Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

OTOH, if you display the things that indicate "vessel not under command" ....and are sleeping, you are in compliance right?

Yes, red over red and I imagine AIS could be set to reflect Not Under Command as well.

[transmitterdan]

Declaring NUC does not relieve the requirement to maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing. At least that is what we were taught. Even at anchor one must maintain a proper lookout.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Yes, red over red and I imagine AIS could be set to reflect Not Under Command as well.

Originally Posted by Cheechako

OTOH, if you display the things that indicate "vessel not under command" ....and are sleeping, you are in compliance right?

Rule 3 (f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...nder%20command

Unless you can convince a judge that regularly sleeping is an exceptional circumstance declaring yourself NUC is not going to legally absolve you in the event of a collision. If you aren’t in a collision sleeping while underway probably won’t lead to a situation where you have to justify yourself legally.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Rule 3 (f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...nder%20command

Unless you can convince a judge that regularly sleeping is an exceptional circumstance declaring yourself NUC is not going to legally absolve you in the event of a collision. If you aren’t in a collision sleeping while underway probably won’t lead to a situation where you have to justify yourself legally.

However, if you are displaying the NUC signal(s) and another vessel collides with you, a judge in apportioning out blame will surely lay the majority upon the vessel under command, for they had the opportunity to avoid the collision with the NUC vessel. The legitimacy of the NUC would be another matter.

But really, if you do display the NUC, it is pretty unlikely that a vessel will approach you or collide with you... and as DH has repeatedly mentioned, large merchant vessels routinely and openly post NUC whilst drifting and awaiting port entry,, even though there are no exceptional circumstances involved. And the authorities know this and take no action. Do you think they'll be bothered by a WAFI doing so?

If I were undertaking singlehanded voyaging, I'd have the ability to hoist//light the appropriate signals, and I'd likely invest in a Class A AIS so that I could have my status shown as NUC. I think this would go a long way towards avoiding conflict, either with other vessels or with authorities.

Jim

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Declaring NUC does not relieve the requirement to maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing. At least that is what we were taught. Even at anchor one must maintain a proper lookout.

That's correct.

NUC wouldn't give you a pass.

But it would be a good, seamanlike way of communicating to other vessels that you are not capable of maneuvering and any potential collision is all in their hands.

Not guessing about whether you are going to maneuver or not makes the situation clear to the other vessel from the beginning - that makes the encounter safer.

Of course your radar and AIS alarms should wake you up before you get to that point, but just in case.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Rule 3 (f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...nder%20command

Unless you can convince a judge that regularly sleeping is an exceptional circumstance declaring yourself NUC is not going to legally absolve you in the event of a collision. If you aren’t in a collision sleeping while underway probably won’t lead to a situation where you have to justify yourself legally.

It is absolutely correct that needing to sleep is not a proper basis for claiming NUC, and it is also correct that showing NUC will not "relieve you of responsibility" in case of a collision.

But we should all understand enough about the COLREGS to know that NOTHING relieves you of responsibility, in case of a collision. Vessels have been deemed guilty even when other vessels run into them while anchored.

Showing NUC is not so that we will be "relieved of responsibility" - - it's to make a collision less likely. A better, more seamanlike move like this might mean LESS responsibility, in case of a collision, as opposed to just barelling along with normal nav lights, falsely signalling that you are capable of maneuvering and normal participation in traffic.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

you should not set off on a passage without adequate crew

Hmm, should is a judgment call.

The law certainly has not been enforced that way nor afaik been interpreted to mean that.

Anyone wants to set off across the oceans in a pea-green cockleshell with a jug of water and some jerky is free to do so.

In fact and under the law.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Hmm, should is a judgment call.

The law certainly has not been enforced that way nor afaik been interpreted to mean that.

Anyone wants to set off across the oceans in a pea-green cockleshell with a jug of water and some jerky is free to do so.

In fact and under the law.

I believe it depends on the flag under which the vessel sails and the port of exit. Some countries do not in fact allow you to exit one of their ports unless the vessel can be proved seaworthy and meets certain minimum safety requirements. The US has no such rule AFAIK but I believe New Zealand and other countries do. These rules are designed to minimize expensive SAR operations.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Rule 3 (f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...nder%20command

Unless you can convince a judge that regularly sleeping is an exceptional circumstance declaring yourself NUC is not going to legally absolve you in the event of a collision. If you aren’t in a collision sleeping while underway probably won’t lead to a situation where you have to justify yourself legally.

NUC or not, valid reason or not. Rule 5 still requires "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing "


Displaying NUC doesn't give you a pass on that Rule

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

... and as DH has repeatedly mentioned, large merchant vessels routinely and openly post NUC whilst drifting and awaiting port entry,, even though there are no exceptional circumstances involved. And the authorities know this and take no action. Do you think they'll be bothered by a WAFI doing so?

But I bet they still maintain a lookout!

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by StuM

But I bet they still maintain a lookout!

Like it makes much difference as all they are capable doing in short notice is signaling.
Anyway the whole discussion is a bit silly IMO, becouse what matters is the possible collision. If it happens you have 50% of the blame, what ever the reason and singlehanding has nothing to do with it.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by StuM

But I bet they still maintain a lookout!

Well, perhaps so. But what is the lookout to do when collision is imminent? Takes a long time to get t he engines on line, I think, and then a fair long time to get up to maneuvering speed once the engines are running. I suppose that whistle signals could be used to alert the oncoming ship, or VHF hailing, but if there was anyone about the bridge to respond to such, they'd have already seen the NUC vessel.

In reality, AIS has made this practice safer, for the status is known for hours before proximity and the oncoming ship can avoid easily.

As an aside, has any CF cruiser ever maintained routine lookouts when at anchor (other than when worried about dragging, etc)? I sure haven't, and none of my many cruising friends have AFAIK. When I was T-boned at anchor, that subject was never raised by anyone. Anchor ball? Yep, routinely displayed and was at that time... and no one ever mentioned that, either. But this incident never reached court... the local cops were reluctant to even receive the report that is mandated by Aussie law, and were not about to get involved.

It's a world where there are plenty of rules governing almost everything. They are not uniformly observed, enforced or even known by the officials, and that's true for us WAFIs, too. I try to observe and obey COLREGS, but fail to do so in respect of some that just don't seem to apply to us little guys... like lookouts at anchor!

Jim

[Olddan1943]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I believe it depends on the flag under which the vessel sails and the port of exit. Some countries do not in fact allow you to exit one of their ports unless the vessel can be proved seaworthy and meets certain minimum safety requirements. The US has no such rule AFAIK but I believe New Zealand and other countries do. These rules are designed to minimize expensive SAR operations.

the USCG can, will and have declared an 'unsafe voyage' requiring the ship to return to port immediately. If necessary, under an armed escort.
I recall a cruise ship, fire in the laundry, out of Miami or Ft Lauderdale, making a break for international waters, because the Regs are different in international waters.
Also, after towing a small craft repeatedly, because of break downs, each time the owner went in for repairs and each time something else broke down after leaving port. The USCG declared an unsafe voyage thus requiring a USCG inspection prior leaving port again. Both of these incidents more than 10 years ago in FL on the east coast.
Dont doubt the powers of the USCG. They can be friendly or if necessary, make life very difficult for the owner.

[danielamartindm]

There is no combination of electronic devices that could possibly wake and alert every sleeping skipper to every proximate hazard every time. Some people could sleep through a cattle prod. The good news for single handers is that collisions while asleep are relatively infrequent considering total miles traveled- and morally speaking, most don't have a problem with single handing for that reason. The bad news is that if you DO have a collision at sea while asleep, you will (correctly) be held legally accountable for Rule 5 violation. Sailing the world's oceans single handed is a dream we have chosen not to kill with enforcement of regulations. I see wisdom in that decision.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

There is no combination of electronic devices that could possibly wake and alert every sleeping skipper to every proximate hazard every time. Some people could sleep through a cattle prod. The good news for single handers is that collisions while asleep are relatively infrequent considering total miles traveled- and morally speaking, most don't have a problem with single handing for that reason. The bad news is that if you DO have a collision at sea while asleep, you will (correctly) be held legally accountable for Rule 5 violation. Sailing the world's oceans single handed is a dream we have chosen not to kill with enforcement of regulations. I see wisdom in that decision.

In my opinion, this is a very good statement of the situation. Single handing is illegal, but it is (wisely) tolerated, but if you get into a collision, you will be in trouble (if you survive to even care).

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Like it makes much difference as all they are capable doing in short notice is signaling.
Anyway the whole discussion is a bit silly IMO, becouse what matters is the possible collision. If it happens you have 50% of the blame, what ever the reason and singlehanding has nothing to do with it.

A little oversimplified, but essentially correct. Single handers are rolling the dice when they choose to sleep while the boat continues to make way. The odds are pretty good if you set radar and AIS alarms, but you're still rolling the dice. If you get into an accident, nothing will relieve you of this responsibility, but then -- if you get under and accident under any circumstances, you are going to have at least some responsibility, so the main thing is to prevent an accident.