Red over Red - Not Under Command (NUC) Lights

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Gracies

Therfore are you saying if you were at sea, more than 100 miles offshore, and you had a mayday you would broadcast on 13??

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Of course I monitor 16, never said that I didn't. And I certainly didn't say a thing about broadcasting a mayday.

Read more carefully, please. You might learn something.

As of February 1, 2005, ships over 300 tons are no longer required to monitor channel 16 in international waters. They are required to monitor channel 70 for DSCSS signals.

Next time you can't get a ship to answer a hail on 16, switch to 13, which is a one-watt frequency. That's the channel that ships tend to use to talk to each other.

[nigel1]

Seems like a bit of threrad drift.
Anyway, sitting between anchors, I dragged out the ITU's bestseller Manual for the use by the maritime mobile and maritime moble satellite services


31.17 § 8 1) Ship stations, where so equipped, shall, while at sea, maintain an automatic
digital selective calling watch on the appropriate distress and safety calling frequencies in the
frequency bands in which they are operating. Ship stations, where so equipped, shall also maintain
watch on the appropriate frequencies for the automatic reception of transmissions of meteorological
and navigational warnings and other urgent information to ships.
31.18 2) Ship stations complying with the provisions of this Chapter should, where
practicable, maintain a watch on the frequency 156.800 MHz (VHF channel 16).


Just about all vessels should and will be listening on Ch 16, but as always, there will the odd ones who are not.

[zeehag]

red over red, captain is DEAD

if you plan on dying, color is good,if you are merely snoozing, make sure you are NOT in a busy area and doze fast.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

This is a very uninformed piece. I have never seen compulsory carriage AIS vessels turn their AIS off.

Other yachts are not particulary the danger as in general they are slow moving and unlikely to do much damage. A tanker doing 20 knots on the other hand. ...

Colregs are enforced by flag states on the high seas and by states in their territorial waters, they have the force of law and are not " guidelines" ( as per capt. Sparrow)

Blame is most certainly not apportioned 50/50 , a few readings of various admiralty judgements will confirm that.

Dave

Un-informed....??
nope its not information that led to this statement....
it was actual experience... thats all I put on here... things I've actually experienced...
last month on a boat called Windsong coming across the Biscay...
The owner is a CF member...
maybe when he returns from his cruise of the Algarve in a coupla weeks he may see this and confirm...
Did not bother me as I eyeball the horizon not a 6inch screen... did his head in though and got him looking outa the window more....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Blame is most certainly not apportioned 50/50 , a few readings of various admiralty judgements will confirm that.

Dave

One case at least

Summary

This case arose out of a collision in the St. Lawrence Seaway between a freighter and a sail boat. Two of the four crew of the sailboat died as a result of the collision. The Pilot of the freighter was charged with failing to comply with the Collision Regulations. The Court extensively reviewed the evidence and ultimately dismissed the charges against the Pilot holding that he exercised the degree of diligence expected of a seaman.

Findings

[430] All of the evidence leads the Court to conclude that the Canada Senator was a stand-on vessel for which a collision situation arose and that it was required to act according to the development of this situation.

[431] An analysis of the facts in evidence shows that the pilot Jacques Cloutier acted in accordance with this situation by applying Rules 17 and 2(b) of the Collision Regulations, which justified in particular his “hard-a-port” order.

[432] The sailboat Mondisy failed to follow any rules of navigation.

[433] Because of the behaviour of the sailboat and the specific geographic characteristics of the collision site, the Court considers that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the Canada Senator was subject to Rule 13 and as whether it is relevant to apply the alternatives suggested by the expert witness for the prosecution.

[434] In addition, the evidence heard in no way demonstrates that the freighter piloted by the defendant was proceeding at unsafe speeds.

[435] Furthermore, the defence’s evidence revealed a risk of collision, and the Court finds this evidence to be credible and to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the defendant diligently and reasonably used the means available to appraise and avoid the collision.

[436] In short, the defendant exercised the due diligence that is to be expected of a good seaman.

[437] In view of the foregoing, the information is dismissed and the defendant Jacques Cloutier is acquitted of the three offences with which he was charged.

CanLII - 2007 QCCQ 13533 (CanLII)

[boatman61]

My only collision at sea... what happens when a french motorsailing boat doing 5-6knots T-Bones an Oceanis 321 ghosting in light airs...

[goboatingnow]

As of February 1, 2005, ships over 300 tons are no longer required to monitor channel 16 in international waters. They are required to monitor channel 70 for DSCSS signals

No that is not the case that IMO decision was suspended and as of today was not implemented .

In additon to a requirement to maintain a listening watch on CH16 , in US waters, for commercial vessels, a listening watch on CH 13 is also required, which can only be implemented using two radios or one with dual receivers and not sequential scanning ( in some case ch67)

Dave

[Boracay]

My comment on visibility relates to a table of visibility v's Luminous Intensity on the Bebi wesite. Scroll down to "COLREGS applied to LED lights".

I may have misinterpreted the table. My interpretation, given a navigation light with a luminous intensity of 5, and using other information from that page, is that it may be practically impossible to get a navigation light that is legally visible over more than 3 nm.

I looked up strobes to see if the more powerful ones could do better and came across a warning of possible eye damage.

There is a note under the table that "The maximum luminous intensity of navigation lights should be limited to avoid undue glare. "

[Watermann]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No that is not the case that IMO decision was suspended and as of today was not implemented .

In additon to a requirement to maintain a listening watch on CH16 , in US waters, for commercial vessels, a listening watch on CH 13 is also required, which can only be implemented using two radios or one with dual receivers and not sequential scanning ( in some case ch67)

Dave

There are exceptions to this, such as in a VTS area where participating vessels can drop 16.

Also, the bridge-to-bridge radio telephone act requires all power-driven vessels (not just commercial ones) over 20 meters in length to keep a watch on ch 13.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by psneeld

yours is big and mine is just as big...your study of the rules lead to one cdonclusion...mine another...neither is right and neither is wrong until it's heard in court...BECAUSE ONE MORE TIME FOR THE CHEAP SEATS...IT'S NEITHER SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AREN'T INDIVIDUALLY SPELLED OUT....so my experience with the law is that you, me, and the LEOs don't have final say...only the courts...

And when all said and done...if you were sleeping below...you are far more in non-compliance with the rules than just showing the wrong lights for the right reasons.

An exhausted single handed skipper sleeping is not an exceptional case. They do it EVERY DAY....

[Gracies]

Originally Posted by Bash

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Of course I monitor 16, never said that I didn't. And I certainly didn't say a thing about broadcasting a mayday.

Read more carefully, please. You might learn something.

As of February 1, 2005, ships over 300 tons are no longer required to monitor channel 16 in international waters. They are required to monitor channel 70 for DSCSS signals.

Next time you can't get a ship to answer a hail on 16, switch to 13, which is a one-watt frequency. That's the channel that ships tend to use to talk to each other.

I do read carefully,

I am a commercial master, who runs a commercial vessel, all be it a commercial yacht.

The yacht is over 300 GT. Therefore i have full GMDSS compliance, with all operators holding the AMERC GOC. We do extensive training to stay in flag state compliance as we are a commercial vessel over 24m registered in London. Therefore we are under the MCA LY2 coding. I can catergorically say that CH 16 is the Emergency and Hailing channel. Therefore if in International waters outside of a VTS another commercial vessel does not answer me on 16 i assume that they are not monitoring 13 either.

The original point i made was that the vessel in question was NUC but was not showing her port/star nav lights or her steaming lights. Therefore her aspect was initially unclear making the appropriate manouvere to avoid collision difficult to determine. That is why i attempted through VHF 16 to hail her to gather information on her heading and speed. I suppose i could have also attempted to contact her through DSC but if within 6nm of a VLCC you recieve no answer via VHF on 16 i assumed that the radio room was empty. Therefore action was taken to avoid the collision.

If NUC i strongly believe that it is imperative to notify other seafarers of your situation, heading and speed through the water. Therefore just because you are NUC this (unless alone or short handed fixing a exceptional circumstance) you must maintain visual and radio watch.