contravenes the colregs, and we know that some folks believe simply that he shouldn't be there... but looking at it realistically, what harm is done? The worst seems to be that an approaching vessel avoids the NUC chap when he should not have to. Since this should only involve a small course change, there is little to complain about. "No harm, no foul" and all that. It seems to me that given the choice between NUC and NOT NUC, given that the SHer is going to sleep anyway, the NUC presents the least likelyhood of a disasterous encounter. Yes, it isn't according to the rules, and yes, it means that the SHer is selfishly causing additional (but very small) risk to others, but in the great scheme of things it seems trivial to me.

Consider that at this time... any time of day or y ear... there are some 10 or 20 large bulk carriers drifting off of the east coast of Australia, displaying NUC lights and AIS signals. They are not in distress, their engines and steering are in good nick, but they are avoiding harbour fees whilst awaiting their turn at the coal loader in Newcastle, Gladstone or some other Aussie port. The authorities are well aware of this practice, it obviously contravenes colregs, but nothing iis done about the practice. Compared to this, the SHer seems small potatoes to me.

Any comments?

Jim

I'd agree with that.

[El Pinguino]

I wouldn't have a problem with it... but as I said before find me a boat with NUC lights in her kit...and that can display them... and where the skipper feels inclined to go to the trouble of rigging them when beyond exhausted.

Just turn on your deck lights, anchor lights, etc .... far better chance of being seen... far better chance of not being hit...red lights are the hardest of all lights to see .....

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I wouldn't have a problem with it... but as I said before find me a boat with NUC lights in her kit...and that can display them... and where the skipper feels inclined to go to the trouble of rigging them when beyond exhausted.

Just turn on your deck lights, anchor lights, etc .... far better chance of being seen... far better chance of not being hit...red lights are the hardest of all lights to see .....

I often wonder whether a strobe light would ever be introduced for sail boats. You can see a strobe far beyond what you can see continuous lights.

A couple of years ago when on a night run across out strait I was approaching the mainland when the ais indicated a well know passenger ship had come out of the bay and initially seemed to be on our course. I got on the radio and called it by name and pretty soon had an officer on duty checking for us. He couldn't pick me up on radar initially and asked if I had my lights on. I described what lights I had on but even at about 4 miles on a relatively calm night, he couldn't see me. Only when I put my anchor light on for him did he pick me up. Shortly after seeing my anchor light, he picked me up on radar.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I wouldn't have a problem with it... but as I said before find me a boat with NUC lights in her kit...and that can display them... and where the skipper feels inclined to go to the trouble of rigging them when beyond exhausted.

Just turn on your deck lights, anchor lights, etc .... far better chance of being seen... far better chance of not being hit...red lights are the hardest of all lights to see .....

Yes, I doubt if any cruisers, SH or not carry NUC signals. And I agree that simply lighting the hell out of your boat should in fact have much the same effect... sure does for me when I see a strange, well lit object at sea: I avoid it!

Cheers,

Jim

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I often wonder whether a strobe light would ever be introduced for sail boats. You can see a strobe far beyond what you can see continuous lights.

A couple of years ago when on a night run across out strait I was approaching the mainland when the ais indicated a well know passenger ship had come out of the bay and initially seemed to be on our course. I got on the radio and called it by name and pretty soon had an officer on duty checking for us. He couldn't pick me up on radar initially and asked if I had my lights on. I described what lights I had on but even at about 4 miles on a relatively calm night, he couldn't see me. Only when I put my anchor light on for him did he pick me up. Shortly after seeing my anchor light, he picked me up on radar.

I don't think a strobe would work. White strobes already represent either buoys or a vessel in distress, red and green strobes, I hope we know what they mean, yellow strobes are taken and blue for government vessels.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Yes, I doubt if any cruisers, SH or not carry NUC signals. And I agree that simply lighting the hell out of your boat should in fact have much the same effect... sure does for me when I see a strange, well lit object at sea: I avoid it!

Cheers,

Jim

I like the flood lighting option. Canadian and American ColRegs mods for inland already allow for decklighting to improve for visibility of large ships.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Yes, I doubt if any cruisers, SH or not carry NUC signals. And I agree that simply lighting the hell out of your boat should in fact have much the same effect... sure does for me when I see a strange, well lit object at sea: I avoid it!

Cheers,

Jim

Hi Jim....the reason I brought up the NUC for hove to solo sailors was to introduce a logical solution that is practical and LEGALLY UNAMBIGUOUS.

The meaning of NUC signal within COLREGS is that ALL other vessels should keep clear!

Your previous post exactly describes my opinion of helping S'handers and I don't think hoisting a string of Two All Round vertical Red , or two round black shapes where it can best be seen .... is a problem before hoving to and taking a nap.

I also am surprised that cruisers don't carry emergency NUC signals... I always have had something ready to hoist up the flag halyard

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

I don't think a strobe would work. White strobes already represent either buoys or a vessel in distress, red and green strobes, I hope we know what they mean, yellow strobes are taken and blue for government vessels.

Sent from my SGH-I547C using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Your absolutely right brain drain.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Exile

What seems truly remarkable is the achievement of near universal consensus amongst a large array of seafaring nations, but with enough discretion left to individual states to fashion their own enforcement regimens.

Even several enforcement regimes. Within a days' sailing of where our family boat is we have to deal with six different sets of regulations. And we must by law have the full text of all of them on board. Luckily they get published in one handy volume, which you then put somewhere on your boat and then forget...

There are often a lot of local exceptions and additions to the colregs, and you should be aware of them.

[monte]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Avoiding the pedantic discussion for a moment, I'd like to consider the case of a single hander needing desperately to sleep displaying the NUC signals when in the open ocean. Apparently this contravenes the colregs, and we know that some folks believe simply that he shouldn't be there... but looking at it realistically, what harm is done? The worst seems to be that an approaching vessel avoids the NUC chap when he should not have to. Since this should only involve a small course change, there is little to complain about. "No harm, no foul" and all that. It seems to me that given the choice between NUC and NOT NUC, given that the SHer is going to sleep anyway, the NUC presents the least likelyhood of a disasterous encounter. Yes, it isn't according to the rules, and yes, it means that the SHer is selfishly causing additional (but very small) risk to others, but in the great scheme of things it seems trivial to me.

Consider that at this time... any time of day or y ear... there are some 10 or 20 large bulk carriers drifting off of the east coast of Australia, displaying NUC lights and AIS signals. They are not in distress, their engines and steering are in good nick, but they are avoiding harbour fees whilst awaiting their turn at the coal loader in Newcastle, Gladstone or some other Aussie port. The authorities are well aware of this practice, it obviously contravenes colregs, but nothing iis done about the practice. Compared to this, the SHer seems small potatoes to me.

Any comments?

Jim

Jim I'm a bit surprised about 10-20 ships off the east coast at anytime displaying NUC signals. A quick look on marine traffic shows none at the moment. Where have you experienced this?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Canadian Colregs have modifications.

Some examples

Canada has extensive modifications to the COLREGS:

https://www.boats.com/reeds/jsp/rn_ch_1_l_f1.jsp#a60

The only major nation to have such, and they were specifically permitted by the Convention, specifically for Canada.

This is different from inland rules, which every signatory state is free to determine by itself, according to the terms of the Convention.

[monte]

some interesting thoughts on solo sailing and the COLREGS here for you RC
Boldly Go Sailing

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Should a solo vessel Hove to for sleep rather than storm conditions exhibit NUC as a warning to other traffic?

No - because they are able to maneuver.


I have been legitimately NUC twice on the same passage. After we took out our transmission by wrapping a small piece of fishing net around the prop in the middle of the Pacific high we are adrift and unable to maneuver for a couple of days.

After we picked up the Westerlies we sailed to the mouth of Juan de Fuca where we spend another day and half adrift in the fog with ocean vessels being warned about us by Tofino traffic.

We did not have the balls (pun intended) or the lights to show that we were NUC.