Are you obliged to keep a look out when at anchor?

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Interesting article in this months MBY by their legal expert (who I believe posts hereabouts) concerning a vessel which was drifting in a current whilst fishing which collided with another boat at anchor. According to the article, the anchored boat was partly to blame, firstly because the boat had not hoisted an anchor ball and secondly, because nobody on board the anchored boat was keeping a look out, as required by the ColRegs.
How many of us just assume that because we are at anchor, every other vessel has to keep out of our way and how many actually keep a look out, both day and night? If you take the view of the MBY expert to it's logical conclusion, if you're anchored overnight and you're fast asleep, and even if you have your anchor light showing, and another boat entering the anchorage collides with your boat, you are partially at fault because you didn't keep a look out.
How many on here keep a look out whilst anchored overnight? Would an insurance company seek to deny a claim if you didn't because you were negligent?

 

[prv]

I can believe that an anchor watch is technically required - I have certainly spent a number of hours on the bridge of a sail-training ship standing them. We often used to use radar to check we weren't dragging - the Chief Officer traced round the shape of the shore on the screen with a chinagraph, and said to call him if the picture no longer lined up. We were also supposed to keep an eye out for any vessels passing close by - though obviously as a square rigged ship we attracted a lot of attention and sightseeing during daylight hours.

In a small boat, I think it would be a highly unreasonable judge or insurance company who sought to punish (as opposed to making a purely technical determination of, say, 2% guilt) someone for not keeping an anchor watch. I can think of only one occasion when I have done so, and that was on an Army boat where the notion of one person "stagging on" while the others sleep is not unfamiliar.

Pete

 

[neale]

I thought it was interesting that the article made a point of the anchored vessel not showing a day shape, but nothing about the fishing boat failing to show any shapes. Surely as he was underway but not making way he was obliged to show either RAM shapes, or NUC or maybe even just the twin cones of a fishing vessel.

 

[Nick_H]

My insurance company have accepted that the boat is covered at anchor when we're not on it (when we go to the beach, or to a restaurant in the evening), which of course means there will be no-one on watch. Did the particular case relate to where the boat was anchored? I could see that if you chose to anchor in a channel, a judge may reasonably expect that you would have kept watch?

 

[prv]

I thought it was interesting that the article made a point of the anchored vessel not showing a day shape, but nothing about the fishing boat failing to show any shapes. Surely as he was underway but not making way he was obliged to show either RAM shapes, or NUC or maybe even just the twin cones of a fishing vessel.

Well, he wasn't restricted in his ability to manoeuvre by the nature of his work (that applies to cable-laying ships, dredgers, etc), he wasn't not under command (no mechanical issues with engine or steering, or other reasons he couldn't have manoeuvred if he decided to), and the twin cones apply to vessels fishing with nets, trawls, pots, etc - not angling with rods. I haven't read the article so I don't know what sort of "fishing boat" this is, but drifting through an anchorage sounds like anglers to me.

Pete

 

[neale]

He had his engine off and was engaged in fishing. I would consider that to be NUC.

 

[Elessar]

He had his engine off and was engaged in fishing. I would consider that to be NUC.

only if he couldnt start it. Otherwise he is underway and not making way.

 

[prv]

He had his engine off and was engaged in fishing. I would consider that to be NUC.

You may consider that, but the rules don't.

The term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

Doing a spot of fishing is not "exceptional circumstances", and case law is quite clear that turning off your engines (unless damage or faults mean you can't start them again) does not count as "unable to manoeuvre".

Pete

 

[neale]

I did use that term in my first post but I don't think there is a specific day signal for that. I guess my point is that here we have a boat drifting on the tide, with no one at the helm and the engine not running. Surely some day signal should be shown to make others aware of these facts. RAM or NUC would certainly help to identify that this vessel may be a problem to you much earlier than waiting for it to drift down on to your anchored vessel.

The Rule 3 definition of a "vessel not under command" is that of a vessel "unable to maneuver as required" of ordinary vessels because of "exceptional circumstance." Rule 3 defines a "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" as one unable to keep out of the way because of "the nature of her work."

There is no definition of what are 'exceptional circumstances' or what constitutes 'work'.

 

[henryf]

I know it doesn't really answer the question and I'm being a little vague but if anchored in an area where one might be expected to be at anchor and if displaying the necessary day shape or light then no. If anchored somewhere mid channel or where someone might not expect us to be anchored then yes, even when displaying the necessary day shape.

At night I wouldn't anchor where unexpected. If outside forces had necessitated it then yes, keep a watch.

Henry

 

[prv]

There is no definition of what are 'exceptional circumstances' or what constitutes 'work'.

There isn't, so we have to construe them as ordinary English. I suggest that it would be absurd to consider "going fishing" as "exceptional" - angling charter boats do it every day of the week. "Work" is less clear cut, I grant you.

However, these particular definitions are a moot point, because they're both followed by "is therefore unable to keep out of the way". A small boat with its engine stopped is not "unable to keep out of the way" - if its crew decided that they needed to move, they could do so in seconds by restarting the engine. The reason for the supposed inability is therefore irrelevant, because the inability doesn't exist. The only thing that prevented them from keeping out of the way was that they were not keeping a proper lookout, which as a vessel under way (though not making way) they should have done.

If you really want to haggle over definitions, you will need to splash out on a copy of "Marsden on Collisions at Sea", which is the specialist lawyers' tome collating and clarifying a couple of hundred years of case law on the subject. I've never read the book (it costs hundreds of pounds) but I've seen posts here from those in a professional capacity who have, and they concur that lots of these standard arguments concocted by amateurs to consider a vessel NUC or RAM are not accepted by the courts.

Pete

 

[LittleSister]

Yes, you are obliged to keep a look out when at anchor.

Rule 5 of the IRPCS states 'Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out... so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision'.

 

[cryan]

Yes you are required to hold an anchor watch. If you choose not to and something happens then you are at least partially liable. Even the largest ships keep the engines on 30 minutes notice at anchor.
If your not onboard I don't think the rules apply to you as your not onboard therefore the vessel is effectively abandoned?
As far as the rules are concerned though if your at anchor there should be an effective watch held whether you are a VLCC or a rowing punt. Just because no one else is doing it is neither here nor there.
You don't say what gear the fishing vessel used but if drift gear it may have been classed as rescricted in its ability to manoeuvre?

 

[oceanfroggie]

He had his engine off and was engaged in fishing. I would consider that to be NUC.

He is only legally NUC if he is displaying the appropriate day shape or lights.

A vessel at anchor outside a navigation channel, fairway, etc, displaying the appropriate day/night signals does not have to maintain lookout.

 

[SteveSarabande]

Yes, you are obliged to keep a look out when at anchor.

Rule 5 of the IRPCS states 'Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out... so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision'.

Surely this doesn't apply when your stopped
That would mean I need to maintain a lookout when parked in the marina

 

[cryan]

Surely this doesn't apply when your stopped
That would mean I need to maintain a lookout when parked in the marina

When you are tied up alongside you become the jurisdiction of the port therefore are no longer at sea. At anchor you are still at sea.

 

[superheat6k]

So what if you are moored to a buoy ? A legal review of mooring rights in PBO some years ago defined a fixed mooring that could be lifted as a form of anchor - an anchor you leave in place most if the time and mark with a buoy.

If this definition is correct simply tie a buoy to the anchor cable and moor to that. I appreciate boats shouldn't be anchoring navigable channels, but have you seen how many sit anchored to their moorings right in main channels, e.g. The Hamble has hundreds.

Not sure the Judge got this one right, so unless it is a minor sum should keep the lawyers busy. However, as the anchored boat wasn't moored and wasn't displaying the correct shape either then the FB I assume could claim rule 17 would still apply to the (as apparent to him) other vessel also underway but not making way.

Or am I just talking b0110cks like the rest if you ?

 

[CaptainMike1970]

Rule 5 'Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out... so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision'.

IMO the "every vessel" and "all times" are the key words, legal definitions in courts on "every" and "all" are are clear. A tough lesson for the perceived innocent party but one would hope for only a small proportion of blame allocation.

 

[kevburt]

Rule 5 comes under the steering and sailing rules. Anchored vessels aren't doing either of those things so how can that rule apply?

 

[superheat6k]

A detailed interpretation of the Colregs is provided in the Handbook of the Nautical Rules of the Road by Llana & Wisneskey

This is what this says about Rule 5 as far as anchoring is concerned ...

A lookout on a vessel at anchor is required, with the level of effort depending upon the location of the anchorage, depth of water, type of ground tackle, wind, currents, waves, and so forth. The lookout should determine whether the anchor is dragging and should warn other vessels of the anchored vessel's presence.