Examples of a two crew watch rotation for an ocean crossing?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

I most emphatically disagree with this statement. Imo, it is very, very poor advice.

Both of you turning in for the night simply does not take into adequate account that electronic devices fail suddenly for reasons it takes time to figure out. Nor is it legal, nor, necessary.

NO! Someone must be on watch at all times. Technology is wonderful, but the mark one eyeball has been our go to safety device for over 35 yrs. now.

By watch, I mean a real watch, where if you hear something you do not understand, you go forward and you look for an unknown that could be the source of the noise. I mean, too, that all your navigation lights that are appropriate to the situation are lit. It means that you train yourself to be aware enough to see the unlit ship, as once happened on my morning watch.

We expect everybody to follow the rules, but they're human and they don't. Never mind why they don't, it is just that when you or I am on watch it is you or me who is responsible for the welfare of the vessel and us. NO, couples don't need to "turn in and go to sleep". Singlehanders may well do, and that's a different situation.

You'll notice, if you look up Boatman 61's posts, that although when he singlehands, he sleeps, he takes watch crew for long voyages: and they are his eyes while he is asleep.

To me, it is morally wrong, as well as legally wrong to "turn in and go to sleep," as a "normal" practice when there is an able bodied person to stand a watch while the skipper sleeps. If you want to make love, it comes out of your off watch, not his, and may be a quickie.

Now, if all aboard are too ill to stand watch, that would be different. But it is rare. [We once spent 3 days hove to, with the anchor light on at night, while suffering from the Victoria A flu.] It is way, way better to never be unable to stand watch.

Ann

Amen!

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Modern tech (especially effective radar guard zones) is a fantastic enhancement to watchkeeping, but is NOT a substitute for looking out.

Well, it’s not really an enhancement if watchkeeping continues as it has for decades despite the tech. Tech should relieve one of tasks, not just be there because it’s nice. If it doesn’t change the way you do things, why would you waste money on it?

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I was on the graveyard shift one night about 03:00 on a long passage from the Faroe Islands all the way to Southern England, without stopping in the Orkneys or Scotland (we were trying to get out of the way of an approaching weather system). I was NOT snoozing or being inattentive. But I somehow missed a fishing boat with dim nav lights going into Peterhead across my path which was not running AIS and which somehow got through my guard zones without an alarm. I almost jumped out of my skin when the VHF crackled -- the guy, thank God, wasn't snoozing himself, saw me on AIS (he had a receiver), but couldn't make out my nav lights (I was running the tricolor), knew we were on a collision course but couldn't figure out which way to turn. I immediately hit the decklight, hit the sails with a torch and we unwound the situation -- and I gave my profuse thanks for his vigilance and seamanship, and profound apologies for the lapse of my own, over VHF as we sailed away from each other.

It is true to say that “rules” (read behaviour) are different depending where you sail. In the area where, besides your alertness/attentiveness, a fishing vessel invaded your space, it is probably traffic rich with vessels criss-crossing through the area. Sailing south of Indonesia/Sri Lanka is similar with hundreds of long-line fishing boats going every which way. I know, I single-handed through that area.

Where my passage-making takes place, one can literally sail for 1000nm without seeing any other vessels. In my environment, my process of managing watches works just fine with not even one close call over many 1000s of nm. YMMV but does not make mine necessarily wrong.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

How would that have turned out if everyone gives up "the inflexible rule of watches staying wide awake on watch"? You sure that your radar really picks up everything always and always sounds the alarm? What if something starts to chafe? What if you get off course? What if the pilot malfunctions?

If your AIS and radar turn up useless at the same time, it’s probably time to do some essential maintenance. Yes, when my radar alarm is set, it always alarms when another vessel enters my space. I can’t recall seeing a vessel that never set off a radar alarm when set. Besides, by your own admission, your alertness/attentiveness failed just as easily as any radar or AIS. My AP is generally set to “wind” and alarms when large deviations in course are sensed. Noticing chafe on a night watch would require different tech, like maybe a ouija board.

Isn’t it interesting how single handlers get a pass on this but anyone else is considered irresponsible.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Well, it’s not really an enhancement if watchkeeping continues as it has for decades despite the tech. Tech should relieve one of tasks, not just be there because it’s nice. If it doesn’t change the way you do things, why would you waste money on it?

That's illogical. Enhancement means improvement. Technology is a tool, and it definitely improves watchkeeping. The radar sees stuff earlier and further and sees stuff which is not visible to the naked eye. It helps, but that doesn't mean that the naked eye is no longer needed, and certainly doesn't mean your alert brain is not needed.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

. . . It is true to say that “rules” (read behaviour) are different depending where you sail.

The Rules are NOT different depending where you sail: "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing. . . " -- Rule 5. Not "some times", not "when awake", not "when in a high traffic area", but at all times. There is no ambiguity.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

In the area where, besides your alertness/attentiveness, a fishing vessel invaded your space, it is probably traffic rich with vessels criss-crossing through the area.

Not. This took place at about 60N on the final leg of a trip from Northeastern Greenland, 300 miles above the Arctic Circle, to England, and this was the first other vessel we saw at sea in 2000 miles. The high North Atlantic is hella empty.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Where my passage-making takes place, one can literally sail for 1000nm without seeing any other vessels. In my environment, my process of managing watches works just fine with not even one close call over many 1000s of nm. YMMV but does not make mine necessarily wrong.

It works until it doesn't. And it is unambiguously wrong according to the legally binding International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

I once knew a guy who drove drunk every day for 10 years without an accident. He also said something like "my process of driving works just fine without even one close call over 10 years."

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

. . . If your AIS and radar turn up useless at the same time, it’s probably time to do some essential maintenance.

This guy wasn't broadcasting AIS, as many vessels do not. Radar is not infallible.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

. . .Yes, when my radar alarm is set, it always alarms when another vessel enters my space. I can’t recall seeing a vessel that never set off a radar alarm when set.

If you were sleeping or not looking out, then how did you know if a vessel got through without setting off the alarm? Radar is not infallible, especially not small boat radar.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

. . .Besides, by your own admission, your alertness/attentiveness failed just as easily as any radar or AIS.

Absolutely. No single method of watchkeeping is infallible -- not eyeballs, not radar, not AIS. That's why you are obligated to use them all, and everyone is obligated to use them, not just one party to a potential collision. This dramatically improves the odds. My case is a perfect example of how collision avoidance works -- two vessels, one broadcasting AIS, one using radar, one receiving AIS, two people looking out. Two people failed to see each other's nav lights, one radar failed to alarm. HOWEVER ONE ALERT GUY WAS WATCHING HIS AIS RECEIVER, and thank God I was broadcasting. So one out of multiple means of detecting a potential collision worked, where others failed. That's why you need them all.

And most of all you need the alert and functional -- and not sleeping -- brain.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

My AP is generally set to “wind” and alarms when large deviations in course are sensed. Noticing chafe on a night watch would require different tech, like maybe a ouija board.

There was a guy killed not long ago when his pilot flipped off and the boat gybed. These devices are not infallible.

Noticing chafe doesn't require a ouija board. I assume you are not deaf? Hearing is just as important as sight (why listening to music on watch is forbidden on well run boats). Looking at the rigging with a torch on a regular basis is another essential measure.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

. . .Isn’t it interesting how single handlers get a pass on this but anyone else is considered irresponsible.

Single handers don't get a pass from me. Single handers cannot fulfill Rule 5 and are in violation. But at least they have an excuse -- they have no choice but to sleep. There is no excuse for any vessel underway with multiple people on board and no one awake, no matter how many thousands of miles out of the sea lanes. Outrageously bad seamanship. Expect jail time in case of an accident -- if you survive. The very definition of gross negligence.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

In my environment, my process of managing watches works just fine with not even one close call over many 1000s of nm.

How would you know that unless you are keeping watch?

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Really? I think a lot of people in this thread have extensive experience of long-distance cruising, and deliveries too, and some over many decades of it.

In my real life experience with real people, a certain number of people have difficulty with night watches, but most don't once they get into the rhythm of passage-making. I am a natural night owl so I actually like the graveyard shift and ALWAYS take it when I'm in the watch rotation, usually 02:00-06:00 or 00:00-04:00. I like this watch -- the stars, if it's clear, the moon, the sunrise. I don't sleep all that well or all that much on passage (like everyone I guess) but I sleep best of all in the morning after standing a night watch.

Another thing we didn't discuss is what you do with inexperienced watchstanders. I sail with a lot of volunteer crew of greatly varying skills, and in a great number of cases volunteer crew have exaggerated their sailing skills during the selection process, mostly unintentionally probably (I had one crew who was an experienced professional delivery skipper who as it turned out didn't know how to sail AT ALL -- he exclusively motored all of his deliveries. He knew literally zero about sailing. We had a vigorous fast beam reach one day, and he freaked out -- had never been on a boat on a heel before, and it was terrifying! Was a very nice guy though, and we found plenty for him to do). If I'm not in the regular watch rotation, I will often double the watch of an inexperienced person. I will often sit in the cockpit with such a person at night, or at the nav table, and I'm on deck any time any sail trimming is required.

Inexperienced watchstanders are 85% as valuable as experienced ones because keeping a lookout is the most time-consuming job of passagemaking, and anyone can do this.

Of course there are some informed responses wrought from experience - many with much more experience than I have, and certainly those with different experiences - my experience has been within 200nms of a coastline 99% of the time. I reiterate my initial guidance - you have to figure out what works for your rhythms was clipped from the above which is really the bottom line. But the OP's question concerned where to start?

To my ears, many (not all) of the contributions had the ring of either textbook or fully crewed racing boats. Heck, a couple suggested letting electronics (AIS) stand watch and just go to bed. Might work for some obscure ocean crossing, but that's a crazy suggestion to me.

Willpower can take you a long way, but fatigue can overcome a person. There are 168 hours in a week. In my experience, expecting two people who are used to typical daylight schedules to cover it for a week or more requires much more than a schedule. My wife and I cruise with a watch schedule but it is more of a guideline than a schedule. Yes, whoever is assigned a certain watch is responsible to stand it, but we often relieve each other. She needs longer periods of uninterrupted sleep whereas I can power nap. I hit a wall at around 2:00PM so she will often make sure she's fresh so she can relieve me, even if for only a half hour. And our natural rhythms have changed a bit over the 23 years we've been together.

So yea, I'm a little suspect of posts with some sort of formulaic watch schedule that thinks a person can simply power through a 12:00 to 4:00 or 12:00 to 6:00 watch. Because of my delivery background and because it was along the Pacific Coast where multi-day runs are common, I've dealt with newbie crew many, many times - they are generally excellent. Best I had was a retired Sonoma County cop who could take out a machine gun nest with nothing more than a Swiss army knife. By far the worst crew i ever had was a Swedish guy who was halfway through his second circumnavigation on an Ingrid Ketch he'd built in South Africa. Nice guy but an awful watchstander. I suppose he had spent too much time singlehanding across oceans and didn't hesitate to sleep whenever he felt the urge, including passing through the San Francisco ships channel.

Good discussion.

Peter

BTW - I would qualify for your example of a delivery captain who wasn't much of a sailor. I've owned sailboats and am not bad, but stopped accepting deliveries of sailboats after a year or so. Even then, I always had topnotch sailors aboard. My skills in mechanicals, electricals, navigation, seamanship, and management are pretty good. Sailing? Meh...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

. . . I reiterate my initial guidance - you have to figure out what works for your rhythms was clipped from the above which is really the bottom line. But the OP's question concerned where to start?

To my ears, many (not all) of the contributions had the ring of either textbook or fully crewed racing boats. . . .

Willpower can take you a long way, but fatigue can overcome a person. There are 168 hours in a week. In my experience, expecting two people who are used to typical daylight schedules to cover it for a week or more requires much more than a schedule. My wife and I cruise with a watch schedule but it is more of a guideline than a schedule. Yes, whoever is assigned a certain watch is responsible to stand it, but we often relieve each other. She needs longer periods of uninterrupted sleep whereas I can power nap. I hit a wall at around 2:00PM so she will often make sure she's fresh so she can relieve me, even if for only a half hour. And our natural rhythms have changed a bit over the 23 years we've been together.

So yea, I'm a little suspect of posts with some sort of formulaic watch schedule that thinks a person can simply power through a 12:00 to 4:00 or 12:00 to 6:00 watch.

These are great comments. Of course -- whatever watch system works for you and your crew, provided it's getting done of course

I think most crews like fixed hours because then they can plan their time. HOWEVER, just because the watch schedule is fixed, doesn't mean you can't deviate from it.

It's one of a number of reasons I prefer to be out of the watch rotation myself. I always tell my own crews to never just "power through" -- that they should call for help or relief if they are not feeling up to it, and to never hesitate to do so. I agree with you that "powering through" can be harmful. For the OP or any other two-man crew, it's hard because your crew resource is so thin to begin with. But yeah -- I think you have to have flexibility to deal with someone being especially tired or couldn't sleep or whatever.

Originally Posted by mvweebles

. . .Because of my delivery background and because it was along the Pacific Coast where multi-day runs are common, I've dealt with newbie crew many, many times - they are generally excellent. Best I had was a retired Sonoma County cop who could take out a machine gun nest with nothing more than a Swiss army knife. By far the worst crew i ever had was a Swedish guy who was halfway through his second circumnavigation on an Ingrid Ketch he'd built in South Africa. Nice guy but an awful watchstander. I suppose he had spent too much time singlehanding across oceans and didn't hesitate to sleep whenever he felt the urge, including passing through the San Francisco ships channel. .

I enjoy sailing with volunteer crew. You meet all kinds of folks. I don't mind inexperienced crew at all -- you can nearly always work it out, find their strengths, get them working. Best of these are usually someone with high skills in some related field -- ex-military, pilot, etc. Very experienced crew can be either wonderful or horrible and usually nothing in between. They will have their own way of doing things so it's down to whether that is compatible with how you run the boat, or not. My worst watchkeeper ever was a rather experienced sailor and my story is similar to yours. I sailed 1000's of miles with him and it was a constant problem. First watch I put him on was an evening watch transitting the English Channel towards the North Sea. I was supposed to relieve him and take the graveyard shift myself, but I woke up early with an unexplainable bad feeling. Went up on deck and found him FACING BACKWARDS, staring at the stars. Autopilot on wind mode, and there had been a gradual wind shift (so no alarm) which had changed our course towards the Dover TSS, which we were just about to run into going the wrong way And it never got better after that. I eventually had to start doubling his watch

[NevilleCat]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

If offshore, set the AIS zone alarm and both turn in for the night. You got to trust the technology and I'm sure it keeps better watch than I do.

Not sure if you're just "taking the piss" here.
Maybe you could do a little light reading before you go down for the night.
try THIS

CassidyNZ should know this story since it took place where he presumably does those passages...

[TNRivers]

Flexible 4 hr sched...if not safe, a respectful partner pulls extra weight. A 400 mile leg is our max without becoming fatigued with the whole idea. This is leisure, after all.
Terry and Melissa, sv Privateer III

[kmacdonald]

I’m not a lawer so don’t really know the legalities of watchkeeping but if what some are saying it must be illegal to singlehand. Some of these rules are like speed limits, more of a suggestion than a hard and fast requirement. They establish fault if in the rare instance something does happen. The odds of hitting another vessel on a passage are so remote as to be disregarded. After all, they should have a watchstander on duty.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I’m not a lawer so don’t really know the legalities of watchkeeping but if what some are saying it must be illegal to singlehand. Some of these rules are like speed limits, more of a suggestion than a hard and fast requirement. They establish fault if in the rare instance something does happen. The odds of hitting another vessel on a passage are so remote as to be disregarded. After all, they should have a watchstander on duty.

I am a lawyer, so I can clear this up for you. The Rules are not "suggestions"; they are the law. They are generally interpreted in a fairly flexible and practical way, but they are not "suggestions", and they are not only for "establishing fault in case something happens".



The legality of single handing is a special case and is much debated. It's impossible for a single hander on a long passage to comply with Rule 5, so you can draw your own conclusions. But single handing is considered a kind of noble challenge and is tolerated, at least. The flexibility and practicality with which the Rules are generally interpreted recognizes that single handers have no choice, so we work around it. The same absolutely cannot be said about anyone sailing with more than one person aboard. In such a case, there is simply no excuse for violating Rule 5.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Well, it’s not really an enhancement if watchkeeping continues as it has for decades despite the tech. Tech [AIS] should relieve one of tasks, not just be there because it’s nice. If it doesn’t change the way you do things, why would you waste money on it?........

......Where my passage-making takes place, one can literally sail for 1000nm without seeing any other vessels. In my environment, my process of managing watches works just fine with not even one close call over many 1000s of nm. YMMV but does not make mine necessarily wrong.

Please, please, please - this is not universal advice. There is no theory where normal watch standing includes turning on an AIS or any other alarm and heading to your bunk. Crossing barren oceans 1000's of miles away from shipping lane is a very, very narrow use-case where running with AIS alarm alone may be an acceptable risk, especially for single-handers where the alternative is waking every 15-mins and scanning the horizon. It's also a reasonable assumption that most (all?) vessels out there will have AIS too.

However, I would urge folks to recognize just how narrow an example this is. Would also urge anyone who advocates sleeping while the AIS hums to caveat it appropriately, including recognizing it does not satisfy the legal obligations for standing watch. Delivering between Alaska and Florida, I have made many non-stop runs in the 1500 nms range along the North/Central American coastlines, equivalent of crossing the Atlantic. Using AIS as a proxy for standing watch would not only be irresponsible and dangerous, but criminally actionable in the event of an accident.

Finally, I do not agree that technology should relieve us of tasks. Sometimes it does, but more often it just makes us more efficient and productive. Let's not confuse the two.

Peter

[slug]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am a lawyer, so I can clear this up for you. The Rules are not "suggestions"; they are the law. They are generally interpreted in a fairly flexible and practical way, but they are not "suggestions", and they are not only for "establishing fault in case something happens".



The legality of single handing is a special case and is much debated. It's impossible for a single hander on a long passage to comply with Rule 5, so you can draw your own conclusions. But single handing is considered a kind of noble challenge and is tolerated, at least. The flexibility and practicality with which the Rules are generally interpreted recognizes that single handers have no choice, so we work around it. The same absolutely cannot be said about anyone sailing with more than one person aboard. In such a case, there is simply no excuse for violating Rule 5.

Poor Watch keeping is the main reason why cruisers are a high insurance risk

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by slug

Poor Watch keeping is the main reason why cruisers are a high insurance risk

I highly doubt that.

Storm losses from unattended boats surely outweighs any losses incurred from poor watch keeping.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am a lawyer, so I can clear this up for you. The Rules are not "suggestions"; they are the law. They are generally interpreted in a fairly flexible and practical way, but they are not "suggestions", and they are not only for "establishing fault in case something happens".



The legality of single handing is a special case and is much debated. It's impossible for a single hander on a long passage to comply with Rule 5, so you can draw your own conclusions. But single handing is considered a kind of noble challenge and is tolerated, at least. The flexibility and practicality with which the Rules are generally interpreted recognizes that single handers have no choice, so we work around it. The same absolutely cannot be said about anyone sailing with more than one person aboard. In such a case, there is simply no excuse for violating Rule 5.

I disagree. Double handling has some of the same challenges as singlehanding, although to a lesser degree. Sleep deprivation can occur in either case. What part of the "law" exempts singlhanders? It really comes down to risk management and what one is comfortable with. Rationally speaking, full time watchkeeping on the open oceans is not necessary with the modern electronics available. At some point the "law" will be adjusted to account for this. It will evolve to reflect the new reality technology has brought us. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with those that choose to keep watch "the old way".

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by slug

Poor Watch keeping is the main reason why cruisers are a high insurance risk

Yep