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

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

. . . For the most part they are a danger to themselves. The greatest risk is being run down by a vessel which fails to see them.
Although it is also possible some of these big fast racing vessels could be the one doing the running down. If they encounter a smaller vessel.
Perhaps not a fair example, Not a single hander. The Vestas yacht hitting the fishing vessel. . . .

You know, this really bothers me.


It's one thing to tolerate Phil and guys like that sailing around the world slowly, in a small boat which could hardly kill anyone. The tolerance for violation of Rule 5 in those cases is one thing.


But a 20 knot 20 tonne round the world racer? Flying through the water with no one awake?


Granted they have some sophisticated technical help, like this new Oscar system. But Oscar didn't prevent that guy pranging the fishing boat.


Imagine instead of a large steel fishing boat, that had been a yacht.


I think the line should be drawn somewhere short of that; I would outlaw that, myself.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No need to add a light; just add sleeping while single handed as a justification for NUC status. NUC status perfectly fits the case.

Originally Posted by jackdale

And eliminate Rule 5 while you are at it.

Truncating the post in this way is completely misleading, and incorrectly suggests advocacy for formally legalizing singlehanded sailing when exactly the opposite was posted. Here's the rest of it:

"Won't happen, though, because no one wants to legalize being under way with no one on board awake."

As should be obvious, the issue here has nothing to do with the legality or even the obvious seamanship issues, but rather accepts that solo sailing is a reality (whether we approve of it or not) and discusses the safest ways to mitigate the risk.

[Exile]

The argument for NUC signals when asleep is also a potentially good argument for Class A AIS which I assume transmits this? I don't believe Class B does.

[4eyes]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No need to add a light; just add sleeping while single handed as a justification for NUC status. NUC status perfectly fits the case.



Won't happen, though, because no one wants to legalize being under way with no one on board awake.

I was thinking more in the lines of "hove to", instead of actively sailing.
I know, technically you are still underway.

I know from personal experience from a prior employment that I can function effectively for around 48 hours without sleep. But around 56 hours I stumble around like a drunk, and have severely reduced cognitive ability.

Therefore if single handed, I have to limit myself to trips of less than 48hrs. or I have to figure out a fairly safe (for others and myself) way to get some sleep.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

The argument for NUC signals when asleep is also a potentially good argument for Class A AIS which I assume transmits this? I don't believe Class B does.

Yes, absolutely. I periodically get an impulse to fit Class A on my boat. This is one of the several advantages -- you can set nav status.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 4eyes

I was thinking more in the lines of "hove to", instead of actively sailing.
I know, technically you are still underway.

I know from personal experience from a prior employment that I can function effectively for around 48 hours without sleep. But around 56 hours I stumble around like a drunk, and have severely reduced cognitive ability.

Therefore if single handed, I have to limit myself to trips of less than 48hrs. or I have to figure out a fairly safe (for others and myself) way to get some sleep.

Well, while I respect those who do it, I don't, myself. My limit single handed is 100 miles. I have plenty of sailing friends; I don't have any problem finding crew for something longer. Plus I really enjoy sailing with my friends. I'm different from Phil -- I like the teamwork and camaraderie, and I'm not bothered by small talk.

[Exile]

Some good arguments for NUC and potentially other light configurations, and it reminds me the time I was entering the Charleston, SC sea channel (with crew) on a pretty windy, wavy night where we were already finding it challenging to differentiate the channel marker lights with the rest of the harbor and background city lights. It was at that point we got hailed by the pilot of a huge outbound container ship apprising me that there were four other similarly sized ships heading out the channel behind him. I then confirmed whether he could see my deck running lights okay, and asked whether the conditions might make it easier for him and the other ships if I turned on my masthead tricolor instead. His response: turn on everything you have! (which I promptly did)

So I suppose there's also an argument for small vessels such as ours to be less concerned with the type of signal being communicated and more for doing everything we can to simply be seen. Not even remotely in compliance with the various provisions of the Rules, unless you consider the overarching goal of the Colregs which is to avoid collision!!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This is the case law

I have always been a proponent of showing NUC lights for a solo sailor after at least 36 hrs at sea, with the provision that yacht is hove to and not sailing on autoilot so as to be able to run into another vessel

This court case judgement does not represent a yacht showing NUC and stationary.

If it had, I am pretty sure that the judgement would have been different

I was taught in marine college thst a crew being incapacitated was a valid reason for showing NUC,.
I am sure they were thinking food poisoning, but sleep deprevation also applies

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

. . . I was taught in marine college thst a crew being incapacitated was a valid reason for showing NUC,.
I am sure they were thinking food poisoning, but sleep deprevation also applies

Absolutely. As I've said, NUC exactly fits the case.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Some good arguments for NUC and potentially other light configurations, and it reminds me the time I was entering the Charleston, SC sea channel (with crew) on a pretty windy, wavy night where we were already finding it challenging to differentiate the channel marker lights with the rest of the harbor and background city lights. It was at that point we got hailed by the pilot of a huge outbound container ship apprising me that there were four other similarly sized ships heading out the channel behind him. I then confirmed whether he could see my deck running lights okay, and asked whether the conditions might make it easier for him and the other ships if I turned on my masthead tricolor instead. His response: turn on everything you have! (which I promptly did)

So I suppose there's also an argument for small vessels such as ours to be less concerned with the type of signal being communicated and more for doing everything we can to simply be seen. Not even remotely in compliance with the various provisions of the Rules, unless you consider the overarching goal of the Colregs which is to avoid collision!!

I think this is wise, and right.


Except there is nothing wrong with deck lights under any circumstances.


I have a bajillion candlepower deck light, and squillion candlepower spreader lights, and I employ then liberally when I have any doubts about being seen. I use one or the other at anchor, too, if I have any doubt about being seen. After having suffered a collision at anchor with a fishing boat, some years ago, I'm paranoid.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I have always been a proponent of showing NUC lights for a solo sailor after at least 36 hrs at sea, with the provision that yacht is hove to and not sailing on autoilot so as to be able to run into another vessel

I was taught in marine college thst a crew being incapacitated was a valid reason for showing NUC,.
I am sure they were thinking food poisoning, but sleep deprevation also applies

If a boat set off with sufficient crew to maintain a lookout (say 2) and one became incapacitated, then I'm certain there'd be some leeway in justifying NUC as you said, hove to. That would fit in with the "exceptional circumstance" described in the rule. Someone singlehanding then is not really that different, other than the exceptionality. All to say that's a good argument for NUC signals to be used as such.

Conversely, being NUC does not actually absolve one of the requirement to maintain a lookout. Much as it is a requirement at anchor, one can see a necessary flexibility here. I suppose it would be a rare occurrence, but NUC doesn't have precedence over RAM; anti-collision would need to be negotiated; hence the need for a lookout.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If a boat set off with sufficient crew to maintain a lookout (say 2) and one became incapacitated, then I'm certain there'd be some leeway in justifying NUC as you said, hove to. That would fit in with the "exceptional circumstance" described in the rule. Someone singlehanding then is not really that different, other than the exceptionality. All to say that's a good argument for NUC signals to be used as such.

Conversely, being NUC does not actually absolve one of the requirement to maintain a lookout. Much as it is a requirement at anchor, one can see a necessary flexibility here. I suppose it would be a rare occurrence, but NUC doesn't have precedence over RAM; anti-collision would need to be negotiated; hence the need for a lookout.

Yes! Just so.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Absolutely. As I've said, NUC exactly fits the case.

Then why would it "technically" be considered illegal to show NUC when you become physically incapable of maintaining a lookout and take all way off the vessel ?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Then why would it "technically" be considered illegal to show NUC when you become physically incapable of maintaining a lookout and take all way off the vessel ?

But is it illegal? Every marine court case I know it's allways in the end about neglecting watch keeping or failed to avoid collision. Never having too much lights or day shapes or whatever.. The courts are not interested nitpicking formalities, only those two rules apply 99% of cases or smth..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You know, this really bothers me.

It's one thing to tolerate Phil and guys like that sailing around the world slowly, in a small boat which could hardly kill anyone. The tolerance for violation of Rule 5 in those cases is one thing.

But a 20 knot 20 tonne round the world racer? Flying through the water with no one awake?

Granted they have some sophisticated technical help, like this new Oscar system. But Oscar didn't prevent that guy pranging the fishing boat.

Imagine instead of a large steel fishing boat, that had been a yacht.

I think the line should be drawn somewhere short of that; I would outlaw that, myself.

How is this any different from a 50ft cruising boat with 1 or 2 crew sleeping below deck at 8kts running down a panga in the middle of the night and killing a local fisherman?

Stupid is stupid.

Maybe they felt it was a mystical experience like someone suggested for single handers?