SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Solo Sailing & Lights displayed

7K views 65 replies 19 participants last post by  Plumper 
#1 · (Edited)
Would it be legal while you are single handing a sailboat across the sea, and you need your sleep, to display the Red over Red all around lights for 'Not Under Command' while you are sleeping?:p
Also while you are sleeping you are violating Rule 5 (lookout), so would displaying the "Not Under Command Lights" cover you here also? :eek:
This may have to be answered in an Admiralty Court of Law. But what is the consensus here on these little tidbits of law? :confused:

Red over Green > Sailing Machine :D

He's also showing Red over Red > Not Under Command??:eek:

This has never come up in any discussions on Maritime law that I know of. So it is a good point to ponder about.
 
#2 ·
That's a good question... I don't think it has been answered yet though.
 
#4 ·
Idiens-

I don't think you can use an anchor light, because the definition of a boat at anchor is one made fast to the bottom... which is not the case, even with a sea anchor.
 
#5 ·
I don't think you can use an anchor light, because the definition of a boat at anchor is one made fast to the bottom... which is not the case, even with a sea anchor.
I thought "not underway". However, two questions then. What lights should be displayed when a sea-anchor is being used? (Limited manoeuvrability?) What lights should be displayed when an anchor is dragging?
 
#6 ·
Quoting Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road's summary on lookout's:

A lookout has been defined by the federal courts as a person who is specifically charged with the duty of observing the lights, sounds, echoes, or any obstruction to navigation with that thoroughness which the circumstances permit. The statement in Rule 29 and Article 29 (now Rule 2) that nothing in the rules shall exonerate any vessel from the consequence of any neglect to keep a proper lookout has caused the courts to hold a vessel in collision without a proper lookout at fault unless it can be proved that the other vessel was discovered as soon as a proper lookout would have discovered her.
Numerous court decisions have built up a considerable doctrine with reference to what constitutes a proper lookout. Such a lookout must have no other duties, such as conning or steering the vessel; he must be constantly alert and vigilant, he must have had a reasonable amount of experience as a seaman; he must report what he sees or hears to the officer of the watch; and he must ordianarily be stationed as low down and as far forward on the vessel as circumstances permit. In conditions of crowded traffic and in thick weather enough lookouts must be posted to detect the approach of another vessel from any direction.

It's worth noting that the gimmick of single-handing ocean crossings is a relatively new, as well as a former rare practise, and it's highly doubtful that it will receive a kind ear in a court of Admiralty. You'll likely be convicted on the prima facie evidence alone; if you're single-handing, you cannot maintain a proper lookout. You'll note that steamship companies, whose manning level on each class of ship is approved by the USCG, are still liable should that manning level prove unsufficient in the event of an accident. And that was the real lesson from the Exxon Valdez incident; inadequate manning resulting in fatigue of the officers.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Rule 5
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out 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.
This is a bit vague. The prevailing circumstances of a solo sailor include that there's only one person on board, and after some period of time he will be very tired. But of course I'm interpreting this literally, and the courts will interpret it as they choose.

Quoting Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road
... has caused the courts to hold a vessel in collision without a proper lookout at fault unless it can be proved that the other vessel was discovered as soon as a proper lookout would have discovered her.
Modern electronics may allow the sleeping solo sailor to claim he discovered the other vessel as soon as any lookout would have discovered her.
 
#7 ·
IIRC, the technical definition of anchored, at least in maritime usage, is:

To temporarily secure a ship to the seabed by lowering a hook or weight which takes hold of the bottom.
 
#8 · (Edited)
When dragging anchor you display not under command lights and side lights and stern light as you're making way. You're no longer anchored once you start dragging. You'd show the same under sea anchor unless you are not making way in which case you'd not show sides nor stern lights.
 
#9 ·
My little rule book says: Rule 27 (vessels not under command, or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre) does not apply to vessels <12m LOA, except for flying flag "A" when engaged in diving operations.

Does that mean I need not, or shall not, show "vessel not under command" lights and shapes?
 
#10 ·
It means you are not required to show the lights or shapes.

Which leaves open the question as to what other vessels are to assume about your status. The lack of display casts doubt on your status. The size of the vessel may refute that doubt as no one expects to see those signals displayed on a sailboat so small.

There are still only two relevant questions though. Are you truly "not under command" as defined by the rules (I think not since it is your decision to not set sail or motor event though capable of doing so.) and are you keeping a proper lookout in any event? "Not under command" is not the mate on watch'es coffee break signal signifying he's laid below for a cuppa and don't expect this boat to be changing course or anything. It's for "exceptional" circumstances.

Judging by the Rules and their court interpretations, there's a real question (actually not much of one) as to whether you are in complaince with the Rules even when you are awake and at the helm while soloing. The idea that you somehow can be made to be in compliance by some pattern of lights or signals is probably absurd and merely the result of wishful thinking.
 
#22 ·
Actually you'd probably not mind me at all in government as I'd change the laws not a wit. Given my belief that we have more than enough government already, I'd probably just spend my time sailing until the electorate found out and either threw me out or agreed that my do nothing policy was a good one. (g) And, of course, I'd have to take my sailnet constituents sailing with me as an integral part of my duties of office. (a vbg)

The underlying theme in this discussion is one where those who solo sail or desire to do so wish to have us and the law give them the imprimatur of acting safely. Since they are, in fact, not acting safely that imprimatur will not be forthcoming. I'm not at all in favor of arresting solo sailors or even solo sailors that must be rescued or are involved in a collision. But I am not either going to say that the law should not apply to them just for their own selfish wishes. You cause a collision because you're not keeping a proper lookout, regardless of your excuse of exhaustion, you're going to be found liable at Admiralty.

Some of the opinions expressed reveal a lack of knowledge of Admiralty and the nature of marine insurance. If you have a collision or an allision you'd best hope that you have a rider on your marine insurance policy for solo sailing. Your vessel is unseaworthy by definition and unseaworthiness is a reason for loss of coverage in marine insurance. Unseaworthiness is also a cause for action against the vessel, her owners, and her Master in courts of Admiralty.

You are just as responsible as the Master of that supertanker out there for the operation of your boat. If your actions, be they exhaustion or failure to keep a proper lookout, cause another vessel to, say, take such action to avoid collision and loss of life that results in that vessel perhaps grounding or sustaining other damage to herself or the environment, you are going to be held culpable. Your, I'm just a little boat defense will go nowhere. The fact that your exhaustion made the vessel "unmanned" is evidence of not only unseaworthiness but means that you assumed responsibility for any incidents the minute you decided to leave port knowing the potential consequences. You are required to exercise prudent judgement in manning your vessel. That's what got Exxon in trouble in the Valdez incident; even though the Coast Guard approved their manning that is not prima facie evidence of adequate manning. The instant that the exhaustion of the three mates on that ship became an issue Exxon was culpable for unseaworthiness. And Exxon knew the manning was inadequate. How many solo sailors are going to stand up for Exxon's reduced manning policies?

Do the advocates of special lighting for solo sailing and evasion of responsibility think that their concerns are either new or have never been discussed? Of course they have and that is why the Rules are what they are. And btw, just as a practical matter, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do something or that we should all commend your decision to do so. Unwillingness to acknowledge the responsibility for one's actions is immature at the least.
 
#12 · (Edited)
These may be points to argue in the courts.
1. Single handing, there will come a time where you are totally exhausted and need to sleep. Thus you are incapacitated through the exhaustion and your vessel is no longer under command.
2. By displaying the appropriate signal for Not Under Command you are indicating that your vessel can not maneuver as may be required. (due to your exhaustion.)
3. Due to your exhaustion you can no longer abide by Rule 5.
4. Add the extenuating circumstances are whether your vessel is hoved too or sailing under auto pilot. This would have to discussed also.
You would think that there should be appropriate day/night signals for the solo sailor. And at the present time The only one that even comes close to fitting the situation is the "Not Under Command" signals and maybe "Restricted in Maneuverbility."
Should there be a separated signal strictly for the solo sailors?
But then would we be able to start a tradition of displaying such signals when we are exhausted? One solo sailor (was in a collision with a ship) was admonished by the courts for not maintaining a proper lookout. He was not displaying any signal what so ever. Could it have help him in a court of law if he did so?
So we should be asking ourselves these questions and maybe asking the learned Judges of the courts these questions also and hopefully set a precedent to our favor.

What do you think??
What does the Race Committees of those single handed races around the world and across the seas think? Or do they even have an opinion on this?
 
#18 ·
Should there be a separated signal strictly for the solo sailors?
Yes. Might I suggest Golf (Want a Pilot -- too tired to steer this damn boat anymore), Kilo (Desire to Communicate -- I may be a misanthrope, but now I'm getting pretty sick of myself too), or Victor (Require Assistance -- guess I really can't go it alone afterall)? :D :D :D

More seriously, "No."

When individuals choose to undertake a solo voyage of extended duration they are knowingly choosing to violate the COLREGS by virtue of their inability to maintain a proper lookout at all times. Most who do, get away with it by pure luck, or rather by odds that generally favor them. Some are never heard from again, while still others end up in court futilely defending their actions after a collision or allision incident.

But it's inconceivable that the rules would or should be modified in any way to encourage or sanction this violation. How about if we let the truckers drive as many hours as they want, too?:confused: :confused:
 
#13 ·
I think Boasun's logic on it is good... and that it would make sense for a single-hander to display the red-over-red lights or ball over ball dayshapes.
 
#14 ·
Hello,

According to the US Coast Guard web site:

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.

I don't think being tired or exhausted qualifies as an exceptional circumstance.

Here is the definition of rule 5:

Rule 5
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out 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.

So if you are a single handed sailor, and you are sleeping, you are breaking rule 5.

Barry
 
#15 ·
If you've been up for four days straight, guiding your boat through a storm and collapse from exhaustion, I think that does qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Most of the boats that qualify for Not Under Command would be incapable of dodging a boat that was headed for them, and IMHO, makes whether you can keep a legal lookout a moot point. If your boat can't do anything to avert the collision, does it really matter if you see the impending collision or not???
 
#16 ·
A vessel is NUC who through some EXCEPTIONAL circumstances is unable to maneuver as required by the rules. It says nothing about keeping a proper lookout. If there was an incident you would be found guilty of displaying improper lights (sleeping is not exceptional), and not keeping a proper lookout.

It doesn't matter because if you have been in an incident you have already broken rule 2 and 6. Now you are just MORE at fault.
 
#17 ·
Collapsing from exhaustion and sleeping are two different things IMHO.
 
#21 ·
I agree with JohnRPollard. Rule 5 is probably the most important of any of the COLREGS, imho. If you keep a proper lookout, and communicate by whistle, flashing light, or radio, then you'll actually communicate with the other vessel who *may* present a close-quarters situation in the next few minutes, and will figure out how to make it into a safe passage.

If you choose to sail shorthanded (whether singlehanded, which by definition means you're not keeping ANY lookout at least a third of the time, or double, where the lookouts are physically present on deck but are exhausted and ineffective for much of that time), then you're knowingly violating Rule 5. If you're "not under command" because you have insufficient crew to comply with Rule 5, then I think you have to live with the consequences. You took a calculated risk, and got away with it (meaning we don't see you in court) or you didn't, in which case we do.

Showing NUC lights may lighten your burden a little (or not, depending on the lawyers and the judge), but I have always thought that the right to show red over red was dependent on mechanical factors you couldn't predict, not on manning factors which you should've realized before you cast off.
 
#24 ·
Would it be legal while you are single handing a sailboat across the sea, and you need your sleep, to display the Red over Red all around lights for 'Not Under Command' while you are sleeping?
Also while you are sleeping you are violating Rule 5 (lookout), so would displaying the "Not Under Command Lights" cover you here also?
When you are offshore there is no such thing as law. There IS convention, but when you are in international waters and on your own vessel you can do whatever the heck you want to. It's pretty well the only place left on earth that you can do this.

So get out there and live on the edge ! Fly two, three, four - as many red lights as you want. Hell - hoist a disco ball and jump up and down on deck in a bunny suit if you feel like it. ! Worry about the have-to's and should have dones when you are within 200 miles of some sovereign nation, but not before.
 
#25 · (Edited)
So, to those of you that favor "Not under command" it is going to be OK with you when this guy/girl in their 30,000 pound monohull T-Bones You when they are exhausted? All you have to do is look and make sure that they are flying the correct signal, and if so you should be happy as you sink, and the boat ( with the exhasted sailor) continues on its way? 30,000 pounds remember. Who really gives a damn what they are showing when they sink you? Why would we not ALL fly that signal....then we would never be at fault.
Wait a minute. I have a rule that I don't drink (much) when I sail. If I fly the correct signal will the police recognize that I knew I was drunk and therefore not responsible for my actions? You may be on to something.

You are the captain. You are responsible? Take what risks you want, but at the end of the day YOU are the captain!
 
#27 ·
I think the original post's replies have now gotten way out of context.

If you are anchored, then you show at minimum anchor lights. PERIOD.

Personally - I have those and everything else that can allow a ship / vessel to do positioning on me and to do range calculations.

It really is that simple. If anchored show anchor lights, and if a more trafficked area, if you have other lights that aide oncoming vessels in determining where you are - such as port / starboard and stern light...as well as lights in cabin... You have done what you need to do...

Sometimes this stuff gets way out of context. I anchor out off major channels all the time with patrols going around me every hour... Make it easy for every one else, play within the rules and no one gets hurt - no special circumstances for you being a sailboat needs to be created or addressed.

Really - it is that simple...
 
#30 · (Edited)
Now I know I posted a question that has an excellent response.
One other thing; I've read that some solo sailors have turned on their radar guard ring set for what ever miles they feel comfortable with. Now when something crosses the guard ring the alarm goes off and this is suppose to wake or alert them. Now for myself, when I'm exhausted, I don't even hear the alarm clock or the turned up loud radio when it kicks off at the set time.
So as much as I want, desire, and dream of single handing a boat, there is that factor, that once applied to reality means that I should have a crew of about one or more other people and stand set watches. Single hand on the watch. But there would be a wide awake person on deck at all times. Unless they are down in the head letting out bureaucratic rules and regulations. :eek:
Ocean traffic three to four decades ago wasn't that bad. But with the increase in the global economy the intercontinental trade has increased the ocean traffic about ten fold.(my estimate)
So does that bring on the next question: Are the days of Ocean solo racing and cruising nearing the end? Should the those boats be crewed by couples?
 
#31 ·
My 2 cents, since I'm guilty of solo sailing.
I've read that some solo sailors have turned on their radar guard ring set for what ever miles they feel comfortable with.
Also using a SeeMe radar detector to warn of approaching X-band radars and now AIS with collision risk warning alarm. Then the standard 20 minute timer. All ways of waking up to check the horizon that 20 minutes ago had nothing on it. Personally, alarms have never failed to wake me.
Ocean traffic three to four decades ago wasn't that bad. But with the increase in the global economy the intercontinental trade has increased the ocean traffic about ten fold.(my estimate)
Could be right, but the commercial traffic increase is on particular direct routes, that leaves a lot of empty ocean.
So does that bring on the next question: Are the days of Ocean solo racing and cruising nearing the end? Should the those boats be crewed by couples?
Not for a while I hope, but as nanny state folds its (tax) loving arms around us, I expect more anti-risk legislation.
 
#33 · (Edited)
Sailing a boat offshore is a bit like walking down railroad tracks. You are trespassing on the right of way of the railroad. While they don't necessarily mind, and are not going to kick you off, they do expect you get out of the way of the trains. When you sail a small boat offshore for pleasure you are trespassing in the domain of commerce, war, and piracy. You must accept this as reality, and accept the consequences.

sailaway21, no doubt the courts have found what ships engaged in commerce are required to do. What we have here is a situation not addressed by the Admiralty courts: recreation, pleasure. These things do not exists according to COLREGS, everyone at sea is subject to the same 'regulations.' In this sense when you are called to an admiralty court you are being treated as a commercial entity, engaged in commerce when the incident occurred. Of course common sense will usually prevail. "Mr. Supertanker driver, what do you mean you have a choice to run over the sailboat or hit the rocks a spill a million gallons of oil? " What damages can a sailboat actually do to a ship, at sea, offshore? Thats right, nothing. A bit like a train vs. a bicycle. This whole going to sea for pleasure thing is a foreign notion to the courts, the I.M.O., and to the maritime industry. While its great to think and ponder that you can somehow hold yourself to their standards putting across the ocean at 3-4 knots the reality is you can't. You don't have the power available to keep your radar, your VHF, AIS on 24 hours a day. You don't have the visibility a look out on a bridge wing has, and you don't have the speed to get out of the way if you needed to. If you posses a vessel that can, aside from ocean racers you likely won't be single handing anyway. Most ships are foreign flagged, have one man on the bridge who may or may not know what he is doing. For this reason attempting to follow the guidelines of rule 5 is in your best interest, as it is every vessels duty to do everything in their power to avoid a collision. If a ship doesn't see you, your lights, or your radar signature they have screwed up. Not its your turn to alert them with every means possible your position and try to get out of their way, if you can. It should also be noted that at least here on the west coast and Alaska commercial fisherman will often set their autopilot in a circle or cloverleaf pattern, or just lock their helm and forget it, sometimes sleeping the entire night like that. They know they are violating rule 5, but they don't really care. This is the reality. Their are unmanned fishing boats, freighters with hardly a soul on deck, and then there is the lowly singlehander...

About Boasun's comments about not waking up to a radar proximity alarm, or AIS. Most single handers, including myself sleep very, very lightly. This is because (if they have sense about them) even their subconscious knows it is in their best interest to observe every change in their environment. Human perception is geared towards recognizing change, and your body will adapt very well to life at sea as a singlehander. You can hear, feel, smell, and dare I say 'sense' the proximity of other vessels. If you do not posses these traits it probably isn't a good idea to single hand long distances, while at the same time you can't let your guard down. Be on the defensive too. Use DSC 'all ships' on your VHF. It sets off an alarm on their bridge which they will hear, that at least lets them know to look for you.

My personal policy regarding sleep singlehanded involves some relative distances. 24 hours from land = no sleeping no matter what. 48 hours from land = sleeping in cockpit with radar on 5 min proximity sweeps and a 15 min egg timer. Further out, single handers should consciously avoid shipping lanes and known fishing areas. Eventually the 15 minute thing stops working and you need a real sleep. This is, as mentioned before a calculated risk, but in any event this sleep period should look nothing like normal sleep on land. Unless you are becalmed the boat and the ocean will prohibit any long periods anyway. But it doesn't really matter. If a freighter doesn't see you, and is on a direct collision course even the 15 minute rule is enough to get you killed. I know it has been discussed at length here before, but this is good exercise. Worst case, approximate reciprocal collision courses bring the two vessels together at 1/2 Nmi per minute. This doesn't give you much time. So you take your risks.. that is what life is about. I don't worship some set of regulations... Don't need to. If it isn't common sense then you shouldn't go to sea. For that matter you probably shouldn't drive either.. but thats a different website :)
 
#34 ·
I find sailboy's seamanship practises eminently sensible.

His understanding of admiralty seems confused though. While the purpose of admiralty is to afix causation and ultimately monetary compensation for those actions it does not differentiate between commercial and recreational vessels.

The IMO has had ample opportunity to do so and has unfailingly failed to make any accomodation. The only possible interpretation is that we are expected to operate under the same strictures.

I'd encourage everyone to be as safe as possible and to solo sail in safer areas with the strong consideration of ample crewing to conduct trans-oceanic passages with a proper lookout. As sailboy says, the small sailboat is most likely to pay the price. That alone should be enough to give pause to those conducting some of the hare-brained passages being discussed commonly today. That it does not, this thread has validity.

And, btw, the optimum position for the lookout on the merchant ship, or virtually any vessel, is as far forward and as low as possible on the vessel, ie...the bows. The bridge wing is only superior in that it protects the lookout in weather where the bows are unsafe.
 
#35 ·
....
And, btw, the optimum position for the lookout on the merchant ship, or virtually any vessel, is as far forward and as low as possible on the vessel, ie...the bows. The bridge wing is only superior in that it protects the lookout in weather where the bows are unsafe.
... and here I thought that the optimum position was inside the cosy wheelhouse with a warm cup of coffee and the helmsman to chat with to while away the night hours!! :eek:

I cannot recall ever having seen anyone other than curious passengers maintaining a lookout on the bow, bridge wing or anywhere else on a merchant ship until about 30 seconds before docking (and then only in nice weather, of course), and it wouldn't surprise me if the OH&S people wouldn't have something to say about that either! :rolleyes:

After all, this is the 21st century! Keep watch at anything other than the radar and chartplotter/AIS?? What a horrible thought!!... :p :D :D
 
#36 ·
Boasun,

To try to respond to your last question, I don't think we (meaning "the people", their governments, or the interntional treaties (like IMO) into which they enter), should prohibit singlehanded offshore sailing, which seems like one of those liberties which, though hazardous at times, is one of those things that keeps life interesting rather than gray and boring.

But, as has been intelligently and thoroughly discussed above, you violate Rule 5, especially intentionally, at your own risk. Some find this a risk worth taking, and many of them, like Sailboy and others, do all they can to compensate and lessen the risk, but it can't be eliminated.

It's the nature of life. There are risks, and rewards. Solos find the rewards outweigh the risks. So let them. But don't be too hard on the ship who, during change-of-watch in midocean, doesn't pick up a poor-quality radar target, or weak or extinguished lights, in time.
 
#37 ·
Shh! This is why I opened this discussion. Should there be a day signal? Special light? for the single hander?
There are a wide opinions on this and the inadvertent violations of the rules are being taken into the decision (not lightly) of single handing a boat off shore. Those that are light sleepers and the paranoia of being run down by a ship will make most of us very light sleepers. but I have seen what a freighter can do to a 165' offshore supply vessel and morned the lost of life of those vessel's crews. And all of those collisions were due to a bad decision by someone on either or both vessels. Sh*t happens. But 99+% of the shingle handers have sailed safely around the world and across the big ponds. And may they always stay safe.
But each does know his/her capacity in staying awake and waking when an alarm goes off. A special breed. These will be the people who will explore deep space once we have that capability of going out there. (My Opinion)
Then again we should push for something beside electronics to help in keeping us safe when crossing the shipping lanes of this world.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top