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

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

We should all follow the same rules. No?

If 100s of solo sailors are good to cross oceans while a asleep at the same time, and that is perfectly good in your book, where do we say stop?
Merchant ships up to 200 feet are good to go 24/7 with no look out?
Or just 100 feet?
Heck, with modern technology they can sleep up to 500 feet.
(No risk because it is a big ocean)
Might as well make it 1000 feet, big ocean it is.

Or should we all keep a look out as per the current regs up the point where satellite based Sea Traffic Control will be in charge of your auto pilot and will prevent collisions at all times while you are goofing off and not paying attention?

In the mean time, why not keep a visual look out as per the rules for your own safety and others?

Sail solo all you want, but don't endanger fellow Mariners by sleeping on watch.

Promise never to sleep in waters near your Balboa..
To bludi shallow for me..

[CSY Man]

. Promise never to sleep in waters near your Balboa..
To bludi shallow for me..

Aye Boatman: this is the internet, this may be different from what you see on this page.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A solo sailor puts them self in that situation intentionally. It is not exceptional.

Re this and your previous post: how do you reconcile your position with the current practice for bulk carriers off the coast of Australia (and likely other places with which I am not personally familiar) drifting for days with NUC signals displayed? They are not unable to navigate, and it is certain that they could do so if required, they do this deliberately, the authorities are well aware of the practice... and it is tolerated.

Apparently blind acceptance of the letter of the colregs is not required for these behemouths. Why should it be for the small craft single hander or short hander?

Jim

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Re this and your previous post: how do you reconcile your position with the current practice for bulk carriers off the coast of Australia (and likely other places with which I am not personally familiar) drifting for days with NUC signals displayed? They are not unable to navigate, and it is certain that they could do so if required, they do this deliberately, the authorities are well aware of the practice... and it is tolerated.

Apparently blind acceptance of the letter of the colregs is not required for these behemouths. Why should it be for the small craft single hander or short hander?

Jim

I can't.

[jackdale]

The idea of being visible was mentioned. How many carry a radar reflector, properly mounted?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Re this and your previous post: how do you reconcile your position with the current practice for bulk carriers off the coast of Australia (and likely other places with which I am not personally familiar) drifting for days with NUC signals displayed? They are not unable to navigate, and it is certain that they could do so if required, they do this deliberately, the authorities are well aware of the practice... and it is tolerated.

Apparently blind acceptance of the letter of the colregs is not required for these behemouths. Why should it be for the small craft single hander or short hander?

Jim

I am with you on this Jim.... as Form should follow Function and a sleeping solo sailor hove to and drifting is definitely on a vessel NUC!

You are right...commercial mariners will use NUC to force others to give them a wide berth... Surveying/anchor handling etc...or drifting on standby
So why not give the solo a break and let him show NUC SIGNALS when asleep and hove tom

Also..don't quite understand the logic of displaying Tri color when hove to.
they do not show the direction of drift...just ships head?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Re this and your previous post: how do you reconcile your position with the current practice for bulk carriers off the coast of Australia (and likely other places with which I am not personally familiar) drifting for days with NUC signals displayed? They are not unable to navigate, and it is certain that they could do so if required, they do this deliberately, the authorities are well aware of the practice... and it is tolerated.

Apparently blind acceptance of the letter of the colregs is not required for these behemouths. Why should it be for the small craft single hander or short hander?

Jim

This practice is apparently spreading. It is condemned by the MCA:

Search all MARS reports

"Seafarers are reminded that NUC signals should only be used by "vessels not under command". As defined in Rule 3(f) of the COLREGS. A "vessel not under command" is unable to manoeuvre in accordance with the Rules through some exceptional circumstance and is unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. Unfortunately, there appears to be an increasing use of NUC signals by vessels in circumstances which cannot be reasonably defined as exceptional. For example, vessels have been reported using NUC signals while drifting off ports and terminals awaiting orders."


Should we commit the same abuses?

In my opinion, however, it's better to show NUC improperly than to make way with no one on deck and no effective means of warning of traffic. At least other mariners know that you're not going to be doing any collision avoidance. And you're much less likely to do any damage to anyone, hove to and showing NUC, than under way and with no watchkeeping ability. It's a practical solution and I bet no one would criticize you for it, even if it is a clear violation of the COLREGS.

[El Pinguino]

That may be the MCA view but I don't have a problem with, for instance , big coal boats offshore from Newcastle NSW going on the drift while awaiting a loading berth.
We used to do it ( drift) offshore from Sydney for a day or so at a time while waiting for a berth at Gore Bay. I honestly can't recall what lights we showed.
Look at the number of ships at anchor of N'castle... where are you going to anchor?
So... you are stopped ... probably 'wind rode' seeing as you are light ship... some ship picks you up at 12 miles 4 points to port showing red... are you going to be an issue for him? I don't think so.
Don't forget these are big ships, between 100,000 and 200,000 dwt... they can't just give her a kick in the guts and a bit of the old hard a port to get out of anyone's way ... let alone yours. Makes sense for them to show NUC in my book.
No law against going on the drift....

[El Pinguino]

Having just read that MARS report... yes I know... i would agree that in the situation described there the use of NUC is quite improper...

[conachair]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

, for instance , big coal boats offshore from Newcastle NSW going on the drift while awaiting a loading berth..

Usually a few drifting just past Gibraltar, sometimes showing NUC, probably more often not.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

We should all follow the same rules. No?



If 100s of solo sailors are good to cross oceans while a asleep at the same time, and that is perfectly good in your book, where do we say stop?

Merchant ships up to 200 feet are good to go 24/7 with no look out?

Or just 100 feet?

Heck, with modern technology they can sleep up to 500 feet.

(No risk because it is a big ocean)

Might as well make it 1000 feet, big ocean it is.



Or should we all keep a look out as per the current regs up the point where satellite based Sea Traffic Control will be in charge of your auto pilot and will prevent collisions at all times while you are goofing off and not paying attention?



In the mean time, why not keep a visual look out as per the rules for your own safety and others?



Sail solo all you want, but don't endanger fellow Mariners by sleeping on watch.

If there is only one person onboard these vessels then fine. But if there is more than one onboard then they should always have someone on watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

That may be the MCA view but I don't have a problem with, for instance , big coal boats offshore from Newcastle NSW going on the drift while awaiting a loading berth.
We used to do it ( drift) offshore from Sydney for a day or so at a time while waiting for a berth at Gore Bay. I honestly can't recall what lights we showed.
Look at the number of ships at anchor of N'castle... where are you going to anchor?
So... you are stopped ... probably 'wind rode' seeing as you are light ship... some ship picks you up at 12 miles 4 points to port showing red... are you going to be an issue for him? I don't think so.
Don't forget these are big ships, between 100,000 and 200,000 dwt... they can't just give her a kick in the guts and a bit of the old hard a port to get out of anyone's way ... let alone yours. Makes sense for them to show NUC in my book.
No law against going on the drift....

It makes sense, but it's certainly against the rules to intentionally shut down perfectly good machinery and claim NUC. To be compliant, you would have to stay ready to maneuver to fulfill your obligations.

I guess it doesn't matter if you're well out of the way, but if you're intentionally drifting around in the approaches to a port showing NUC it's awful.

Same thing for us -- it's one thing if a single hander far offshore heaves to get some needed sleep. Quite another if someone decides to have a drinking party and the whole crew goes below deck to get drunk while the boat drifts showing NUC.

[TeddyDiver]

Hmm.. maybe there should be a separate signal for "adrift" thou Chapman refers red over red as "not under command, adrift" which could be used as an excuse in US waters?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Hmm.. maybe there should be a separate signal for "adrift" thou Chapman refers red over red as "not under command, adrift" which could be used as an excuse in US waters?

That's what NUC means -- not under command and drifting. But the problem is that it's not intended for drifting intentionally, when your machinery works and there is a non-disabled person on board.

Because you don't have the right to drift and give up doing collision avoidance just because you want to. You claim NUC because you are prevented from fulfilling your collision avoidance obligations because of some serious problem. I doubt that it would be a good idea to give anyone the right anywhere and any time to just go below and drift for any reason.

I think a single hander getting some essential sleep, and hove to, is very close to the spirit of NUC. You can certainly claim NUC if you run out of fuel. You can certainly claim NUC if the whole crew is sick and no one is capable of standing watch. So why not for running out of consciousness? I actually like this idea more and more, the more I think about it. If you don't specifically ban single handing, then some allowance like this really ought to be made.

The new rule could be something like this:

A small vessel (less than 20 meters LOA) manned by a single person shall have the right to heave to and drift for reasonable periods of time in order for the crew to get essential rest, provided that due care shall be exercised to avoid thereby creating a hazard to navigation by doing so in high traffic areas or near TSS zones, and provided proper NUC signals are shown.

Maybe it could be required to be broadcasting NUC nav status on AIS, something "B" class sets cannot presently do, but this would greatly reduce risks from this.

[FamilyVan]

There is no need to rewrite the rules on what lights you should show when drifting.

Rule 20 (b) clearly states you can light up your boat however you please, provided the lights can't be mistaken for inappropriate navigation lights and don't obscure the operators vision. Using NUC lights can be confused with- well a vessel not under command, so are inappropriate.

A vessel under sail has can show side lights and a stern light, or a tri light, so for nav lights, that's what you can show.

To increase your visibility there are all kinds of options, spreader lights, stringer lights, deck lights, Christmas lights up your stays or halyards are all perfectly acceptable under the ColRegs.

No need to rewrite the book- it's all right there in the ColRegs.

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