Is it legal for a single handed skipper to sleep?

[Cruiser2B]

Since the yacht are probably the stand on vessel when meeting big ones in the ocean, they would tend to monitor proceedings (as required by the rules) unless things begin to look a bit hairy. Are there any examples of ships damaging themselves through carrying out their obligations?

Whilst I am unconvinced of the argument that it is legal to single hand across the worlds oceans, I am also very unconvinced by the arguments not to do it.

I met a boat (mobo) recently that made an overnight crossing and had a total electrics failure - no chartplotter, no radar, no AIS, no nav-lights. Imagine if they had been sleeping and counting on an alarm to wake them? Hard for the give-way vessel to carry out its obligations if it can't see you.

 

[estarzinger]

The rule:

What is the nature of this "formal paperwork"? There're obvious limitations on the authorities' ability to monitor or enforce compliance beyond their territorial seas.

I take it you have never cleared for an international passage? From most jurisdictions you have to get a formal clearance (often called a "Zarpe") from the authorities and you (almost always) have to submit a crew list in your application. In some jurisdictions you have to get one even for internal passages (Chile for instance). It is very clear to the authorities in the process if you are single-handing or not. To get this clearance from NZ, if you are NZ flagged, you have to meet the ORC Cat 1 requirements and they will refuse you if you do not. BUT they do NOT refuse single handers. It is very clear that no authority anywhere considers single handing inherently illegal.

I know less about the French race permit process, but in the USA the USCG issues official permits for races. To apply you have to include details of your safety requirements and other specifications of the race. The USCG has never denied a permit to a singlehanded race.

the Irish authorities have been explicit: http://dttas.ie/sites/default/files/24 of 2005 -correct.pdf (good find Vexed)

No, you are just reading what you want to see again. All that document says is that colreg rule 5 applies to single handers and they must keep a proper watch at all times, except they have substituted the word 'lookout' for 'watch'.

Cockcroft and Lameijer support my interpretation

Quote please.

Do you have anything more authoritative than your own opinion to back your case?

Yes:

(1) The simple fact that no authority anywhere detains singlehanders, or even denies permits to them, completely puts paid to your whole argument. Zarpe's are denied for a whole range of reasons, but single handing is just not one of them.

(2) Certainly not all, probably not even most, commercial ships and fishing vessels follows your interpretation of "someone on deck, solely employed in the business of maintaining a watch." So, certainly the professional mariners do not agree with (or at least do not follow)your interpretation.

(3) The USCG has told me (in the single hand race permit processes) that "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 of the risk of collision". Is how they and every authority they know interprets rule 5. Not the way that you do.

.......

 

[Cruiser2B]

There is plenty of case law that contradicts that interpretation even for "fully manned" ships and you will find that it is very rare for any ship to have one person dedicated to looking out, even in busy waters like the Channel. The emphasis is on the Proper Watch where what constitutes proper is dependent on the circumstances.

You are taking your interpretation of that and claiming it is set out in black and white, which it is not. That is your personal inference rather than an unambiguous implication.

Care to provide any links to relevant case law? While you've apparently misinterpreted my meaning - I'm not referring to a person assigned only as lookout per STCW 95, but the more generic idea of a watchkeeper who handles lookout, helming, navigation, etc. - there's plenty of guidance that makes it very clear that a "look out" must be maintained regardless of the composition of the watch: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282227/mgn315.pdf

My 'personal inference' as you put it, is guided by well-recognized expert interpretation, such as that found in Cockcroft and Lameijer's Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules. You might consider finding a copy and having a read of the section covering rule 5. This is what they say about 'proper look out':

The term ‘proper look-out’ has always been interpreted by the Courts
as including the effective use of available instruments and equipment,
in addition to the use of both sight and hearing. This applies
particularly to radar, but the use of binoculars and of information
received by VHF from a shore radar station or from other ships would
be included among ‘all available means appropriate’.

 

[bedouin]

Care to provide any links to relevant case law? While you've apparently misinterpreted my meaning - I'm not referring to a person assigned only as lookout per STCW 95, but the more generic idea of a watchkeeper who handles lookout, helming, navigation, etc. - there's plenty of guidance that makes it very clear that a "look out" must be maintained regardless of the composition of the watch: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282227/mgn315.pdf

My 'personal inference' as you put it, is guided by well-recognized expert interpretation, such as that found in Cockcroft and Lameijer's Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules. You might consider finding a copy and having a read of the section covering rule 5. This is what they say about 'proper look out':

Your assertion was that the law requires someone on deck solely dedicated to maintaining a watch - but you cannot quote any case law or informed opinion to support that point of view.

 

[Pye_End]

I met a boat (mobo) recently that made an overnight crossing and had a total electrics failure - no chartplotter, no radar, no AIS, no nav-lights. Imagine if they had been sleeping and counting on an alarm to wake them? Hard for the give-way vessel to carry out its obligations if it can't see you.

Why would they be asleep on such a short passage and in such circumstances? Can't really see what you are trying to get at with this example.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I take it you have never cleared for an international passage?
Not required going from Canada - US - Bahamas. I would think a Zarpe falls under customs and immigration, rather than port state control. Regardless, Port State control has a fairly limited purview - I doubt many nations would risk a diplomatic row by detaining yachts willy-nilly. Who are they to say you cannot stay awake and in the cockpit for the duration of your voyage?
No, you are just reading what you want to see again. All that document says is that colreg rule 5 applies to single handers and they must keep a proper watch at all times, except they have substituted the word 'lookout' for 'watch'.
No, it states explicitly that all vessels, including single-handers are obliged to comply with colregs and points out that colregs require a look out to be maintained by sight and hearing at all times - it's as unambiguous as it gets.
Quote please.
See the excerpt in my previous post. C and L go on for about 8 pages on rule 5 - worth a read if you have a copy. (it can be found online)
(1) The simple fact that no authority anywhere detains singlehanders, or even denies permits to them, completely puts paid to your whole argument. Zarpe's are denied for a whole range of reasons, but single handing is just not one of them.
Again a diplomatic quagmire if they got caught up in detaining foreign-flagged vessels over something that is not really within their jurisdiction. Not exactly a conclusive argument.
(2) Certainly not all, probably not even most, commercial ships and fishing vessels follows your interpretation of "someone on deck, solely employed in the business of maintaining a watch." So, certainly the professional mariners do not agree with (or at least do not follow)your interpretation.
I point you to the MCA direction linked in my previous post. You might also might wish to familiarize yourself with STCW - it's in the Annexes of Cockcroft - this is what it says under 'watch composition':

4.(b)(i)at no time shall the bridge be left unattended;

(3) The USCG has told me (in the single hand race permit processes) that "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 of the risk of collision". Is how they and every authority they know interprets rule 5. Not the way that you do.
.That's not an interpretation - it's the rule verbatim, which I say again is written unambiguously. The CG obviously reminded you of your obligations - they can't penalize you for not maintaining a lookout before the fact.

.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Why would they be asleep on such a short passage and in such circumstances? Can't really see what you are trying to get at with this example.

Go on, give it some thought. You can work it out.

 

[estarzinger]

C2B,

We are not going to agree. I believe the word 'proper' is in rule 5 for a clear and important reason, while you (seem to) just want to ignore it. And I believe the authorities have demonstrated by their actions that they support my view and not yours. But we are not going to agree, so lets move on.

Why you are so insistent? Are you just trying to win an internet argument here (if so, I am done)? Or do you have a point/reason for pursuing this (if so, what is it)?

Do you want the authorities to stop prosecute single handers? Do you want all singlehanders to stop because you think what they are doing is illegal? Do you want the colregs rewritten to 'allow' (in your mind) singlehanding?

 

[Cruiser2B]

C2B,

We are not going to agree. I believe the word 'proper' is in rule 5 for a clear and important reason, while you (seem to) just want to ignore it. And I believe the authorities have demonstrated by their actions that they support my view and not yours. But we are not going to agree, so lets move on.

Why you are so insistent? Are you just trying to win an internet argument here (if so, I am done)? Or do you have a point/reason for pursuing this (if so, what is it)?

Do you want the authorities to stop prosecute single handers? Do you want all singlehanders to stop because you think what they are doing is illegal? Do you want the colregs rewritten to 'allow' (in your mind) singlehanding?

You seem to assign some special meaning to 'proper', while ignoring 'at all times'. And I believe the authorities don't see a need to do anything other than reiterate the rules. There's no need for them to expend resources running all over the oceans checking if someone is keeping watch; they'll wait for the crash and assign blame then. The Irish authorities have made it clear by their actions that they support my view.

I'm curious why anyone would argue with someone on an internet forum, then question why that person defends their opinion? As to my motives, I believe I covered that in post #72.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Your assertion was that the law requires someone on deck solely dedicated to maintaining a watch - but you cannot quote any case law or informed opinion to support that point of view.

You're the one that brought up case law - have you quoted any that supports your view? I've provided three sources - link to the MCA note, STCW and Cockcroft - that all support my view. In addition the Irish NtM that was posted also supports that view.

 

[estarzinger]

There's no need for them to expend resources running all over the oceans checking if someone is keeping watch;
.

No, but since you are a yank . . .USCG San Francisco specifically issues an official race permit for the single handed transpac. None of your 'excuses' explain why they would do this if your interpretation is correct. It is a US race with US participants so no potential diplomatic incident caused. They know full well all the participants are single handed, and on a race to Hawaii they also know full well they will sleep at some point. USCG SF is not shy about race control . . . you may remember they shut down ALL races after the Low Speed Chase incident while they reviewed the whole area race safety regulations and culture . . . they certainly would not be shy about not permitting a race if they felt it inherently broke the colregs. This is the USCG issuing teh permit, not immigration or customs or a minor port officer, but an official permit for singlehanded sailing on USCG letterhead.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Well mate, I don't know where you got the idea I'm a Yank. And I don't know why the USCG would permit something where it's blatantly obvious they will not be able to meet the requirements of 'look out' as the USCG, itself, describes it:

12. When do I need a Look-out? According to Rule 5, all vessels are responsible for maintaining a proper look-out at all times - this includes one-man crews, unmanned crafts, and recreational boats.

The term look-out implies watching and listening so that he/she is aware of what is happening around the vessel. The emphasis is on performing the action, not on the person. Still, in all but the smallest vessels, the lookout is expected to be an individual who is not the helmsman and is usually located in the forward part of the boat, away from the distractions and noises of the bridge. While no specific location on a vessel is prescribed for the lookout, good navigation requires placement at the point best suited for the purpose of hearing and observing the approach of objects likely to be brought into collision with the vessel.
The size of the vessel and crew effect this answer, however, the emphasis in every legal decision points to the need for a proper, attentive look-out. While the use of radar to evaluate the situation is implied in the requirement to use all available means, that is still understood to be secondary to maintaining a look-out by sight and hearing.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesFAQ

PS. That's now 5 authoritative sources.

 

[Simondjuk]

This one of those issues where there will be no agreement since to some it's a hobby-horse subject. The rules imply it's illegal and simple thinking suggests it's dangerous, so inevitably the Daily Mail reading types wail.

The reality however is that it's a big sea out there and there isn't that much traffic. The odds of two vessels occupying the same space at the same time are slim.

Even if two vessels are heading for one another, a singlehanded yacht as likely as not has RADAR alarms, AIS alarms and an alarm when its RTE is painted, all alerting the sailor to the approach of a ship. Not to mention a visual watch for the majority of every 24 hours in each day. The chances of not detecting another vessel, which is likely as not the 'give way' vessel anyway, are tiny.

Then the ship has RADAR on which the yacht may show in its own right, and will certainly do so on both bands via the yachts RTE, AIS and, hopefully, a well maintained visual watch for stand on vessels.

The chances of the two meeting are tiny, the odds of them both not being aware of the other slim and of at least one failing to detect the other smaller still.

It's simply not a big issue.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

This one of those issues where there will be no agreement since to some it's a hobby-horse subject. The rules imply it's illegal and simple thinking suggests it's dangerous, so inevitably the Daily Mail reading types wail.

The reality however is that it's a big sea out there and there isn't that much traffic. The odds of two vessels occupying the same space at the same time are slim.

Even if two vessels are heading for one another, a singlehanded yacht as likely as not has RADAR alarms, AIS alarms and an alarm when its RTE is painted, all alerting the sailor to the approach of a ship. Not to mention a visual watch for the majority of every 24 hours in each day. The chances of not detecting another vessel, which is likely as not the 'give way' vessel anyway, are tiny.

Then the ship has RADAR on which the yacht may show in its own right, and will certainly do so on both bands via the yachts RTE, AIS and, hopefully, a well maintained visual watch for stand on vessels.

The chances of the two meeting are tiny, the odds of them both not being aware of the other slim and of at least one failing to detect the other smaller still.

It's simply not a big issue.

And it will remain "not a big issue" until an incident occurs where there is loss of life and/or major damage, whereupon a court somewhere in the world will settle the matter. Problem is that it hasn't been tested in court, and until it is, pretty much this whole thread is speculation about which way a judge would jump.

 

[Cruiser2B]

And it will remain "not a big issue" until an incident occurs where there is loss of life and/or major damage, whereupon a court somewhere in the world will settle the matter. Problem is that it hasn't been tested in court, and until it is, pretty much this whole thread is speculation about which way a judge would jump.

That sums it up pretty well. A dead solo sailor, being the more likely outcome of such an incident, will generate a MAIB or equivalent report, but not change the current state of turning a blind eye to it. Maybe if some solo-piloted 30m chunk of carbon-fibre pokes a hole in a tanker and bespoils a marpol special area, there will be a tightening of the reins, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

While delving through the USCG site (nothing on the telly last night), I came across a reference to a case where a solo-sailor's lack of lookout cost him half the value of his claim. I trust this will satisfy some forumites' need to see relevant case law:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/576/435/2593336/

That also led to some other e-finds, of varying levels of authority, discussing 'lookout'. In turn this led me to google 'proper lookout' to see if I could find any reference that supports Evans' interpretation - I failed in that regard, but found some that back me up. These are all posted below for those interested.

http://www.uscg.mil/d13/cfvs/PDFs/FinalRule5.PDF

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/single.htm

http://www.atlanticmaritimeacademy.com/images/wind-1012-colreg5.pdf

http://coastguardnews.com/coast-gua...tors-to-maintain-a-proper-lookout/2013/04/19/

http://www.ukpandi.com/loss-prevent...t-during-the-hours-of-darkness-worldwide-860/

https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Publications/Watchkeeping_Standards.pdf

I've now cited at least 10 separate sources, so I think it's safe to say it's not just "my interpretation." That compares to the opposing side, who have provided... zero, zip, zilch, nil, none - not one single written reference from any form of authority that says it's possible to maintain a 'proper lookout' from one's bunk.

Please do not take this as some need on my part to have the last word, or "win an internet argument". I enjoy a good Rules discussion, and like to think I come away having learnt something. That's not to say I won't support my opinion when it's challenged. I won't say this is my last post on the subject - if a question or comment is directed at me, it's only polite to respond. But - and this is not directed at anyone in particular - any snide or insulting comments should expect a like response.

 

[Simondjuk]

I just don't see that yours is a viewpoint worth defending, I'm afraid.

I'd wager there are more incidents per person-mile in commercial aviation than there are as a direct result of collisions caused solely as a consequence of not keeping a 24/7 visual lookout when single-handed sailing, yet I presume that you're not dead set against the idea of airlines flying passengers across the face of the globe and those passengers enjoying the freedom to travel by that means?

 

[duncan99210]

IRPCS are a set of rules, backed on occasion by national laws, which seek to prevent us crashing into one another. They are best applied pragmatically rather than by lawyers and courts. For the most part, this works extremely well, given th number of vessels out there and the lack of formal controls imposed by the majority of maritime nations. The only time courts and lawyers tend to become involved is in the most egregious breaches of the rules, usually close inshore where the behaviour of the offender has been directly observed.

To my mind, IRPCS are best not viewed from the legalistic point of view. Provided that the master of a vessel takes care to avoid running into another, by whatever means, then he is obeying the spirit of the rules, if not the precise, legal definition. You can argue as much as you like about precise definitions and what the rules actually say but it won't make any difference to the business of single handed sailing: it's always happened, it always will. Live with it.

 

[Black Sheep]

I've now cited at least 10 separate sources, so I think it's safe to say it's not just "my interpretation."

I usually know better than to get involved in internet arguments. But I can't let that go unchallenged.

None of your sources back up your interpretation that it is illegal for singlehanders to sleep. Not one. There's at least a couple that you might expect to say that BUT THEY DON'T. This rather suggests that they agree that it is possible for Rule 5 to be obeyed by single handers on extended passages.

Several of your sources are irrelevant to small yachts. For example the MCA one is explicitly a "Notice to Owners, Operators, Managers, Masters and Officers of Merchant Vessels". If you were to apply it to yachts, you would be bound by "MCA considers it dangerous and irresponsible for the OOW to act as sole look-out during periods of darkness or restricted visibility" (ie you must have at least two on deck at night), and that "Radar should be available for use at all times". Clearly not relevant to us. STCW is intended for commercial vessels.

A couple refer to instructions to fishing vessels. The drift-netters wanted sanction for the whole crew to bed down for the entire night, with no attempt to maintain any soft of watch at all - this is clearly a very different thing to a single hander snatching a catnap while keeping a close eye on his/her surroundings.

The Irish document is very interesting. You say this supports your interpretation of Rule 5. It doesn't. The Irish authorities had every opportunity in that document to provide interpretation, or to clarify that singlehanders must not go below for any reason. But they didn't. All they do it reiterate that all vessels must obey Rule 5, and repeat Rule 5 pretty much verbatim. The fact they don't tell singlehanders they mustn't catnap, suggests to me that they don't think the practice is illegal.

The most useful document (and most authoritative one) is the Granholm (Olympus Camera) vs TFL Express case. Neither vessel kept an adequate lookout. In the case of the singlehander, the lights of the ship should have been visible for over half an hour, so the conclusion was that either he failed to see them when he scanned the horizon before going below, or that he was below for more than half an hour. The judgement is clear "The charge against plaintiff of improper lookout does not depend solely upon his decision to go below. Accepting as I do his testimony that the impact occurred less than thirty minutes after Granholm went below, his failure to observe the lights of the oncoming EXPRESS is inexplicable and inexcusable.". So going below is not the problem. The problem was going below, for over half an hour, at night, in an area of dense shipping, without adequately scanning the horizon before doing so. The judge even says "He should have adhered to his own practice and rested only during the daytime" which rather suggests that this is quite legal.

We can argue forever about the meanings of "proper lookout" and "at all times", but don't claim authority for your interpretation unless your references actually back you up. These ones don't.

 

[snowleopard]

You would potentially risk the lives of your rescuers, too.

By that token, no-one should venture out to sea in case they need rescuing. Disband the RNLI in case they hurt themselves. In my singlehanded days most of us didn't carry a radio so who would be coming to our rescue in mid-ocean?

Yachts aren't made of pillow-stuffing and marshmallow - they hit any other small vessel - fishing vessels or other yachts and there could be catastrophic damage.

As I said in my previous posts there is a risk of collision with other singlehanders - presumably fully-manned yachts would see you coming - but it is a very small chance indeed after the first 24 hours when you should be awake anyway. Fishing vessels able to operate more than a day's sail from port are going to be made of steel so unlikely to suffer more than a hefty dent by being hit by a yacht.

You don't have to actually hit a large vessel to cause damage - if it has to make hard manoeuvres to avoid you, the cargo could shift causing a monetary loss and/or risk to crew; or in a passenger vessel, there could be injuries.

A long-distance singlehander will almost certainly be sailing so will be stand-on to any merchant ship. If they leave it too late and cause themselves problems it really doesn't matter how many people are looking out from the yacht.

 

[GHA]

It's easier to use the ignore button than attempt debate With a closed mind.......