Is it legal for a single handed skipper to sleep?

[GHA]

I cannot help but comment about the irresponsible attitude to collisions with ships that have been adopted on this thread. Most authors seem to think it os ok to hit a ship if no one dies & the ship is not damaged
Looking at the ouzo incident where a ferry alledegly ran down a yacht, the ferry showed no sign of damage
But what about the stress caused to those accused ( & i believe later aquitted) plus the time & cost incurred. Does that not come up on the risk register.

Have another read of snowleopard's post - it's impossible to get a handle of the risk likelihood of collisions as there are no data, which is an attempt to quantity the risk, not an irresponsible attitude. From experience and guessing with no data, with a radar and ais alarm offshore I would put the risk of collision with ships offshore as very low indeed, there are much greater dangers facing a single handed than hitting a ship. If anything changes with the legality it will be because of individual single handers acting irresponsibility or being just plain stupid, not because the risks themselves can't be controlled to a minimum.

 

[bedouin]

I cannot help but comment about the irresponsible attitude to collisions with ships that have been adopted on this thread. Most authors seem to think it os ok to hit a ship if no one dies & the ship is not damaged
Looking at the ouzo incident where a ferry alledegly ran down a yacht, the ferry showed no sign of damage
But what about the stress caused to those accused ( & i believe later aquitted) plus the time & cost incurred. Does that not come up on the risk register.

Yes - I am sure the stress to the poor officers on the ferry was much worse than the people who died and their relatives.

I think the irresponsibility on this thread comes from those who advocate placing all of the responsibility for avoiding collision on the stand on vessel - you don't seem to think that the ferry or any other ship has a duty not to hit a sailing vessel.

 

[snowleopard]

To all those who have taken a self-righteous stand against singlehanding, would you care to rank these risks in order of likelihood when sailing >100 miles offshore?

Fire on board
Collision with floating object
Collision with ship
Collision with other yacht
Hull failure
Rig failure
Capsize
Falling overboard
Injury to crew
Insanity
Serious medical emergency
Piracy
Loss or contamination of water
Lightning strike
Cetacean attack

Personally, I know of instances of all of those with the exception of collision with another yacht. The only instance I am aware of involving collision between yacht and ship offshore was when a rogue fishing boat deliberately rammed a yacht to demand salvage.

Anyone who claims the risk of singlehanding to others is unacceptably high really ought to take a job with H&S or stay out of water more than ankle deep.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I think the irresponsibility on this thread comes from those who advocate placing all of the responsibility for avoiding collision on the stand on vessel - you don't seem to think that the ferry or any other ship has a duty not to hit a sailing vessel.

Then there's the irresponsibility of thinking a sailing vessel is always 'stand on'. A re-read of rules 12, 18 and 19 are in order.
Should also mention that being the 'stand on' vessel has obligations too.

 

[bedouin]

Then there's the irresponsibility of thinking a sailing vessel is always 'stand on'. A re-read of rules 12, 18 and 19 are in order.
Should also mention that being the 'stand on' vessel has obligations too.

Yes - but we aren't talking about those.

AFAIK there is no suggestion that Ouzo was anything other than stand on - but the poster is still blaming the crew (of 3 IIRC) for the distress they caused to the people who killed them. I find that just a bit sick.

 

[Daydream believer]

Yes - but we aren't talking about those.

AFAIK there is no suggestion that Ouzo was anything other than stand on - but the poster is still blaming the crew (of 3 IIRC) for the distress they caused to the people who killed them. I find that just a bit sick.

With due respect I was only using ouzo as an example that there are 2 sides to every collision. I did not intend to get a drift as to the rights or wrongs of the ouzo case itself.
Neither was I picking on one particular post in the thread ( although I admit I used it as a quote)
I was trying to make the point that being hit by a ship has far more consequences than a yacht with a missing bow.
One clearly has to consider how the crew of the ship are going to take all this

I would also take issue on the comments about radar & AIS that appear on this thread
I do not have radar but I do have an active reflector plus an AIS transponder
In my second single handed circumnavigation of the UK ( yes I admit it I am an avid single hander who does circa 1800 miles a year SH apart from crewed mileage & all in busy waters)
I came close to being rundown by a ship who clearly was not keeping a proper watch. So AIS & a Reflector cannot be relied upon to notify a closing vessel of ones existence If the other vessel is not keeping a proper watch either.
If I had been asleep I may well have been run down. The alarms on both items often do not wake me when fully asleep.
I do not believe that a single hander can keep a proper watch in UK waters when needing sleep. I have a bed fitted in the cockpit hatch so I can keep a limited watch whilst in the " stupor" state but I do admit that I am acting illegally ( which I also do when driving my car)One should always sail on the assumption that the other party is not looking
but it is only when it goes T..ts up that it really matters.
I have had numerous near misses with ships - nearest 60 feet by the container vessel Evergreen ( yes I was awake & more so afterwards) so from my experience the likelihood of a hit is quite high
the other problem is from yachts in the dark. I narrowly missed a fairly large yacht off Ostend - when in close I could not see it because it had a tricolor & I was down low. the yacht was healed away from me & I did not see the light when I was abeam of it. I have often had to change course for a yacht in the channel that only became visible at about a mile. Certainly nodding off in UK waters is a real risk . assessment or no assessment

 

[Cruiser2B]

Yes - but we aren't talking about those. Sure we are - they fall under 'any other ship.'

you don't seem to think that the ferry or any other ship has a duty not to hit a sailing vessel.

AFAIK there is no suggestion that Ouzo was anything other than stand on - but the poster is still blaming the crew (of 3 IIRC) for the distress they caused to the people who killed them. I find that just a bit sick.

I don't believe the poster suggested that. AFAIR Pride of Bilbao was one of two possible vessels that could have crossed paths with Ouzo, and there was no evidence that either collided with the sailboat; and MAIB considered other possible causes that didn't involve collision. It was only used as an example of what could possibly occur where there is a suspected collision between a single-hander and a merchant vessel. It's a valid point.

 

[bedouin]

I don't believe the poster suggested that. AFAIR Pride of Bilbao was one of two possible vessels that could have crossed paths with Ouzo, and there was no evidence that either collided with the sailboat; and MAIB considered other possible causes that didn't involve collision. It was only used as an example of what could possibly occur where there is a suspected collision between a single-hander and a merchant vessel. It's a valid point.

Oh - that's all right then - it will make the families feel so much better.

I think there is little doubt that it was PoB, but clearly not "beyond reasonable doubt" - and it is not disputed that PoB got very close to a small yacht and did not take reasonable steps to check it was okay.

I really don't get why you think the ships are always totally innocent and the yachts are always at fault.

 

[snowleopard]

Certainly nodding off in UK waters is a real risk . assessment or no assessment

I don't think it is sensible to sleep within 100 miles of the coast. Added to that one should be wary of doing so anywhere near standard shipping routes e.g. the rhumb line between Finisterre and Ushant.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I really don't get why you think the ships are always totally innocent and the yachts are always at fault.

Perhaps you should work on getting your own thoughts in order, rather than telling me what I think. I have never made any statement to the effect that yachts are always at fault, and defy you to show me where I've said anything like it.

I've simply pointed out that the rules are more complicated than "sail has right of way". Even where the sailboat is the 'stand on vessel', there is an onus on that vessel to take action if the other vessel fails to take the required action. In almost every collision both vessels are at fault.

 

[Cruiser2B]

one should be wary of doing so anywhere near standard shipping routes e.g. the rhumb line between Finisterre and Ushant.

You mean like these shipping routes:

 

[GHA]

I don't think it is sensible to sleep within 100 miles of the coast. Added to that one should be wary of doing so anywhere near standard shipping routes e.g. the rhumb line between Finisterre and Ushant.

Agree. Pretty much though would put well off the shelf as a guide rather than so many miles. Sometimes longliners will have floats out for miles along the edge of the shelf.
And I find google earth along with marine traffic can be quite handy for routes to avoid. GE does a great circle for a to b measure when zoomed out, so you can draw a line from say Gib Straits to Canaries. Then just 10 or 20 miles further offshore can make the difference between seeing a ship now and again to hardly seeing any at all. As you no doubt know already
What's the betting the doom and gloom merchants have never been solo offshore in their lives and just have no idea whatsoever how simple tricks can give you an empty ocean all to your self for weeks at a time
Add a radar and ais alarm and the dangers really aren't hitting ships.

 

[Cheery]

Well, as a complete ignoramus, I have read all this thread and the continual thought I have had is why Dame Ellen McArthur hasn't been clapped in irons and carted off to the Tower? Several people have made mention of Atlantic and Pacific single handed crossings and all with the authorities full knowledge, yet no-one has offered a reason as to why these miscreants have been allowed to continue their follies. Some very good points have been made, in particular the last one regarding empty seas and a slight adjustment in course to ensure this.

 

[charles_reed]

Well, as a complete ignoramus, I have read all this thread and the continual thought I have had is why Dame Ellen McArthur hasn't been clapped in irons and carted off to the Tower? Several people have made mention of Atlantic and Pacific single handed crossings and all with the authorities full knowledge, yet no-one has offered a reason as to why these miscreants have been allowed to continue their follies. Some very good points have been made, in particular the last one regarding empty seas and a slight adjustment in course to ensure this.

Scuttlebutt is renowned for the buzzin' of the bees in the crania of the enlightened - this thread has been amazingly relaxed and moderate - just wait untl we get onto anchors or boat electrics...

 

[Poignard]

(...) the continual thought I have had is why Dame Ellen McArthur hasn't been clapped in irons and carted off to the Tower? Several people have made mention of Atlantic and Pacific single handed crossings and all with the authorities full knowledge, yet no-one has offered a reason as to why these miscreants have been allowed to continue their follies. (...)

Probably because whoever decided to prosecute them would have to prove they had not kept a proper lookout. Unless anyone sees them failing to keep a proper lookout, (which would be a little difficult when they are the only persons on board), and they don't run into anything, nobody is going to bother.

In any case, what are these 'authorities' you refer to? There are no policemen in the ocean, who would do the prosecuting? And who would thank these 'authorities' for doing so, if they did?

Would you like to go down in history as the interfering jobsworth that nicked the well-loved heroine Ellen McArthur? I wouldn't.

 

[Cheery]

The 'authorities' are those referred to above who sign the paperwork stating that the crew list has only one name. Personally I think those that undertake these journeys are entitled to as the likelihood of hitting anything once far out at sea are infinitessimally small, as demonstrated above. Sleeping whilst going the the English Channel, Irish Sea etc. are obviously suicidal and no-one in their right mind would do so. Would they?

 

[Daydream believer]

Sleeping whilst going the the English Channel, Irish Sea etc. are obviously suicidal and no-one in their right mind would do so. Would they?

Ummm well actually !!!!

 

[jerrytug]

Sleeping whilst going the the English Channel, Irish Sea etc. are obviously suicidal and no-one in their right mind would do so. Would they?

Rubbish, I've had lots of catnaps in the Channel, and decent dozes in the N.Sea (singlehanded on a cruising yacht).

It's more dangerous to be in a constant sleep-deprived stupor than it is to choose a suitable time and place for a refreshing nap ,which will restore your judgement.

Although once I nodded off between Ramsgate and the Goodwin Sands, and woke up the other side of the Goodwins, that was lucky, the tide (and wind) took me around the top and back down the East side.

 

[Cheery]

I consider sleep to be anything over half an hour. If you were planning on a cat nap surely the first thing you would check is a 360 horizon and a radar check wouldn't you?

 

[jerrytug]

I consider sleep to be anything over half an hour. If you were planning on a cat nap surely the first thing you would check is a 360 horizon and a radar check wouldn't you?

Yes, absolutely, 360 check, and another one for mother.. yes, under 30 minutes definitely. Since the time I missed out waking up wrecked on the Goodies, I set an alarm..
So we are in complete agreement, I didn't mean putting on my jimjams and properly going to bed, with a cup of Horlicks and a detective story.
Catnaps are vital in my book anyway, cheers Jerry