Keeping a Proper Lookout -- A Cautionary Tale

[tbeargladd]

Originally Posted by monte

My wife doesn't let me steer

This is to Hamburking! Sorry to hear the wife was impaired! Nothing I read stated that! Maybe I didn't read enough! Was the wife hands impaired, could she not make a sound to alert her husband. Their is always some thing? Did the husband not see the ship in the distance in order to adjust his course before he went to pee? It doesn't take five min's to pee! The captain on the ship should have seen the boat in the distance for that amount of distance that boat was in sight and should have either slow his ship down or made a course adjustment. Their is always something that can be done. always!

[jtsailjt]

Weavis, does "at all times" mean sometimes or most of the time or hardly ever, or does it mean at all times? Why did you choose anything other than the last option?

In a list of things you are required to do, does the term "as well as" in between them mean something closer to "in addition to" or does it mean you can choose to ignore this first one or two in favor of the third?

I think the meaning is pretty clear in both cases. You apparently differ with that opinion.

This doesn't mean that I don't think good judgement at all times is equally important to good seamanship as is following the colregs. But the colregs spell out a minimum level of compliance (at all times by sight and listening) and you are free to add any other methods of detecting danger that you think are appropriate for the conditions, but you aren't allowed to disregard the 2 most basic methods of detecting possible collisions, especially when these two methods are spelled out for you, and this rule is the only one I'm aware of that also says it must be complied with "at all times" when referring to these methods. Yes, there are circumstances when a healthy dose of judgment must be applied to most of the colregs, but those circumstances don't include just because you think it's more convenient to do something else or don't feel like preparing yourself or your vessel to comply with them. That doesn't say that I think you should go to jail or be punished in any way for disregarding any rule as long as it doesn't result in anyone else being harmed. But I'll never agree that it's the correct thing to do when someone argues that before they ever go to sea, they are deliberately planning to disregard a rule that the colregs say must be followed "at all times" and the reason they give for going to sea with that intention is that it's just because they want to, and this is basically the singlehanders approach. It's convenient for them to sail alone or they like to sail alone, knowing they can't possibly keep what anyone else would consider a proper lookout at all times. That's their choice and I have no desire to see anyone take any action against them or stop them other than their own consciences, but I don't think there's any question but that it increases the risk for everyone else out there to have some boats sailing along with nobody standing watch for fairly long periods of time, no matter how many electronic devices they may have "finely tuned."

[tbeargladd]

I not sure that the #93 jtsailjt is address to (tbeargladd) or not. Your words are very kind and very general. With the regards to not hurting any ones feelings. The thing is insurance companies do not agree to those terms and finger pointing has to be appointed to some one. Now the case of the colregs is a proper argument but the responsibility can be at who's disregard to the rules. I would think that the ship leaving is position to make a course correct would be the irresponsible person, for at no time should a ship be unman with no one at the helm. A ship cannot be man by just one human being, it take a reasonable amount of beings to crew a ship. So some one else should have take that position to keep watch while a course correction was being establish. Eventhou the sailor with his impaired wife could have just pee his pants if he saw that their was a possibility of danger in the distance. I am saying that their was ample time for the container ship to do what was necessary to do what was needed to be done and at that distance he definitely should have seen the smaller boat and call for assistance to make any and all adjustment! He also could have VHF the boat, or as most ships do blow the horn to alert a response to what the smaller ships intentions were/are! Some thing can always be done!

[JPA Cate]

Let's go back to the original incident where we have the report for data.

The "passenger" wife, drowned when she was swept below decks, sustaining some injuries, and her life jacket pinned her to the overhead. Her lifejacket was of the self-inflating variety, and performed as designed. Her husband's did not inflate as the CO2 cartridge was not fully threaded into its socket. It's failure to inflate saved his life, as he was able to swim to the surface. The boat, Orca sank within 3 minutes (iirc), pretty fast.

Besides the issue of uninformed or mobility impaired passengers, we have the lifejacket issue. Muckle Flugga, whom I respect greatly, for his encompassing knowledge and wisdom of the sea, stated pretty forcefully that only self-inflating lifejackets should be used, with an implication that they can be left abovedecks.

My own view is somewhat different. I think people need to weigh carefully the chances of being knocked unconscious and overboard, according to their practices. Do they use tethers? Do they routinely prevent the boom when sailing off the wind? How often do they go forward? Can they trust the self-inflating ones to work? Into what temperature water will they fall? After the massive (to me) failures to inflate properly of all but one of the demonstrated ones at this years Wooden Boat Festival in Tasmania, I have little faith in them. So, I'd rather pull my tab to inflate (and yes, we check ours annually, and log it) and top off if necessary. But, even more, I prefer to stay on the boat. As a short handed sailor, I think you're dead if you get separated from the boat, so that's best avoided.

Ann

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Weavis, does "at all times" mean sometimes or most of the time or hardly ever, or does it mean at all times? Why did you choose anything other than the last option?

In a list of things you are required to do, does the term "as well as" in between them mean something closer to "in addition to" or does it mean you can choose to ignore this first one or two in favor of the third?

I think the meaning is pretty clear in both cases. You apparently differ with that opinion.

This doesn't mean that I don't think good judgement at all times is equally important to good seamanship as is following the colregs. But the colregs spell out a minimum level of compliance (at all times by sight and listening) and you are free to add any other methods of detecting danger that you think are appropriate for the conditions, but you aren't allowed to disregard the 2 most basic methods of detecting possible collisions, especially when these two methods are spelled out for you, and this rule is the only one I'm aware of that also says it must be complied with "at all times" when referring to these methods. Yes, there are circumstances when a healthy dose of judgment must be applied to most of the colregs, but those circumstances don't include just because you think it's more convenient to do something else or don't feel like preparing yourself or your vessel to comply with them. That doesn't say that I think you should go to jail or be punished in any way for disregarding any rule as long as it doesn't result in anyone else being harmed. But I'll never agree that it's the correct thing to do when someone argues that before they ever go to sea, they are deliberately planning to disregard a rule that the colregs say must be followed "at all times" and the reason they give for going to sea with that intention is that it's just because they want to, and this is basically the singlehanders approach. It's convenient for them to sail alone or they like to sail alone, knowing they can't possibly keep what anyone else would consider a proper lookout at all times. That's their choice and I have no desire to see anyone take any action against them or stop them other than their own consciences, but I don't think there's any question but that it increases the risk for everyone else out there to have some boats sailing along with nobody standing watch for fairly long periods of time, no matter how many electronic devices they may have "finely tuned."

You've argued these same points again & again in other threads, and it has been responded to again & again. In what appears to be a relentless attempt to mollify your paranoia of getting hit by an inattentive or sleeping singlehanded sailor (along with fishermen & countless other fears you've expressed), you are unfortunately keying in on the wrong language in Rule 5. It is not simply a question of whether, as you claim, that a lookout be maintained "at all times." It is rather that such lookout -- yes, maintained at all times -- be one that is "PROPER" "so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." You'll notice that the scope of the term "proper" is not defined any further. Why? Well, I'd suggest it's intentionally vague because it is meant to apply to a wide range of vessels and their crew composition. In other words, its application must be all-encompassing. And how does Rule 5 tell us how we may achieve a "PROPER lookout?" Well, we are supposed to use -- at all times -- sight, hearing, and "all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions." Hmmmm . . . no mention of electronic devices, no accounting for heavy fog or stormy weather, no mention of numbers of crew, watch rotations, or anything that could be deemed specific. So what's appropriate? Well, obviously sight & hearing whenever feasible, in addition to whatever is necessary to accomplish our full appraisal and to avoid collision after all!

My point is not word games but rather to demonstrate that, contrary to someone's suggestion in another thread, singlehanded sailing is not akin to driving down the highway with the cruise control on while taking a nap. Nor is operating a large container ship doing 25-30 kts. akin to sailing a small, fiberglass vessel at 6-7 kts. Accordingly, while the Rules unquestionably apply to "all vessels," not many of them are amenable nor intended for rigid adherence as is the case with hard & fast traffic laws like red lights & stop signs. Otherwise Rule 5 would have been written more precisely, with its key terms & modifiers defined more specifically. For the same reasons, the Colregs are generally only enforced after an incident has occurred, not in advance. To use some examples, it is one thing for a singlehander out in the middle of the Pacific to make the requisite full appraisal, set the AIS, radar & GPS alarms, have the volume on his VHF turned up, and retire below for some needed rest. But it is quite another for a sailor in busy coastal waters to go below for 5 mins. when he is aware of a large dredging ship only 1.6 nm away.

Contrary to your own, personal interpretation, the absence of hard & fast rules is a reflection of the countless variables & inherent ambiguities involved in trying to fashion a universal set of rules that can help mitigate the risk of collision between vessels of all shapes & sizes, and all manner of crew competence & experience. While I agree & endorse your stated concerns about the potential heightened risk of singlehanding, your interpretation of Rule 5 is misplaced. As for your fears of a singlehander causing you harm, you've been asked to cite examples and, apparently finding none as well citing no illegality, perhaps it is time for you to desist, at least on that one!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Let's go back to the original incident where we have the report for data.

The "passenger" wife, drowned when she was swept below decks, sustaining some injuries, and her life jacket pinned her to the overhead. Her lifejacket was of the self-inflating variety, and performed as designed. Her husband's did not inflate as the CO2 cartridge was not fully threaded into its socket. It's failure to inflate saved his life, as he was able to swim to the surface. The boat, Orca sank within 3 minutes (iirc), pretty fast.

Besides the issue of uninformed or mobility impaired passengers, we have the lifejacket issue. Muckle Flugga, whom I respect greatly, for his encompassing knowledge and wisdom of the sea, stated pretty forcefully that only self-inflating lifejackets should be used, with an implication that they can be left abovedecks.

My own view is somewhat different. I think people need to weigh carefully the chances of being knocked unconscious and overboard, according to their practices. Do they use tethers? Do they routinely prevent the boom when sailing off the wind? How often do they go forward? Can they trust the self-inflating ones to work? Into what temperature water will they fall? After the massive (to me) failures to inflate properly of all but one of the demonstrated ones at this years Wooden Boat Festival in Tasmania, I have little faith in them. So, I'd rather pull my tab to inflate (and yes, we check ours annually, and log it) and top off if necessary. But, even more, I prefer to stay on the boat. As a short handed sailor, I think you're dead if you get separated from the boat, so that's best avoided.

Ann

You probably already know this Ann, but fwiw I believe all offshore pfd's -- auto-inflating or not -- have backup tubes that you can use to inflate manually. I know that my Mustang ones are auto-inflating, but also have both a pull-tab and the backup tubes. I appreciate your other points, along with Muckle's, about the various pros & cons of each type. Thanks.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Exile

You've argued these same points again & again in other threads, and it has been responded to again & again. In what appears to be a relentless attempt to mollify your paranoia of getting hit by an inattentive or sleeping singlehanded sailor (along with fishermen & countless other fears you've expressed), you are unfortunately keying in on the wrong language in Rule 5. It is not simply a question of whether, as you claim, that a lookout be maintained "at all times." It is rather that such lookout -- yes, maintained at all times -- be one that is "PROPER" "so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." You'll notice that the scope of the term "proper" is not defined any further. Why? Well, I'd suggest it's intentionally vague because it is meant to apply to a wide range of vessels and their crew composition. In other words, its application must be all-encompassing. And how does Rule 5 tell us how we may achieve a "PROPER lookout?" Well, we are supposed to use -- at all times -- sight, hearing, and "all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions." Hmmmm . . . no mention of electronic devices, no accounting for heavy fog or stormy weather, no mention of numbers of crew, watch rotations, or anything that could be deemed specific. So what's appropriate? Well, obviously sight & hearing whenever feasible, in addition to whatever is necessary to accomplish our full appraisal and to avoid collision after all!

My point is not word games but rather to demonstrate that, contrary to someone's suggestion in another thread, singlehanded sailing is not akin to driving down the highway with the cruise control on while taking a nap. Nor is operating a large container ship doing 25-30 kts. akin to sailing a small, fiberglass vessel at 6-7 kts. Accordingly, while the Rules unquestionably apply to "all vessels," not many of them are amenable nor intended for rigid adherence as is the case with hard & fast traffic laws like red lights & stop signs. Otherwise Rule 5 would have been written more precisely, with its key terms & modifiers defined more specifically. For the same reasons, the Colregs are generally only enforced after an incident has occurred, not in advance. To use some examples, it is one thing for a singlehander out in the middle of the Pacific to make the requisite full appraisal, set the AIS, radar & GPS alarms, have the volume on his VHF turned up, and retire below for some needed rest. But it is quite another for a sailor in busy coastal waters to go below for 5 mins. when he is aware of a large dredging ship only 1.6 nm away.

Contrary to your own, personal interpretation, the absence of hard & fast rules is a reflection of the countless variables & inherent ambiguities involved in trying to fashion a universal set of rules that can help mitigate the risk of collision between vessels of all shapes & sizes, and all manner of crew competence & experience. While I agree & endorse your stated concerns about the potential heightened risk of singlehanding, your interpretation of Rule 5 is misplaced. As for your fears of a singlehander causing you harm, you've been asked to cite examples and, apparently finding none as well citing no illegality, perhaps it is time for you to desist, at least on that one!

So the word "proper" is your loophole and in your mind it's possible to keep a "proper" watch and make an appraisal of the situation while being dead to the world asleep if you set some alarms that may or may not notice another small sailboat bearing down on you or vice versa? I don't know about you but I don't do my best appraising while I'm asleep and I don't think that's the intention of the word "proper watch" at all and I don't think that there's any other group of seamen afloat who consider being sound asleep to be keeping a proper watch no matter where you are. If it was their intention to let each one of us decide on what a proper watch was, why did they specify by sight and listening and say you had to do it at all times? The writers of the colregs could have communicated your version of rule 5 by writing something like "keep whatever sort of watch you want to, take a snooze if you're feeling lucky, and good luck to everyone out there on avoiding a collision," or they could have saved the ink and left out rule 5 entirely. It doesn't only happen in the "middle of the Pacific Ocean" either. Since sailboats typically travel less than 150 miles per day, and many voyages don't begin and end on a routing perpendicular to the shoreline, it happens much more frequently in areas that are pretty close to land and where other ships and yachts may be found.

Also, for every time I've stated my opinion, you and a few others haven't been shy about stating your opposite opinion, and yet I haven't felt the need to ask you to desist no matter how illogical I find your arguments to be.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Exile

You probably already know this Ann, but fwiw I believe all offshore pfd's -- auto-inflating or not -- have backup tubes that you can use to inflate manually. I know that my Mustang ones are auto-inflating, but also have both a pull-tab and the backup tubes. I appreciate your other points, along with Muckle's, about the various pros & cons of each type. Thanks.

Yes, Exile, and thanks for the heads up. Mine has a tube to blow into, as well.

Ann

[DumnMad]

jtsailjt - For the legalistically minded theres a big difference between "watching at all times" and being "on watch at all times".

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Yes, that is the way of CF. Hadn't you noticed?

DockHead started it!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Exile

...... And how does Rule 5 tell us how we may achieve a "PROPER lookout?" Well, we are supposed to use -- at all times -- sight, hearing, and "all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions." Hmmmm . . . no mention of electronic devices, no accounting for heavy fog or stormy weather, no mention of numbers of crew, watch rotations, or anything that could be deemed specific. So what's appropriate? Well, obviously sight & hearing whenever feasible, in addition to whatever is necessary to accomplish our full appraisal and to avoid collision after all!
......

Hi Exile... I don't know the history of your disagreement from other threads but to clarify
....At all times -- sight, hearing, and "all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions."
does mean radar, AIS, VHF, which is why I brought up the discussion point of. ...action when vessels are Not in sight of one another

I don't know of anyone who maintains a good lookout who would care if a solo sailor could not.....
That only implies that they themselves... are not actually keeping that proper lookout ....

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

jtsailjt - For the legalistically minded theres a big difference between "watching at all times" and being "on watch at all times".

LOL...please enlightenment me

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

So the word "proper" is your loophole and in your mind it's possible to keep a "proper" watch and make an appraisal of the situation while being dead to the world asleep if you set some alarms that may or may not notice another small sailboat bearing down on you or vice versa? I don't know about you but I don't do my best appraising while I'm asleep and I don't think that's the intention of the word "proper watch" at all and I don't think that there's any other group of seamen afloat who consider being sound asleep to be keeping a proper watch no matter where you are. If it was their intention to let each one of us decide on what a proper watch was, why did they specify by sight and listening and say you had to do it at all times? The writers of the colregs could have communicated your version of rule 5 by writing something like "keep whatever sort of watch you want to, take a snooze if you're feeling lucky, and good luck to everyone out there on avoiding a collision," or they could have saved the ink and left out rule 5 entirely. It doesn't only happen in the "middle of the Pacific Ocean" either. Since sailboats typically travel less than 150 miles per day, and many voyages don't begin and end on a routing perpendicular to the shoreline, it happens much more frequently in areas that are pretty close to land and where other ships and yachts may be found.

Also, for every time I've stated my opinion, you and a few others haven't been shy about stating your opposite opinion, and yet I haven't felt the need to ask you to desist no matter how illogical I find your arguments to be.

No, not a loophole, just a plain reading of the language. "Proper" describes what sort of lookout must be kept, but is left vague & unspecified. This is no accident. The Colregs could also have said that "a watch may be deemed 'proper' only if two or more people are onboard the vessel at all times and at least one of them is maintaining a constant visual scan of all points of the horizon."

In turn, "proper lookout" is modified by an explicit purpose, namely to "make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision." This could involve someone staring at the horizon w/o blinking for hours on end, transferring several gallons of hot coffee into the cockpit, & peeing into the scuppers. Or it could mean some judicious & well-timed sleep in appropriate areas with the help of radar, AIS, VHF, & electronic alarms. Either way, if a full appraisal can be made and a collision avoided, then so be it.

Thus far I have not read in this or other threads of an experienced singlehander purposely going to sleep in coastal waters or shipping lanes. Nor have we yet to hear of a single incident where a sleeping or inattentive singlehander has wrought harm to another mariner. Do you think this might have something to do with why neither you nor anyone else has cited a jurisdiction where the practice is deemed illegal?

Meanwhile we have heard from many experienced sailors on this forum who have been successfully singlehanding for years and at least one who has circumnavigated. Many of your cited fears can also easily result from crewed vessels, along with just plain bad luck. But until or unless you can cite instances of harm being done to anyone other than themselves, I'm not understanding your obsession with the purely theoretical "dangers" of long-distance singlehanded sailing. If you think this minute percentage of sailors are posing a dangerous & "unfair" risk to you & your vessel, then double-up on your watches and be on the lookout for those pesky souls! That is, after all, your responsibility under the Colregs.

[Saleen411]

On the self inflating issue.....

Prior to the Ethiopian Airliner ditching ( where many people drowned stuck to the roof of the cabin), procedure was to inflate at least one side of the life vest PRIOR to evacuating. Now its changed to inflate AFTER evacuation.

I know....not sailing, but same applies if stuck down below and drowning due to an inflated vest.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi Exile... I don't know the history of your disagreement from other threads but to clarify
....At all times -- sight, hearing, and "all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions."
does mean radar, AIS, VHF, which is why I brought up the discussion point of. ...action when vessels are Not in sight of one another

Yes, of course it does. And I'm sure JT understands that too. I was only making the point that Rule 5 leaves such other means unspecified and therefore up to the individual mariner, to try and impress upon JT why the Rule is not nearly as rigid as he seems to believe.

I don't know of anyone who maintains a good lookout who would care if a solo sailor could not.....
That only implies that they themselves... are not actually keeping that proper lookout ....

Yes, a very good point and one that is consistent with the Colregs putting the responsibility of avoiding collisions on both parties.