Is it legal for a single handed skipper to sleep?

[GHA]

, and the comment about Watson defies reason. AIS has its limitations, and is subject to failure.

If you don't turn the alarm on it certainly has limitations. How does that defy reason?

yet you called it ridiculous to apply the same logic to commercial shipping.

No, your example was like asking a cyclist chatting on a mobile phone if he thinks truck drivers should spent their days texting - completely ludicrous.

Again, it matters nothing what you might think, solo offshore with today's technology is not a significant navigational danger, you keep watch and the rest of us will be aware or your presence long before appear. It cannot be justified legally as it contravenes the irpcs. Bottom line is dodging ships offshore solo is easy, there are much bigger worries out there.

 

[Uricanejack]

For the numbers and likly hood of encountering a ship. It realy depends upon which particular bit of ocean you are in.
If your on the regular sailing route useing the trades to go from the Canaries to Antiga. You might see quite a few North or South Bound through the Canaries. Out once a day or so west they will be few and far between. They just don't have a reason to be there.
You get further west where your on a line between the St Laurence or Orther Major Eastern Seaboard port and the NE Corner of Brazil. Your chances of encountering a ship get higher. but still not high.
You sailing in an area between Ushant and Cape Finistair your chances of a close encounter are high.
On a Rhum line or GC from 44 40 or N York or the Chesapeak to the Lizard there lots of ships.
Between, Aden and the S tip of India and Malaca. there is a steady stream going both ways. The rest of the Indian Ocean is rarly transited nowadays even the old Cape Route where ships would never be far appart from at least one other. Now the vast majority use Suez.
For a single hander on his own boat doing his own thing, Yep its ileagle. No mater what electronic bells and whistles you have. I doubt there is a judge or jury anywhere who would by the idea you were keepin a Lookout while you were asleep regardless of the time interval. But I think there is enough room in the world for people to choose on thier own to take the risk and live or die with the consequences. Just so long as they don't cry about it afterwards.

I have a much bigger disagreement with the Organisers and sponsers of big events who are buying publicity for thier product by encouraging it. And if it goes wrong they should be held acountable.

 

[GHA]

For the numbers and likly hood of encountering a ship. It realy depends upon which particular bit of ocean you are in.

Absolutely, and the likes of google earth which displays a great circle route can be very useful showing, for instance, europe to the anegada passage. Also marine traffic et al can be very useful in seeing where to keep away from. And images like this...

 

[charles_reed]

How do you think radar qualifies as "by sight and hearing"?

Your comment almost not worth answering - the radar (which all commercial vessels use) picks up the obstruction, the alarm goes off and you HEAR it.
If you are insisting that one has to be watching anxiously all the time as well, you're best being lumped in with Denny Dessoutter as a neurotic obsessional.

 

[vjmehra]

I have zero experience of single handing, but having read this thread something confuses me...

If it was illegal to navigate single handed by radar (i.e. when you are below deck) then would it not also be illegal to navigate in fog?

 

[sailorman]

For the numbers and likly hood of encountering a ship. It realy depends upon which particular bit of ocean you are in.
If your on the regular sailing route useing the trades to go from the Canaries to Antiga. You might see quite a few North or South Bound through the Canaries. Out once a day or so west they will be few and far between. They just don't have a reason to be there.
You get further west where your on a line between the St Laurence or Orther Major Eastern Seaboard port and the NE Corner of Brazil. Your chances of encountering a ship get higher. but still not high.
You sailing in an area between Ushant and Cape Finistair your chances of a close encounter are high.
On a Rhum line or GC from 44 40 or N York or the Chesapeak to the Lizard there lots of ships.
Between, Aden and the S tip of India and Malaca. there is a steady stream going both ways. The rest of the Indian Ocean is rarly transited nowadays even the old Cape Route where ships would never be far appart from at least one other. Now the vast majority use Suez.
For a single hander on his own boat doing his own thing, Yep its ileagle. No mater what electronic bells and whistles you have. I doubt there is a judge or jury anywhere who would by the idea you were keepin a Lookout while you were asleep regardless of the time interval. But I think there is enough room in the world for people to choose on thier own to take the risk and live or die with the consequences. Just so long as they don't cry about it afterwards.

I have a much bigger disagreement with the Organisers and sponsers of big events who are buying publicity for thier product by encouraging it. And if it goes wrong they should be held acountable.

The best analysis to date.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Your comment almost not worth answering - the radar (which all commercial vessels use) picks up the obstruction, the alarm goes off and you HEAR it.
If you are insisting that one has to be watching anxiously all the time as well, you're best being lumped in with Denny Dessoutter as a neurotic obsessional.

It's impressive that someone who clearly doesn't have a clue can be so pompous - Kruger-Dunning effect I guess. The 'hearing' part of the rule doesn't have to do with the alarms on the radar, but rather listening for signals and to the VHF. Cockcroft puts it succinctly: "The use of radar does not dispense with the need for a good visual look-out."

 

[Cruiser2B]

If you don't turn the alarm on it certainly has limitations. How does that defy reason?

You don't get the irony. You've pointed out operator error as a factor in the Watson collision, yet haven't made the connection that even if you have your AIS set up perfectly, you are entirely dependent on there being no 'operator error' on the other ship - that their antenna is properly sited, that the AIS is set-up properly, that it's not in a non-transmit mode, that it's not turned off altogether.

No, your example was like asking a cyclist chatting on a mobile phone if he thinks truck drivers should spent their days texting - completely ludicrous.

... with today's technology is not a significant navigational danger, ...

I had to take a breather before answering this - your sense of "logic" has left me with the feeling I'm banging my head against the wall. First, an apt analogy would be asking a car driver who chats on his phone while driving if he thinks it's acceptable for truck drivers to chat on their phones while driving.
You have made the point that the oceans are vast and mostly empty and the chance of a boat hitting anything is so small as to be insignificant. The oceans are no smaller for commercial vessels, so again the chance of them encountering another vessel is just as unlikely. You further pointed out that we have technology that makes those chance encounters even less likely to result in collision - commercial vessels often have more radars, more sophisticated radars, with proper ARPAs, Class A AIS and machinery and systems automation much better than what solo sailors have. There's an economic benefit to having fewer crew, so I'll pose the question directly - would you be happy knowing that commercial ships in open ocean might not maintain a visual watch, but have someone "on call" to respond to the alarms?

 

[GrahamM376]

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.

Outside controlled airspace, aircraft use the quadrilateral rule which gives altitude separation between aircraft on different headings which of course isn't available to boats.

 

[GHA]

You don't get the irony. You've pointed out operator error as a factor in the Watson collision, yet haven't made the connection that even if you have your AIS set up perfectly, you are entirely dependent......... .

You'll never be able to discuss any middle ground so fine, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong.
No that it matters either way, your opinion is irrelevant, if solo offshore sailors hitting ships was a problem then things would have been done to rectify a long time ago, but it isn't.

 

[GrahamM376]

I have zero experience of single handing, but having read this thread something confuses me...

If it was illegal to navigate single handed by radar (i.e. when you are below deck) then would it not also be illegal to navigate in fog?

No, you have to keep a lookout by all available means.

Coastal sailing in fog, no-one in their right mind would just rely on the radar, way offshore then maybe. Coming out of Peniche bay this year, we saw several shadows (trawlers) pass within maybe 30-40 metres, no way would I rely on radar alone as courses can change faster than you will notice on the radar (which I can see from the helm anyway) when very close.

 

[Cruiser2B]

You'll never be able to discuss any middle ground so fine, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong.
No that it matters either way, your opinion is irrelevant, if solo offshore sailors hitting ships was a problem then things would have been done to rectify a long time ago, but it isn't.

Actually I don't give a toss one way or t'other if solo sailors are out there sleeping, but the OP asked if it's legal, and the answer is 'no.' There have been commentators here that have argued otherwise, to which I've rebutted. It's not "my opinion" - it's the rules, in black and white, supported by expert interpretation. I don't expect it to change, and agree there really isn't a great problem, but just because it's a relatively benign infraction, does not make it legal.

It's interesting that none of the vocal proponents of the practice have expressed whether or not they think it would be acceptable for commercial ships to do the very same thing they do.

 

[VexedIllologist]

To answer the original question...

Yes or no?

The answer is clearly 'no':

http://dttas.ie/sites/default/files/24 of 2005 -correct.pdf

Although this is a notice from Ireland, the observations apply to the IRPCS in general, not to Irish law in particular.

That said, there likely wouldn't be a problem for a single hander until involvement in a collision, given the way maritime law is generally enforced.

 

[sailorman]

Actually I don't give a toss one way or t'other if solo sailors are out there sleeping, but the OP asked if it's legal, and the answer is 'no.' There have been commentators here that have argued otherwise, to which I've rebutted. It's not "my opinion" - it's the rules, in black and white, supported by expert interpretation. I don't expect it to change, and agree there really isn't a great problem, but just because it's a relatively benign infraction, does not make it legal.

It's interesting that none of the vocal proponents of the practice have expressed whether or not they think it would be acceptable for commercial ships to do the very same thing they do.

There are a few here who seem the manage ( well actually one failed ) http://www.ouest-france.fr/route-du-rhum/a-bord

 

[snowleopard]

It's interesting that none of the vocal proponents of the practice have expressed whether or not they think it would be acceptable for commercial ships to do the very same thing they do.

While I wouldn't call myself a 'vocal' proponent of singlehanded long-distance sailing, I have done so on occasion and would do so again if the circumstances arose. Out on the ocean there are large ships and small boats; if a ship hits another ship or a boat it is likely to cause loss of life. If a yacht hits a ship, the ship's crew might not even notice. If a yacht hits another yacht there might be damage and/or injury. There are vastly more ships out there than small craft so the one type of collision that might cause injury is also the least likely. Effectively as a singlehander you are gambling your own life and no-one else's. The same is not true of commercial ships so my answer is no, it's not acceptable for ships to gamble with other people's lives.

 

[estarzinger]

A couple comments:

1. Various maritime authorities provide formal paperwork authorization to long distance single handers. Do you really think they would do this if they considered it inherently "illegal". This is not 'just turning a blind eye'. In both america and France the single handed races get official permits to race. And around the world single handers get official port clearances with crew lists that show them to be officially singlehanded.

2. The folks here who say that rule 5 unambiguously make any sleep illegal are very carefully ignoring the words and implication of 'proper watch'. If you read rule 5 in its entirety I would suggest it is clear in two things: (a) that it is a proper watch that must be kept at all times (using all means appropriate and available), and (b) that a proper watch is one which is sufficient to detect risk of and prevent collision. It is clear (if you do the 'time from horizon' math) that in many situations it is quite possible to keep a completely "proper watch" while not being in the cockpit for up to about 20 minutes at a time.

The words 'proper watch' are there to set a 'standard of care', because it is not possible even for a ship with 2 watch keepers to keep a truly 'continuous 360' watch. The 'standard of care' is 'sufficient to detect the risk of and avoid collision'.

The plain fact is that it is clearly difficult on a multi-day passage to keep a 'proper watch' (sufficient to detect and avoid collisions) while single handing (and I would suggest that most in fact do not), but it is possible. It requires both excellent judgement and sleep/nap training/experience. Jessica, just for instance, showed bad judgement taking a nap when she already had a target closing on radar (of course the ship watch keepers also showed a different type of bad judgement).

So, to answer the OP's question: inherently illegal - No, difficult/demanding to comply - Yes. And the UK waters are some of the most congested in the world, and so one of the most difficult places to singlehand.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Effectively as a singlehander you are gambling your own life and no-one else's.

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

Notwithstanding, the argument was that there is virtually no risk in being "on call" as a single-hander, so presumably the risk is infinitesimally small in a better-equipped commercial vessels with better radar ranges. While I don't see how you can justify a double-standard, I thank you for posting a response to the question.

 

[Cruiser2B]

A couple comments:

1. Various maritime authorities provide formal paperwork authorization to long distance single handers. Do you really think they would do this if they considered it inherently "illegal". This is not 'just turning a blind eye'. In both america and France the single handed races get official permits to race. And around the world single handers get official port clearances with crew lists that show them to be officially singlehanded. 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.

2. The folks here who say that rule 5 unambiguously make any sleep illegal are very carefully ignoring the words and implication of 'proper watch'. If you read rule 5 in its entirety I would suggest it is clear in two things: (a) that it is a proper watch that must be kept at all times (using all means appropriate and available), and (b) that a proper watch is one which is sufficient to detect risk of and prevent collision. It is clear (if you do the 'time from horizon' math) that in many situations it is quite possible to keep a completely "proper watch" while not being in the cockpit for up to about 20 minutes at a time.

The words 'proper watch' are there to set a 'standard of care', because it is not possible even for a ship with 2 watch keepers to keep a truly 'continuous 360' watch. The 'standard of care' is 'sufficient to detect the risk of and avoid collision'.

The rule:

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.

Let's dispense with the nonsensical red herring - there is no mention in the rule of a 'continuous 360º' so therefore there is no requirement for this ridiculous notion.

The implication of 'proper watch' is that there is someone on deck, solely employed in the business of maintaining a watch. The rule is very clear that in "maintaining a proper watch" it 'shall' be maintained 'at all times' 'by sight and hearing'. Where the conditions warrant, and the circumstances permit, all other means appropriate to those must also be employed. That means (for instance) that if you don't have radar, it's not required for you to maintain a radar watch; or if you do have radar, if it's open ocean daytime with unrestricted vis then you don't need to use your radar; but if close to shipping lanes a periodic long-range sweep might be prudent; and in restricted vis, it would absolutely be required.
Cockcroft and Lameijer support my interpretation, and the Irish authorities have been explicit: http://dttas.ie/sites/default/files/24 of 2005 -correct.pdf (good find Vexed)
Do you have anything more authoritative than your own opinion to back your case?

 

[Pye_End]

YYou 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.

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.

 

[bedouin]

The rule:



Let's dispense with the nonsensical red herring - there is no mention in the rule of a 'continuous 360º' so therefore there is no requirement for this ridiculous notion.

The implication of 'proper watch' is that there is someone on deck, solely employed in the business of maintaining a watch. The rule is very clear that in "maintaining a proper watch" it 'shall' be maintained 'at all times' 'by sight and hearing'.

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.