Hove to, bad weather - Not under command?

[Seagreen]

Says it all basically. If you were sailing, hove to in bad weather or lying ahull, are you "not under command"? Does this apply if you happen to be hove to generally for long periods (couple of hours or more) for any reason? Can't find the reference in the colregs.

 

[landaftaf]

a vessel 'not under command' is a vessel unable to comply with the colregs due to some incapacity.

like - when stopped / hove too if having a kip when single handed

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
a vessel 'not under command' is a vessel unable to comply with the colregs due to some incapacity.

like - when stopped / hove too if having a kip when single handed

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO I dont think so - hove, to you remain in command and could reset the sails or start the engine to comply.

Also, having a kip when singlehanded is a breach of the regs as they are not using all available means to keep a lookout etc. - my understanding is that they are taking a chance, and would be in breach if they hit something.

If a motor boat is stopped for repairs, such that they cannot use the engine, they are not under command, or if the rudder fails, or similar.

Just my 2 pennorth

 

[Oen]

Fundamentally, if the skipper has elected to heave to...

At which point has he relinquished his command?

 

[caol]

When hove to you are technically under way, under command and required to comply with the colregs.

The reason most traditionally laid out boats had their galleys to port was that they would normally heave to on the starboard tack to cook a meal. This gave them right of way over most other sailing boats and if the food spilled, it flew away from the cook.

Whatever the position of the galley, this is still a good reason to heave to on the starboard tack if possible, especially if there are other boats about.

 

[landaftaf]

yup - its my 2 pennyworth as well

and a deliberate attempt tp make a point about singlehanders kipping whilst underway then complaining about other vessels not giving way

if one studies the rules in a little more depth, not in command means just than - having a vessel that is unable i.e. not able to comply with the colregs, - for whatever the reason.

so if tired singlehander wants some kip, he hoists day shapes / puts up lights and turns in

cos he is unable to comply .....................

 

[caol]

[ QUOTE ]


if one studies the rules in a little more depth, not in command means just than - having a vessel that is unable i.e. not able to comply with the colregs, - for whatever the reason.

so if tired singlehander wants some kip, he hoists day shapes / puts up lights and turns in

cos he is unable to comply .....................

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so.

The colregs require you to keep a proper lookout. By failing to do so, you are in breach. If you do keep a proper lookout, then you are perfectly well able to comply with the steering rules from a hove to position, simply by letting the jib draw.

A skipper who relied on signalling "not under command" whilst hove to in order to sleep and was involved in a collision would have a hrad time in a court of law.

 

[Oen]

...as I said...

 

[landaftaf]

the rules are pragmatic

if unable to maneuver/not under command and unable to lookout (just for the sake of argument your one and only crewmate died), it doesnt make you illegal if you stop for a kip ........... so long as you display the shapes/lights, its the same if you are singlehanded

 

[caol]

[ QUOTE ]
the rules are pragmatic

if unable to maneuver/not under command and unable to lookout (just for the sake of argument your one and only crewmate died), it doesnt make you illegal if you stop for a kip ........... so long as you display the shapes/lights, its the same if you are singlehanded

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not the question.

Yes, if you do decide to heave to and sleep, you are probably better off showing the technically incorrect shapes or lights to warn off other vessels. But you are in breach of the rules, since, when hove to, you are "under way, under command" and expected to comply.

The rules are not pragmatic. They are not intended to be interpreted with discretion, as that would (and does) compromise their intention.

The fact that situations may arise when you have no option but to break the law does not render the law "pragmatic", although the court (if it comes to that) may be "pragmatic" about the way it deals with it, according to circumstances.

 

[caol]

[ QUOTE ]
Says it all basically. If you were sailing, hove to in bad weather or lying ahull, are you "not under command"? Does this apply if you happen to be hove to generally for long periods (couple of hours or more) for any reason? Can't find the reference in the colregs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, in the light of comments below -

When hove to you are under way and subject to the colregs. The reason you can't find any mention of any specific duration that might alter this situation and put you "not under command" is because there are no special cases. That's currently the regulation.

 

[landaftaf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the rules are pragmatic

if unable to maneuver/not under command and unable to lookout (just for the sake of argument your one and only crewmate died), it doesnt make you illegal if you stop for a kip ........... so long as you display the shapes/lights, its the same if you are singlehanded

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not the question.

Yes, if you do decide to heave to and sleep, you are probably better off showing the technically incorrect shapes or lights to warn off other vessels. But you are in breach of the rules, since, when hove to, you are "under way, under command" and expected to comply.

The rules are not pragmatic. They are not intended to be interpreted with discretion, as that would (and does) compromise their intention.

The fact that situations may arise when you have no option but to break the law does not render the law "pragmatic", although the court (if it comes to that) may be "pragmatic" about the way it deals with it, according to circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

to my mind if you are dangling on the end of a sea anchor or drifting bare poles, or becalmed you are not under command, and if asleep and unable to comply with the rules you are also 'not under command'.
just cos sleeping doesnt sound exceptional doesnt mean its not covered as an exceptional reason for non compliance - IMO anyway.

if an enquiry resulted from a collision I know who I would wager to be apportioned the majority of the blame, and it wouldnt be the vessel displaying the NUC lights/shapes.

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by 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.

appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions
its hardly appropriate to sit in the cockpit as a lookout if the boat is hove too - with a good chance of a knockdown
same as sleeping or undertaking bodily functions ........ prevailing circumstances and conditions cover a multitude of scenarios ..... thus pragmatism comes into it.

 

[Superstrath]

If a vessel is showing NUC then it's not for an approaching vessel to decide whether or not the reason is good enough - all he can see is a vessel apparently NUC, and he is required to act accordingly. I can't imagine a later situation where the NUC party is required to somehow explain and justify his assuming NUC, whether for Landaftaf's kip or to repair gear, or whatever. There would be a lot more explaining to be done by the other party, to justify mowing down a vessel showing NUC lights or shapes.

 

[Danny Jo]

[ QUOTE ]
2 (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

[/ QUOTE ] Nothing can be more emphatic than "nothing". And "any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen" surely includes precautions to cover the possibility that you haven't been seen.

 

[DeeGee]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine a later situation where the NUC party is required to somehow explain and justify his assuming NUC, whether for Landaftaf's kip or to repair gear, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you seem only to envisage a collision resulting from this practice? How about this kipper drifting asleep into the shipping lanes, and causing a hazard to shipping, say in the Calais straits? Easy to conjour up more examples...

The essence of whether the NUC party could justify his actions would be contained in the word EXCEPTIONAL. This word implies (see any good dictionary) unusual, out of the ordinary. I suggest getting tired is not exceptional. I would agree that if conditions were exceptional, like hove-to in F10 and unable to manoeuvre, then NUC would be appropriate and justifiable.

One can certainly understand a skipper hoisting NUC if dog-tired and hove-to in unexceptional conditons - and we might hope that he gets away with it - but justify, pretty tricky.

 

[Salty John]

Being underway and being not under command are not mutually exclusive conditions. A boat that is hove-to is underway, and if it is making way it needs to comply with the appropriate lighting requirements. It can also be NUC, due to weather conditions or other exceptional circumstances, in which case it must also display the appropriate lights or shapes. And it is still obligated to do anything possible to avoid collision.

 

[Seagreen]

Wow, what opinions!

This was generally my own view and as I understand it:

Just because I'm single handing does not excuse me from keeping a proper lookout, and singlehanders have to realise that they are technically breaking the Colregs whenever they out to sea as they (we) cannot at all times mount a proper lookout.

However, this has been technically "permitted" by maritime nations due to ancient custom (Slocum et al) of singlehanding, both for pleasure and profit -small fishing boats.

So my opinion on all this is:

In very bad weather, though it may be impossible for small yachts to make progress or navigate where intended, then hoisting two red lights or black balls is a desirable option when hove to, or lying ahull/running. However, whether this is safe or practical for the crew to do in bad weather is another story. Also, being sighted by another larger vessel capable of making way, and being reported to the Rescue Sevices by that vessel which assumes you are a vessel in distress may not be helpful.

However, I'm coming to the view that showing NUC signals, especially at night in good weather is an "extra layer of safety" -considering that going to sleep is not obviously helping, unless you are so tired that a short spell of sleep will recharge the watchkeeper- as long as you are prudent not to do something daft like heave to in a busy shipping lane.

 

[Gunfleet]

I think that might have strayed into the realm of the 'known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.'

 

[Danny Jo]

Donald Rumsfeld missed the one that intrigues me most: the unknown knowns - those pearls of wisdom lying in forgotten publications gathering dust in the basement of some library or museum.

 

[Cruiser2B]

What if the other vessel is also NUC? Or Restricted in its ability to manoeuvre? Or constrained by its draught? There is no priority between the three.