Hove to, bad weather - Not under command?

"Not under command" doesn't mean the captain is indisposed - it means the the rudder and/or engines or equivalent are not answering their commands. And yes, a sailing vessel becalmed, without functioning propulsion machinery would be considered NUC. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume a vessel on a para-anchor or drogue in a storm could be considered NUC. But a vessel that is improperly manned and therefore unable to maintain a continuous lookout is not NUC - it is simply reckless. IMO.

Kevin
 
Seagreen, I asked coastguard a similar Q which may help.

Due to exhaustion I lay a sea anchor and everybody gets some kip. What lights do I show?

CGs disappeared for 5mins. Then answered, 'lay the sea anchor, find your position, rate and direction of drift. Show an all round white. Call CG up on the radio and they will broadcast to all ships hourly. Call 'em again when you wake and update them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that these cases are never black-and-white, but here's a example where the skipper's decision to act as if NUC was a contributory factor.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/SExplorer_DDalsoe.pdf
 
That clarifies a lot.

The CG view is then "make yourself look like you are at anchor" and tell the CG who'll broadcast safety info about you. Sounds like a sensible solution all round. A refreshing change. Lets hope the commercial boats listen to the safety traffic.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
This quote from the MAIB report (see Gandy's link) [ QUOTE ]
A vessel “not under command” is defined in the COLREGS (Rule 3f), and results from an “exceptional circumstance” which prevents a vessel from being able to manoeuvre to avoid other ships. This is normally interpreted as unforeseen and unplanned events such as machinery breakdowns. The cleaning of a fishing vessel’s catch is neither unforeseen, nor unplanned, nor does it affect manoeuvrability. Dorthe Dalsoe was therefore not a vessel “not under command” and, as she was also not “engaged in fishing” (Rule 3 d), she was a “power driven vessel” (Rule 3b).

[/ QUOTE ] This suggests that it is very unlikely that MAIB would accept landaftaf's interpretation that a master of a sailing vessel hove to for the sake of rest has the discretion to declare his vessel "not under command".
 
[ QUOTE ]
That clarifies a lot.

The CG view is then "make yourself look like you are at anchor" and tell the CG who'll broadcast safety info about you. Sounds like a sensible solution all round. A refreshing change. Lets hope the commercial boats listen to the safety traffic.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Not so stupid to show an all round white light actually as it's one that everyone should give way to as for all you know you're either over taking someone, or running down someone at anchor.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not so,
Constrained by draught gives way to Restricted in Ability to Manoeuvre which in turn gives way to Not under command.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not so,
Constrained by draught gives way to Restricted in Ability to Manoeuvre which in turn gives way to Not under command.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get that idea?
Suggest you re-read rule 18.
 
Suggest you reread it too

Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuve shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the passage of a vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in rule 28.

Definitely not all equal
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not so,
Constrained by draught gives way to Restricted in Ability to Manoeuvre which in turn gives way to Not under command.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get that idea?
Suggest you re-read rule 18.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read 18 (b) and (c). Constrained by draught has to give way to fishing vessels and sailing vessels. I will concede though that there is no reference as to who is the give way vessel between one restricted in ability to manoeuvre, and one not under command. However, someone is always the give way vessel and the RYA teach that restricted gives way to not under command.
 
And where in the Rules does it state that a vessel constrained by its draught shall keep out of the way of NUC or RAM vessels? It doesn't now, does it. The rule is specifically vague - if you read Cockcroft, it is mentioned that when two hampered vessels meet, it is the responsibility of both to take what action they can to avoid collision, with the preferred action a stbd alteration. Notice the slight variation in the wording of Rule 18(c), which allows for the the possibility that NUC or RAM vessels would have to alter for a hampered fishing vessel. If a NUC vessel is blocking the navigable channel, then a draught-constrained vessel would have no other option but to stop - then there had better be someone on the bridge of the NUC vessel to negotiate the passing; being asleed is definitely NOT an option. They're definitely not equal, but the hierarchy is not so cut and dried.
 
NUC vessel would not be able to do anything about it. It's not about having crew and master aboard, more to be with being disabled, and hence not manoeuvrable
 
[ QUOTE ]
Constrained by draught has to give way to fishing vessels and sailing vessels.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got that backwards and you forgot to read 18(d). Mind you it's a "not impede" rule rather than a "give way to" rule, so not a guaranteed right of passage. Still, a vessel required to "not impede" is not relieved of that requirement regardless of the not-to-be-impeded vessel's Steering and Sailing obligations.

If the RYA teaches that RAM gives way to NUC, then I submit that they are failing their students. As I mentioned to JB2006, two hampered vessels meeting are both expected to do whatever they can to avoid collision, with the preferred action both turning to stbd.

Kevin
 
[ QUOTE ]
NUC vessel would not be able to do anything about it. It's not about having crew and master aboard, more to be with being disabled, and hence not manoeuvrable

[/ QUOTE ]

Not always so - a vessel with a stuck throttle can still steer, and a vessel with a broken rudder can still stop/reverse its engines. Similarly, RAM vessels can have varying degrees of manoeuvrability, down to none at all. As previously mentioned, there are cases where a fishing vessel could be considered to be hampered more so than a NUC or RAM vessel.
 
Jeez this is hard work

"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. "

Exceptional circumstances does not include falling asleep! Or all the merchant ships would claim exemption in collisions. "sorry, I fell asleep, so we were not under command!"
 
[ QUOTE ]
And where in the Rules does it state that a vessel constrained by its draught shall keep out of the way of NUC or RAM vessels?

[/ QUOTE ]

18 (d) (i) Because it says they do not have to keep out the way of the CBD.

You seem to be suggesting that the rules were written in random order i.e. NUC, Restricted etc. Rather in a logical order with NUC being highest because it can't get out of the way.
 
the deeper one delves the more interesting it gets .......

many years ago, when the 'seasnakes' were allowed across the n sea and as far west as ireland, the MCA (or DOT as it was then) determined these 'barges' were able to comply with the colregs ..... however many only had a 4 man crew, and didnt have an engineer, but cross trained bridge watchkeepers.
the get around the problem engineer watches and the need for continuous maintenance etc they fitted lorry engines in them, which apparently required less attention. alarms were fitted ................................. so the scenario is set.

one day, being audited by a DOT surveyor and looking out of a window at one such seasnake nearby, I asked the DOT surveyor how these seasnakes managed with 4 or sometimes 5 ppl on board (e.g. 'soloman browne' - penlee lifeboat) could comply with the colregs, and how did the DOT certify them for the open sea - in direct competition with our 'then', fully manned coastal trade vessels

answer - seasnake with 2 bridge watchkeeper officers cross trained to do basic engine maintenance, alarm goes off or set maintenance period requires engine attention, seasnake stops, puts up NUC lights/shapes, fixes problem/does maintenance, takes down NUC's and proceeds on its way.

oh yeah ......... sure, in your dreams !


however, it illustrates the MCA thinking on NUC usage.

take it a step further, and the scenario of one crewmember standing watch solo - when two handed the other becoming incapable of standing a watch .......

the only reasonable way to comply with the regs is NUC and a kip.

it doesnt take much of a leap for single handers to extrapolate - and to comply with the law they must do something .....................

bit of fred drift - but what do you suggest singlehanders should do when they need a catnap, or a cuppa, or a nosh - cos to remain legal they cant just 'pop down' /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
the tale of stopping and displaying NUCs to undertake engine maintenance is a true story - so it is endorsed by hm gov .......... or was in the mid/late 1980's.
I always thought the fuel/water problem which caused the loss of the union star, (and solomon browne) could have been avoided had she been manned to the level of a similiar british vessel.
 
CBD - Give way vessel??

"Constrained by draught has to give way to fishing vessels and sailing vessels."

I'd like to see you try that in the Solent!

Southampton Harbour Master & QHM would string you up by your 'b----cks'!
Just imagine one of those 300m container vessels grounding across the Thorn Channel because you expect him to be 'give way vessel'.

Your having a laugh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

W
Downsizing to your boat.
2
Replies
28
Views
702
Wansworth
W
zoidberg
Ancient tides computer?
Replies
4
Views
350
zoidberg
zoidberg
mogmog2
Maxwell windlass 10 VW looks interesting (to a windlass noob)
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
mogmog2
mogmog2

Share this page

Top