how can Colregs rule 5 - lookout - be met by solo sailors on long trips?

[Wjj]

I was recently reading about Robin Knox-Johnston and his solo circumnavigation, and I wondered how solo sailors can possible claim to meet 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 or the risk of collision."

Strictly this seems to rule out the idea of 'all available means' like AIS and radar alarms removing the need for sight and hearing. It seems like following the letter of the law and ever having any sleep are incompatible. Is there some exemption here? And has there ever been a serious effort to change these rules or ban single handers? or is it just a contradiction that everyone looks the other way from?

 

[Chiara’s slave]

It cannot, is the short answer. This is a long known issue, and probably why insurers are a bit iffy about single handing. My insurance has a clause excluding long single handed passages

 

[benjenbav]

Hardly playing the game: giving a complete answer in the first reply.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Hardly playing the game: giving a complete answer in the first reply.

There’s not much to debate, is there. We could talk about how long we can stay awake. A bit like talking about how long you can drive for without a pee.

 

[obmij]

An interesting fact (to me at least) is that the relevant authorities have absolutely no interest in enforcing said rule and in general will not even open a lazy eye about ANY breach of the COLREGS unless you absolutely force them to do so, i.e your actions cause injury, pollution, damage to property, loss of life etc.

 

[potentillaCO32]

I think solo sailors rely on the fact that outside the main shipping lanes they can go days and weeks without seeing another boat.

 

[Mark-1]

And has there ever been a serious effort to change these rules or ban single handers?

I don't think that's how col regs work. It's not so much about forcing people to comply up front, it's more about everyone behaving in a predictable manner and having a framework to sort out the insurance/damages when things go wrong.

 

[Mark L]

There’s not much to debate, is there. We could talk about how long we can stay awake. A bit like talking about how long you can drive for without a pee.

Possibly the area for debate is whether the tolerance of solo sailing can be justified as solo racing yachts get bigger and faster. Back in the early days, you were looking at 30-50ft yachts which were not likely to be going much more than 10kts. If anyone got hurt or killed in a collision it was likely to be the skipper. These days you might be talking about 100ft multihulls regularly going above 40 kts. That seems a different level of risk.. Offsetting that, electronic collision avoidance tech has improved massively, but you still cannot assume everyone has AIS, even offshore. If an accident happened and the skipper was asleep with nobody on watch, I imagine that a manslaughter conviction (corporate or individual) would be very easy to secure.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

Define "Proper lookout".

 

[dunedin]

Possibly the area for debate is whether the tolerance of solo sailing can be justified as solo racing yachts get bigger and faster. Back in the early days, you were looking at 30-50ft yachts which were not likely to be going much more than 10kts. If anyone got hurt or killed in a collision it was likely to be the skipper. These days you might be talking about 100ft multihulls regularly going above 40 kts. That seems a different level of risk.. Offsetting that, electronic collision avoidance tech has improved massively, but you still cannot assume everyone has AIS, even offshore. If an accident happened and the skipper was asleep with nobody on watch, I imagine that a manslaughter conviction (corporate or individual) would be very easy to secure.

Not sure you are right about the “back in the days” view of smaller boats.
Not many single handed race boats have been bigger than Club Mediterranee, the 246 foot / 75m four masted giant that was built in 1976 for Alan Colas who raced her solo across the Atlantic in the OSTAR.
This itself was an huge escalation from the previous race and nearly double the size of Vendredi 13 at 128 feet in the 1972 race.
And that was in the days before AIS and automated radar alarms etc.

This prompted a huge debate about solo sailors and ColRegs, and there was a significant risk of solo racing being banned, so OSTAR changed its rules to ban such big boats.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Possibly the area for debate is whether the tolerance of solo sailing can be justified as solo racing yachts get bigger and faster. Back in the early days, you were looking at 30-50ft yachts which were not likely to be going much more than 10kts. If anyone got hurt or killed in a collision it was likely to be the skipper. These days you might be talking about 100ft multihulls regularly going above 40 kts. That seems a different level of risk.. Offsetting that, electronic collision avoidance tech has improved massively, but you still cannot assume everyone has AIS, even offshore. If an accident happened and the skipper was asleep with nobody on watch, I imagine that a manslaughter conviction (corporate or individual) would be very easy to secure.

There is an obligation on the stand-on vessel to manoeuvre to avoid a collision.

Also, I think modern boats have excellent, reliable systems for detecting a potential collision. In fact, superior to eyeballs in every way.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

There are unmanned vessels sailing cargos around commercially, clearly they have overcome the legal restrictions.

 

[dunedin]

There are unmanned vessels sailing cargos around commercially, clearly they have overcome the legal restrictions.

Haven’t they just technically moved the lookout from an on board bridge to a remote one?

 

[Mark L]

There is an obligation on the stand-on vessel to manoeuvre to avoid a collision.

Also, I think modern boats have excellent, reliable systems for detecting a potential collision. In fact, superior to eyeballs in every way.

There is, and that action can avoid a collision if it is practical, but it would not do a great deal to mitigate that level of negligence or its consequence.

A local fishing boat with nets out (for example) is unlikely to have time to manoeuvre to avoid a high speed sailing yacht.

 

[capnsensible]

Define "Proper lookout".

Already been done.

A proper lookout is the continuous, vigilant, and active use of sight, hearing, and all available technical equipment (like radar or AIS) to maintain full awareness of a vessel's or vehicle's surroundings. It requires detecting hazards, other vessels, and potential risks early, allowing for safe maneuvering to avoid collisions.

 

[Mark-1]

There are unmanned vessels sailing cargos around commercially, clearly they have overcome the legal restrictions.

I'm not sure they have at all. Unless a court has ruled on whether an ASV was keeping a proper lookout we don't know.

We'll have to wait for one to be involved in a disaster expemsive enough to end up in court.

I wouldn't at all surprised if they're run on the basis that almost *any* crash will be the fault of the ASV and insured on that basis. Or maybe they'd try to argue that "sight" included optical sensors.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

There is, and that action can avoid a collision if it is practical, but it would not do a great deal to mitigate that level of negligence or its consequence.

A local fishing boat with nets out (for example) is unlikely to have time to manoeuvre to avoid a high speed sailing yacht.

It is a great deal to mitigate that level of negligence and its consequences.” That’s the whole point of the rule, it places the emphasis, at the appropriate time, to take avoiding action, including the fishing boat scenario.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

I'm not sure they have at all. …

If through the remote monitoring, they avoid collision risks, say through maintaining distance, then they have. The vessel doesn’t have to be in a stand on position or give way position. I get your point that it is probably not tested in court.

 

[Mark-1]

If through the remote monitoring, they avoid collision risks, say through maintaining distance, then they have. The vessel doesn’t have to be in a stand on position or give way position. I get your point that it is probably not tested in court.

It says "sight". It's doesn't say avoiding collision risks via maintaining distance. Maybe a court will one day decide on a very broad definition of "sight", but we don't know that.

Of course, if there's no collision then it doesn't matter if you break Rule 5, just as it doesn't matter if you go below for a cup of tea. If you kill someone during that cup of tea, breaking rule five starts to matter.

Given we see these things on test in Southampton Water with Red Jet Ferries screaming by at almost 40kts I'm going to predict that a) They're very good at avoiding stuff b) They are light enough that they won't do too much damage if something wipes them out c) They're well insured by insurers who understand that they are unmanned with all the implications of that. They aren't betting the farm that they're obeying all the colregs. (Or Solas requirements?)

 

[st599]

It cannot, is the short answer. This is a long known issue, and probably why insurers are a bit iffy about single handing. My insurance has a clause excluding long single handed passages

For vessels that require coding, the MCA only allows single handed operations of up to 8 hours.