Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

......

I think actually that you could heave to (well offshore and out of traffic etc.) and show NUC and go get your sleep and be in perfect compliance with the Rules as well as common good seamanship. It's a somewhat creative interpretation of NUC status, but in my opinion absolutely sound, and you really endanger no one this way. In my opinion it's more seamanlike than carrying on under way with no one looking out. Something to keep in mind.

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.

[Dockhead]

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.

I would be probably even more surprised than you . In case of any serious accident, you can never count on 0% fault. It almost never happens in case of collisions at sea.


Doing it in a seamanlike manner, and in compliance with the Rules, is not a question of achieving 0% liability. It's a question of doing it right. If doing it right doesn't prevent an accident, you will be blamed under one principle or another -- you can be sure of that. Good seamanship is not about avoiding blame, the obsession with which has become so characteristic of our culture, and which is a bad sign -- the Soviet Union was like that, too.

[AKA-None]

We have ignored the earlier comment about crew becoming incapacitated due to injury or illness thus reducing the number of able bodies to perform a watch. Also I’m wondering about deaf or hard of hearing sailors? Must they become passengers or always paired with someone who can hear clearly?
And yes I am truly asking to know if I must alter my crew makeup or allow for crew incapacitation.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

We have ignored the earlier comment about crew becoming incapacitated due to injury or illness thus reducing the number of able bodies to perform a watch. Also I’m wondering about deaf or hard of hearing sailors? Must they become passengers or always paired with someone who can hear clearly?
And yes I am truly asking to know if I must alter my crew makeup or allow for crew incapacitation.

Hearing is not an optional part of a proper lookout, so a deaf sailor cannot, unfortunately, keep a proper lookout alone.



However, losing some crew members to incapacitation such that adequate manpower for fulfilling the requirements of the Rules is not available is something which happens, and you just have to do the best you can.



There are court cases which held that the whole crew being sick was a proper basis for NUC status. So I think that this is another case where you could perfectly well heave to and show NUC, and if you did that because you were the only man left standing after everyone else on board got deathly ill, and you needed to get some rest, I think that would be in perfect compliance with the Rules.


To your other question -- yes, you should plan your voyages with adequate crew to fulfill all of your obligations. But shirt happens, and if a good plan can't be fulfilled because of unexpected incapcitation of the crew, then you just do the best you can.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

However, for whatever it may be worth -- if you are able to stay somewhat rested by taking 5 minute naps as you suggested (5, and not 10 and not 15) between maintaining a proper watch by sight and by hearing, and this is done well offshore and away from traffic, and with alarms competently set, it's my opinion that this is more like blinking, and not inconsistent with maintaining a lookout "at all times". Not every judge shares my opinion, probably, so don't rely on it, but I really don't think that would be a violation.

That is actually all that I have been arguing ... so it seems as if we do agree really.

I still maintain that that on a boat doing 5 kts that 5 minutes is well within "proper lookout", but you can certainly argue that 10 minutes isn't ... If I assume a worst case head on collision will be 30 kts (me doing 5 oncoming vessel doing 25) with a 5 mile horizon (small boat not big ship) then 5 minutes gives me 2.5 miles to react on waking up ... 10 minutes, not so much.

But I'm not really concerned in whether it is a violation or not, I'm interested in whether I can safely do it without risk of collision ... and finding examples when it was proved or ruled unsafe is a good way to do a bit of learning before I find myself offshore wondering how long to set the alarm for.

Of course the odds of that worst-case scenario is so low, that 10 or 15 minutes probably wouldn't scare me ... but a bit more experience of seeing just what traffic is out there and how visible it is wouldn't hurt first.

So far the examples I'm aware of sleeping single-handers hitting other boats, they all either didn't see a boat they should have, or did see it and incorrectly assessed the risk of collision ... showing that keeping a proper watch even while awake isn't a guarantee.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think actually that you could heave to (well offshore and out of traffic etc.) and show NUC and go get your sleep and be in perfect compliance with the Rules as well as common good seamanship. It's a somewhat creative interpretation of NUC status, but in my opinion absolutely sound, and you really endanger no one this way. In my opinion it's more seamanlike than carrying on under way with no one looking out. Something to keep in mind.

That is exactly what I have always advocated to single handers far offshore. To me it is a valid justification for NUC because the vessel lacks 24 hr supervision underway.

Brought the same point up.on another thread about a year ago.

Dockhead, an intrinsic problem with finding a court ruling on a collusion with a solo, is that the solo sailor can easily say he "blinked" and the radar alarm failed, when in reality he collapsed into a deep unwakeable sleep due to exhaustion.

There would be no witnesses to prove otherwise.

I think many of us have all been there where after 90hrs of no sleep, when you do....nothing wakes you up!

[AKA-None]

So as we age we need to seriously consider how our senses are affected and the potential impact to our cruising plans.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Who gives a damn. Will continue to solo sail. It's my life that's at risk and, despite what government regulations try to do, i'm responsible for it. Yes there is a very small chance that if I had a collision with another boat that another party could be damaged or injured but it's extremely small that my boat would be big enough to come out the winner.

Coastal passages without keeping watch is dangerous to myself and the boat because of the hard stuff you could run into, not other boats. I try to keep passages to less than 48 hours as I've found out that going sleepless for more than that makes for some entertaining alternate reality experiences.

FWIW, the only time I've come close to being run down wasn't solo and we were maintaining a watch. We were under sail at night with my wife on the helm while I was asleep. She saw the ship but misjudged its speed and course. By the time she woke me up, the ship was nearly on us and an Oh Sh*t tack had us surfing away off the bow wave probably less than 20' from the ship. The ship obviously wasn't maintaining a watch as a few degrees course change would've had them clearing us easily. It wasn't that my wife was playing chicken with the right of way rules, she was fairly new to sailing though had stood night watches in heavily trafficed areas before, and just misjudged the closure rate until it was almost too late to get out of the ship's way.

Save me from those who are trying to save me from myself.

Amen to this. I can't be bothered to work out the minute ramifications of hypothetical scenarios (was it illegal to drive my car toward the sunrise this morning because it was difficult to see?). Some laws exist just so that blame can be allocated after the fact. We should all just do our seafaring in whatever way we find acceptably safe, taking responsibility for any mistakes, accidents, or lapses in judgment that end up in loss or damage, and using the COLREGS as guidelines where other vessels are concerned--after all, they are the Collision Regulations. They have nothing to say where collisions need not be avoided.
Along those lines, I believe what constitutes a "proper lookout" changes with the situation. In the lonely wastes of the pacific, a full night of sleep may be fine (I've hove to and slept overnight plenty of times, and not just in the Pacific), where in a foggy shipping lane, a 2-minute pee (by the way, who goes below to pee? what's the sternrail for?) would be improper. But the language is worded in such a way that blame can be allocated when an incident DOES occur.
The danger of discussing this too much, and asking for too much clarification, is that the Nanny State may well clarify and worse yet enforce in a way no one wants, except perhaps the imbeciles who want to force people to wear life jackets and harnesses at all times.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

....

Doing it in a seamanlike manner, and in compliance with the Rules, is not a question of achieving 0% liability. It's a question of doing it right. ....

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.

[transmitterdan]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it was any sound made? By definition: No.

If a solo sailor takes a nap on passage and no collision happens what penalty can be assessed by his “flag State” or any other state?

Does sailing in thick fog break rule 5?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Interesting that they claim his obligation was only "occasionally" not "at all times"

Also from the same case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...6/435/2593336/
Note that it doesn't condemn single-handed sailors for sleeping .. just for sleeping at night! I wonder if the ruling would have been different if he had set his alarm for 5 minutes instead of 30 minutes.

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.

[boatman61]

Bugga Rule 5...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it was any sound made? By definition: No.

If a solo sailor takes a nap on passage and no collision happens what penalty can be assessed by his “flag State” or any other state?

Does sailing in thick fog break rule 5?

1. It depends on your definition of "sound". Physics: Yes. Physiology: No Common usage: Refer to the first sentence.

2. None since there will be no evidence of a breach of the regulations.

3. No. as long as a good look-out is kept - including by hearing and all other available means.

[ahun]

I think area of applying colreg should be separated to offshore and territorial waters. On international waters there would be no country or authority to enforce the law - hence it is virtually not illegal.

In territorial waters, in theory you can comply to the law and no one can prove that you don't. Hence coast guard or maritime police can't stop you to leave port.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ahun

I think area of applying colreg should be separated to offshore and territorial waters. On international waters there would be no country or authority to enforce the law - hence it is virtually not illegal.

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.".