GHA
Well-Known Member
Yes- international waters! If you slept in coastal waters 'we the public might get you sectioned for sleeping at the wheel' under the mental health act
Or buy some fish off you
Is it legal for a single handed skipper to sleep?
- Thread starter johndove
- Start date
Or buy some fish off you
oldvarnish
Well-Known Member
It aint only the solo yotties who are dropping off.
Scroll through some of these! http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/SD2_14_ Merchantvessels.pdf
Scroll through some of these! http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/SD2_14_ Merchantvessels.pdf
shaunksb
Well-Known Member
But surely that couldn't happen unless they weren't keeping a lookout either?
___________________________________
mtb
Well-Known Member
Whose going to grass you up
I won't tell if you don't.
I've never been good at steering when I'm asleep at least on a motorway you can have a nap as the wobbly bits wake you up
I won't tell if you don't.
I've never been good at steering when I'm asleep at least on a motorway you can have a nap as the wobbly bits wake you up
Daydream believer
Well-Known Member
surely the condition must be "proper lookout"
If one looks around & there are no craft within 20 minutes approach distance then having a 10 minute cat nap is not an issue or illegal
so I would suggest that in certain instances it is not illegal under the rules.
It is how the lookout is managed that must be the overriding factor
A crew that sits in the cockpit & looks in one direction only for 30 mins is not keeping a proper look out if there are ships within a 20 minute closing range behind him
On another point
It seems that forumites feel that only the yacht is in danger if it hits a ship. On the contrary, if the ship were to be forced to change course It could lead to a collision with another vessel or cause some other damage to the ship. prop fouling, run aground etc etc
If you ask the question of the ferry skipper that was involved in the Ouzo affair i think the ongoing consequences to the ship's crew & owners were quite significant & expensive
If one looks around & there are no craft within 20 minutes approach distance then having a 10 minute cat nap is not an issue or illegal
so I would suggest that in certain instances it is not illegal under the rules.
It is how the lookout is managed that must be the overriding factor
A crew that sits in the cockpit & looks in one direction only for 30 mins is not keeping a proper look out if there are ships within a 20 minute closing range behind him
On another point
It seems that forumites feel that only the yacht is in danger if it hits a ship. On the contrary, if the ship were to be forced to change course It could lead to a collision with another vessel or cause some other damage to the ship. prop fouling, run aground etc etc
If you ask the question of the ferry skipper that was involved in the Ouzo affair i think the ongoing consequences to the ship's crew & owners were quite significant & expensive
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
This is entirly the point. These guys who are single handing and going to sleep are relying on the other vessel to keep a look out for them. The number of reasons why Ma Pa and the Weans in the fammily cruiser might not be keeping a good enough lookout is extensive.
The guy in the other threads was to some extent unlucky. He was relying on the ship to keep a good lookout for him while he was not. His trust in the ship was was not met. So there was a collision.
There a huge difference between not doing somthing your are suposed to very well or poorly and just not bothering to do it at all and hoping every one else does.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Not really. (Offshore) single handers rely on electronics to sleep and/or very short sleep cycles, and thereafter it is a 'numbers game'.
The point Shaunksb was making was that even fully crewed vessels have collisions, and there are plenty of examples.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
It is a numbers game. just throwing the dice and hoping they don't come up snake eyes.
Work out the numbers your number will come up eventualy.
Fully crewed vessels do , not the point though
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Sailing is a numbers game, as is driving to the boat. I have yet to read anything that convinces me that the 'numbers game' for ocean single handed sailing (especially with AIS or radar guard zones) puts the odds for failure substantially higher than say poor visibility sailing, or even major gear failure. How many ocean single handed deaths as a result of collision can you recall?
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
No idea of the numbers. This did start from 1 non fatal collision
GHA
Well-Known Member
TrueThe world would be a dull place if we all agreed
I would say though, having done it and met many other single handers that in general they tend to be a cautious bunch. Electronics pushes the numbers very much in your favour, for starters it's empty out there, add radar and AIS it's very unlikely indeed that you're not going to know about another vessel in your 5 mile radius world.
That's offshore, sleeping coastal is just plain crazy!
blackbeard
Well-Known Member
Have a very good look at your insurance policy.
Mine, from a well known firm, states specifically that sailing single-handed is covered PROVIDED THAT the time under way does not exceed 24 hours. Which seems reasonable enough.
Mine, from a well known firm, states specifically that sailing single-handed is covered PROVIDED THAT the time under way does not exceed 24 hours. Which seems reasonable enough.
ip485
Well-Known Member
Its interesting there is an analogy with a different world.
It may surprise some to know that light aircraft are legally entitled to fly in the UK without a radar service and have no way of avoiding a collision with another aircraft other than by seeing and avoiding the aircraft. Indeed that is how most pilots go about a flight in conditions where they can see where they are going. So in theory the pilot is keeping a good look out, as he is legally obliged to do. In fact for various reasons the evidence is that the pilot is very unlikely to see an aircraft that will collide with his aircraft - the reasons include the eye being poor at identifying a target that is not moving relative to itself, and the often high closing speeds.
Now, add into the mix that the same aircraft are entitled to fly in cloud in which case the visual look out is wholly irrelevant. So now it is entirely down to luck they dont collide. In fact there has never been a collision in cloud in the UK - never, and there have been very few outside cloud and almost always these are caused by us forcing aircraft to honeypot in certain areas.
What is the point. Well off shore statistically the chances of ever colliding are so small as to be irrelevant. I know some will say well statistically there is a chance, we must do something. It is a well rehearsed argument. Statistically you stand a better than 60% chance of dieing of cancer. I bet those same people dont do anything about mitigating that risk, which is really high. Arguably why would you do anything about a risk which is so small that I suspect you could sail around the worlds oceans for the whole of your life and never have a collision.
Even when it comes to the channel I have crossed many times and avoided ships on a few. Would I have hit them - no. It might have been closer than comfort but there wouldnt have been a collision.
So statistically when it comes to ocean sailing you might just as well go below and blind fold yourself and you would be more likely to have a heart attack than collide with another vessel.
It may surprise some to know that light aircraft are legally entitled to fly in the UK without a radar service and have no way of avoiding a collision with another aircraft other than by seeing and avoiding the aircraft. Indeed that is how most pilots go about a flight in conditions where they can see where they are going. So in theory the pilot is keeping a good look out, as he is legally obliged to do. In fact for various reasons the evidence is that the pilot is very unlikely to see an aircraft that will collide with his aircraft - the reasons include the eye being poor at identifying a target that is not moving relative to itself, and the often high closing speeds.
Now, add into the mix that the same aircraft are entitled to fly in cloud in which case the visual look out is wholly irrelevant. So now it is entirely down to luck they dont collide. In fact there has never been a collision in cloud in the UK - never, and there have been very few outside cloud and almost always these are caused by us forcing aircraft to honeypot in certain areas.
What is the point. Well off shore statistically the chances of ever colliding are so small as to be irrelevant. I know some will say well statistically there is a chance, we must do something. It is a well rehearsed argument. Statistically you stand a better than 60% chance of dieing of cancer. I bet those same people dont do anything about mitigating that risk, which is really high. Arguably why would you do anything about a risk which is so small that I suspect you could sail around the worlds oceans for the whole of your life and never have a collision.
Even when it comes to the channel I have crossed many times and avoided ships on a few. Would I have hit them - no. It might have been closer than comfort but there wouldnt have been a collision.
So statistically when it comes to ocean sailing you might just as well go below and blind fold yourself and you would be more likely to have a heart attack than collide with another vessel.
Last edited:
Resolution
Well-Known Member
But I thought this thread started precisely because there had been a collision (in the wider Channel)?
[70521]
Well-Known Member
Of course it is legal as long as they keep a proper lookout.
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
IIRC the requirement is to keep a proper lookout and then to apply the other rules to avoid any collision. So, if you have adequate means of maintaining a proper lookout which will ensure you are woken up if asleep, the you will have broken no rules.
For the most part, the rules are applied pragmatically. That is, a prosecution will only follow if there has been a breach of the rules leading to a collision. So provided a single hander doesn't hit anything he is unlikely to be prosecuted simply for single handing.
For the most part, the rules are applied pragmatically. That is, a prosecution will only follow if there has been a breach of the rules leading to a collision. So provided a single hander doesn't hit anything he is unlikely to be prosecuted simply for single handing.
charles_reed
Well-Known Member
An unarguably valid answer - but someone asked if it were LEGAL for single-handers to sleep.
The question betrays that he doesn't WANT to think for himself and wishes to shuffle into the queue the bureaucrats wish him to occupy.
Such free-thinking is frowned upon and heavily discouraged within our modern nanny-state society, where everything is for your own good in this totally directive world (with apologies to Voltaire who was considered a dangerously radical free-thinker).
PS My insurers allow me 42 hours single handing cover or one night and the two adjacent daylight periods ;-)
charles_reed
Well-Known Member
If you refer to the header, you'll see you're wrong - so much for precision!! ;-)
Avoidance of all risk probably involves staying in bed in the morning - but wait. most people die in bed, what can we do to be safe...
:-(
Last edited:
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
I was there - the 1976 OSTAR - I took the view that (a) my 3.5 tonnes was unlikely to scratch the paint on a commercial ship and (b) there are 6 million square miles of North Atlantic and even within a single square mile you could have many boats without any collisions. As it turned out, on the first night out of Plymouth I had a very near miss with another competitor who was carrying no lights.
During an ARC crossing we saw lots of boats during the first day but the following morning the horizon was clear and we only saw two other boats in the distance during the rest of the crossing.
