Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

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.
.

I apologize for reaching the wrong conclusion about your winding us up, if that was the case, but really -- was that last post really serious? WHAT is the "antecedent of 'every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means'”, as you understand it? Perhaps there's been a language reform since I was at uni, so I would be glad to be corrected, but I don't believe that that phrase has any antecedent at all.

[Scottuk]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I apologize for reaching the wrong conclusion about your winding us up, if that was the case, but really -- was that last post really serious? WHAT is the "antecedent of 'every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means'”, as you understand it? Perhaps there's been a language reform since I was at uni, so I would be glad to be corrected, but I don't believe that that phrase has any antecedent at all.

Alright DH I'll give it another go. It is written in the rule “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means”. It could stop right there and that would be that and means exactly as it is written but it then goes on to add “appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions” This modifies the first part (antecedent) from being at all times under all conditions to “appropriate” times (what is meant by appropriate is open to interpretation).


I trust that clarifies my point?

[capt jgw]

Originally Posted by Paul L

That's a pretty strong option on Not under command usage. If a serious accident occurred in this case, I'd be very surprised that fault would be apportioned 100%/0% in favor of the NUC vessel.

Under the rules, NUC can occur only by "Some exceptional circumstance". That means something unusual and unexpected, like losing power or steering. Taking a nap would not qualify as it was expected and you planned to do it.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

Alright DH I'll give it another go. It is written in the rule “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means”. It could stop right there and that would be that and means exactly as it is written but it then goes on to add “appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions” This modifies the first part (antecedent) from being at all times under all conditions to “appropriate” times (what is meant by appropriate is open to interpretation).


I trust that clarifies my point?

I can maybe give you a little help here ... At least here in Canada I presume that the French translation carries equal legal weight:


Tout navire doit en permanence assurer une veille visuelle et auditive
appropriée, en utilisant également tous les moyens disponibles
qui sont adaptés aux circonstances et conditions existantes, de manière
à permettre une pleine appréciation de la situation et du risque
d’abordage.

I don't pretend to be fluent, but it is clearly separated by commas into three clauses:

* maintain at all times a proper watch by sight and hearing
* as well as by all available means appropriate to the conditions
* so as to make a full appraisal of the situation

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

Alright DH I'll give it another go. It is written in the rule “Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means”. It could stop right there and that would be that and means exactly as it is written but it then goes on to add “appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions” This modifies the first part (antecedent) from being at all times under all conditions to “appropriate” times (what is meant by appropriate is open to interpretation).


I trust that clarifies my point?

I apologize again for the false accusation of winding us up. I see you're serious.


Your point is clearer, but it's still not correct. The first job in interpreting a law is understanding what the plain language of the statute (or whatever legal language you're interpreting) means. You can't screw around with the grammar like this.


That sentence is not ambiguous. Certain parts of it allow a certain amount of interpretation, but the basic structure is clear (as it should always be in legal language; we lawyers are specially trained in this).


It says: "Every vessel shall maintain a lookout."


How? "At all times."


What kind of lookout? "A proper lookout."


By what means? Well, by two different means, as Stu pointed out:


1. "By sight and by hearing"


"AS WELL AS" [Note well -- not OR, but AS WELL AS]


2. "by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions"


For what purpose?


"So as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."


English sentences are built up like this. Rule 5 is competently drafted legal language.

[svMarite]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Which countries laws (if any) are violated by a solo sailor on the open ocean outside all territorial waters?

When fog surrounds the boat making visibility zero does that cause an immediate violation of COLREGS due to lack of sight? Obviously not.

The word “proper” in the rule gives a lot of wiggle room to argue against the pedants’ who would have us believe solo sailing in and of itself violates the regulations. It does not.

Countries are free to pass more stringent rules but those are not part of the COLREGs. IMO having more restrictive laws violates the principal of the COLREGs as being universally the same everywhere.

With proper aids to navigation and good seamanship solo sailors are at less risk of collision than many crewed maxi racing yachts.

BINGO!!
I'll add in the end - insurance is dividing factor. When I set off for France, I had to have crew according to American USCG standards (8hr watches). Once outside territorial waters I switched to Pantaenius (back in '99) as they covered single-hand sailing and off the crew went once I hit Rota, Spain.
Of course one can risk going sans insurance, but the risk factor goes up quite a bit. I solo'd back to the US and no one said boo when I sailed in - it was more - congratulations...you fool.

[Dave22q]

I think the word twisting will not work in any court. The extra clause means that if you have any equipment that is appropriate you MUST use it in addition to standing watch. Radar might be an example of an available means that would be required in patchy fog assuming yours is working. The reg could be clearer if the word 'other' was inserted after 'all'.

[Scottuk]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

I can maybe give you a little help here ... At least here in Canada I presume that the French translation carries equal legal weight:


Tout navire doit en permanence assurer une veille visuelle et auditive
appropriée, en utilisant également tous les moyens disponibles
qui sont adaptés aux circonstances et conditions existantes, de manière
à permettre une pleine appréciation de la situation et du risque
d’abordage.

I don't pretend to be fluent, but it is clearly separated by commas into three clauses:

* maintain at all times a proper watch by sight and hearing
* as well as by all available means appropriate to the conditions
* so as to make a full appraisal of the situation

I do not think I was looking for help but cheers anyway. I just posting my reading of rule 5.



If your translation of the above rules are correct the inclusion of "as well" would have serious ramifications on both crewed and single handed vessels. I do question whether the Canadian rules would have preeminence over the international rules depending on the location of the vessels in Canadian waters.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

. . . . Does sailing in thick fog break rule 5?

This has been brought up a couple of times. Why would you think that? In a fog lookout becomes much more important, because you have far less time to assess a danger which you see. Hearing becomes far more important. I sometimes send someone up to the bow when I'm navigating in fog.


And don't forget that the Steering & Sailing Rules don't apply when vessels are not in sight of one another, and Rule 19 covers specific behavior in conditions of limited visibility.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

I do not think I was looking for help but cheers anyway. I just posting my reading of rule 5.



If your translation of the above rules are correct the inclusion of "as well" would have serious ramifications on both crewed and single handed vessels. I do question whether the Canadian rules would have preeminence over the international rules depending on the location of the vessels in Canadian waters.

What Kelkara cited is not a translation, but the authentic French version of them, which has equal weight to the English version.



"Article IX -
Languages


The present Convention is established,
together with the Regulations, in a single copy in the English and French languages, both texts being equally authentic"




However, the commas are not required for clarity of the English version. "As well as" means what it does -- it is not "or".

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by capt jgw

Under the rules, NUC can occur only by "Some exceptional circumstance". That means something unusual and unexpected, like losing power or steering. Taking a nap would not qualify as it was expected and you planned to do it.

Absolutely correct; and I don't think anyone disagrees about that.


If you show NUC while hove to and sleeping, you cannot claim that you are fulfilling the letter of the law in regard to conditions for NUC status.


That does not mean, however, that it's a bad idea. In my opinion, if you do not have the crew resources to fulfill Rule 5, it is far better to slightly abuse NUC status than to carry on under way while sleeping and showing normal nav lights, which implies that you are alert and looking out and capable of maneuvering as required by the Rules.

[Lodesman]

[QUOTE=Scottuk;2698934It 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.

[/QUOTE]

How can you possibly get from "shall at all times maintain", that a lookout does not need to be maintained?

[sailorchic34]

I suspect, if I was required to have crew aboard and that single handing was illegal, that I would give up boating. Luckily I live in a area that supports single handed sailing and even has a single handed sailing society.

Of course the oceans / seas are far more crowded in the EU, then the west coast of the US.

In any event, both vessels would be at fault, if a collision occurred.

[Scottuk]

Sorry Kelkara but my response to your post was inconsistent with my position as previously posted. I will have to retract what I had posted in regard to the "as well" portion.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

I can maybe give you a little help here ... At least here in Canada I presume that the French translation carries equal legal weight:


Tout navire doit en permanence assurer une veille visuelle et auditive
appropriée, en utilisant également tous les moyens disponibles
qui sont adaptés aux circonstances et conditions existantes, de manière
à permettre une pleine appréciation de la situation et du risque
d’abordage.

I don't pretend to be fluent, but it is clearly separated by commas into three clauses:

* maintain at all times a proper watch by sight and hearing
* as well as by all available means appropriate to the conditions
* so as to make a full appraisal of the situation

So you agree now that "appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions" applies to "by all available means", and that "shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing" stands as a distinct clause?