|
|
17-08-2018, 23:10
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: We're technically refugees from our home in Yemen now living in Lebenon
Boat: 1978 CT48
Posts: 5,964
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul L
Kinda begging the question i.e. what is the "correct" interpretation of the rules for compliance. First the rule 5 interpretation for a single hander and second when is it appropriate to use Not Under Command signalling and does that relieve a single hander of his duties under 5.
|
“vessel not under command” means a*vesselwhich through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another*vessel,*
I think that NUC would not apply since the "circumstance" i.e. sleeping... would not be "exceptional"
__________________
James
S/V Arctic Lady
I love my boat, I can't afford not to!
|
|
|
17-08-2018, 23:56
|
#47
|
CF Adviser
Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 10,280
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by James S
“vessel not under command” means a*vesselwhich through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another*vessel,*
I think that NUC would not apply since the "circumstance" i.e. sleeping... would not be "exceptional"
|
It is exceptional as the Rules were intended for fully crewed boats.... therefore..
No additional crew = exceptional circumstances
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 01:21
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Western Australia
Boat: Herreshoff 36
Posts: 302
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM
Suggest you consult UNCLOS before making a statement like that.
Specifically Articles 91 to 94.
Also note Article 97 - the words "or of the State of which such person is a national.".
|
I might give it a read.
Btw, I am in RPYC, PM, PNG for a couple of weeks. I like it.
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 03:57
|
#49
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM
Cockcroft touches on a similar point. While it is directed at crewed ships, the concept stands for the singe handed sailor:
Look-out man
On all but the smallest vessels a seaman should normally be posted
on look-out duty from dusk to dawn and sometimes by day, especially when the visibility is restricted.
...
The Courts are likely to take into account the number of seamen
available in addition to the state of visibility, probability of meeting
other vessels and other factors when considering the sufficiency of
look-out. No definite rules apply. However, even relatively small
vessels may be expected to have a man posted on look-out duty at
night in busy traffic lanes, or during periods of restricted visibility.
...
Ocean look-out
There is some justification for relaxing the degree of look-out in the
open Ocean where other vessels are infrequently seen and are unlikely
to be encountered so as to involve risk of collision.
And another noteworth point on look-out
Anchor watch
The duty to keep a proper look-out applies also when a vessel is at
anchor, especially if there is a strong tide running, or if other vessels
are likely to be passing by.
Gerda Toft-Elizabeth Mary
It may be that a seaman cannot help his anchor dragging in certain circumstances,but what he can do, and what he has a duty to do, is to keep a good look-out and take prompt measures to stop the dragging if and when it does occur.
|
Note that the "look out man" is in ADDITION to any other bridge crew.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 04:13
|
#50
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPBs
Posts: 12,888
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahun
I might give it a read.
Btw, I am in RPYC, PM, PNG for a couple of weeks. I like it.
|
Look me up. I'm on the Belize in Berth A2.
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 04:19
|
#51
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelagic
It is exceptional as the Rules were intended for fully crewed boats.... therefore..
No additional crew = exceptional circumstances
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James S
“vessel not under command” means a*vesselwhich through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another*vessel,*
I think that NUC would not apply since the "circumstance" i.e. sleeping... would not be "exceptional"
|
I don't think actually that it is an "exceptional circumstance" if you planned it from the beginning of the voyage. That is why I called it "creative" application of NUC status. But Rule 2 allows us certain "creative" approaches to the Rules when they are required for safety and good seamanship.
I think there's a good argument that it is basically unseamanlike to set off on a voyage without crew resources adequate to fulfill your responsibilities under the Rules and run the vessel in a safe manner, but on the other hand, once you've done it, you are obligated to make the best of it and do it in the safest and most correct way you can.
I don't actually think that struggling to stay awake on a multi-day passage with egg timers giving you 5 minutes of sleep at a time is the safest way to single hand a long passage, or even a vaguely safe way to do it, even if it is probably the closest thing to fulfilling the letter of Rule 5.
I don't think you have a basis for showing NUC which fulfills the letter of the Rule (unless the whole crew got sick unexpectedly -- which is a classic use case for NUC), but I think it is a fundamentally seamanlike use of NUC status with a good argument that Rule 2 would allow it under those circumstances. Heaving to and showing NUC makes it absolutely clear to other vessels what is going on, eliminating any possible misunderstanding, and so minimizing the risk to them -- how much better is this, than showing normal nav lights indicating you are under way and implying that someone is awake and running the boat. If you have a Class A AIS set which can broadcast NUC status, so much the better. Not making way minimizes the risk that you will smash into something (or another vessel) while no one is awake and driving the boat. Getting a decent stretch of sleep at a time (and not 5 minute egg timer catnaps) will keep the single crew resource in the best possible shape, which is extremely important for safe operation of the vessel. Downside is that you lose time not making way, which will make the passage longer, and might increase the risk of weather issues. But despite that, unless you're fighting a tight weather window, I do really think this is the best, safest, and most seamanlike way to do it, and I doubt that anyone will complain about abusing NUC status.
NUC status is commonly used, for example, by tankers drifting with their machinery shut down, waiting for a load. For days at a time in the North Sea off Rotterdam, for example. A much much less valid reason for showing NUC than a single hander needing sleep, really without any valid reason at all, except that it accurately conveys to other vessels what to expect.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 04:55
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 103
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
The rule is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
It can be interpreted as meaning "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing … appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" meaning there are times when a lookout does not have to be maintained. This is how I read it.
“all available means” could be interpreted as meaning all crew must stand watch at all times so no off watches. Most vessels would not be in compliance.
“all available means” could be interpreted as meaning if you do not launch your drone with your camera attached( a lot of cruisers have them now) as a lookout aid you are not in compliance. I do not know of anyone doing this.
These are a few of the many possible interpretations of the rule.
I would reasonably argue there can be no violation until a collision occurs but then it is highly likely all parties are in violation of aspects of the rule.
So no, it is not illegal to SH and I would say this is further evidenced by omission of any reference to it in the rule.
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 05:08
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumping around the Caribbean
Boat: Valiant 40
Posts: 4,625
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorchic34
I have been stopped for coast guard safety inspections 4 times and not once was I fined or ticketed for sailing single handed. If it really was Illegal, I'm pretty sure I would have been ticketed by now.
|
Single handing sailors are not cited for not keeping a proper watch unless there is an incident because it’s virtually impossible to prove that they were not keeping a proper watch otherwise.
If the CG boarded your vessel while it was underway and had to wake you up you might have had a different outcome.
I’m curious what the solo race organizations have concluded on this matter. I’m betting that they have legal opinions that their races are not in violation. To have the entire premise of your event be based on breaking the law is not a good business model.
__________________
"Having a yacht is reason for being more cheerful than most." -Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 05:15
|
#54
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPBs
Posts: 12,888
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottuk
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
The rule is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
It can be interpreted as meaning "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing … appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" meaning there are times when a lookout does not have to be maintained. This is how I read it.
“all available means” could be interpreted as meaning all crew must stand watch at all times so no off watches. Most vessels would not be in compliance.
“all available means” could be interpreted as meaning if you do not launch your drone with your camera attached( a lot of cruisers have them now) as a lookout aid you are not in compliance. I do not know of anyone doing this.
These are a few of the many possible interpretations of the rule.
I would reasonably argue there can be no violation until a collision occurs but then it is highly likely all parties are in violation of aspects of the rule.
So no, it is not illegal to SH and I would say this is further evidenced by omission of any reference to it in the rule.
|
"can be interpreted" ?
Only if you are Humpty Dumpty.
"as well as" separates two distinct clauses:
1. "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing"
"as well as"
2. " by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
--
" When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 05:24
|
#55
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottuk
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
The rule is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
It can be interpreted as meaning "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing … appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" meaning there are times when a lookout does not have to be maintained. This is how I read it.
“all available means” could be interpreted as meaning all crew must stand watch at all times so no off watches. Most vessels would not be in compliance.
“all available means” could be interpreted as meaning if you do not launch your drone with your camera attached( a lot of cruisers have them now) as a lookout aid you are not in compliance. I do not know of anyone doing this.
These are a few of the many possible interpretations of the rule.
I would reasonably argue there can be no violation until a collision occurs but then it is highly likely all parties are in violation of aspects of the rule.
So no, it is not illegal to SH and I would say this is further evidenced by omission of any reference to it in the rule.
|
Not ambigious to a court, or to any lawyer, I would say.
"[A]ppropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" refers to "other means" -- it means that besides sight and hearing, you have to ADD other means which are appropriate in the prevailing conditions. It does not in any way let you off the hook for keeping a proper lookout by sight and by hearing at all times. It does not say: Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and by hearing, or maybe not, if it's appropriate in the prevailing conditions." There is no "or" in the sentence at all.
Any piece of text in the English language can be obfuscated. It doesn't mean that everything written in English is ambiguous.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 05:26
|
#56
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM
"can be interpreted" ?
Only if you are Humpty Dumpty.
"as well as" separates two distinct clauses:
1. "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing"
"as well as"
2. " by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
--
" When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
|
YES. Point made much more elegantly than I did.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 05:41
|
#57
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suijin
. . . I’m curious what the solo race organizations have concluded on this matter. I’m betting that they have legal opinions that their races are not in violation. To have the entire premise of your event be based on breaking the law is not a good business model.
|
It's an interesting question. I would say we should ask them, but I can guaranty we won't get a straight answer.
The RYA does not condone long distance single hand racing, and refuses to sanction them. The RORC does not run single hand races.
The organizations which do run long distance single hand races probably simply turn a blind eye and pretend the issue doesn't exist. They definitely require all participants to comply with the COLREGS at all time, but they say nothing about setting conditions which make it impossible to comply. They no doubt believe that if there is an accident caused by a breach of Rule 5, they can simply point to the clause in the contract which required the participant to comply with the COLREGS at all times.
But suing them in case of an accident would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
I am not actually sure that long distance single hand races are such a good idea. If a single hander in a small slow yacht poses little risk to anyone, a single hander sleeping while his Open 60 flies through the seas making 20 knots is an entirely different matter.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 05:51
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 103
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
To Stu and DH
The phrase “appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions” is modifying the antecedent of “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means” ergo it is dependent on the “ prevailing circumstances and conditions”. That is basic logic as taught by universities throughout the world and can not be disputed. Any argument to the contrary would be illogical as it is defined.
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 06:08
|
#59
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 33,764
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottuk
To Stu and DH
The phrase “appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions” is modifying the antecedent of “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means” ergo it is dependent on the “ prevailing circumstances and conditions”. That is basic logic as taught by universities throughout the world and can not be disputed. Any argument to the contrary would be illogical as it is defined.
|
What? That's not even a question of logic; it's a question of grammar, and a very basic one. The phrase you quote doesn't even have an antecedent. Stu stated it exactly correctly. But I guess you're just winding us up; I'm sure you don't really believe that.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
|
|
|
18-08-2018, 06:42
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 103
|
Re: Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead
What? That's not even a question of logic; it's a question of grammar, and a very basic one. The phrase you quote doesn't even have an antecedent. Stu stated it exactly correctly. But I guess you're just winding us up; I'm sure you don't really believe that.
|
I do not know how I could be any clearer. I have confined myself to the discussion of the rule at hand and the question posed only to be accused of winding people up and having my so called beliefs questioned. I guess if one can not refute what has been presented then they will try other dubious tactics. Further engagement in this thread, as it stands, would only be folly on my part.
You can only lead a horse to water but can not make them drink.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|