Is it legal for a single handed skipper to sleep?

[Cruiser2B]

None of your sources back up your interpretation that it is illegal for singlehanders to sleep. Not one.

Did you read this one?

But what of the singlehander who must sleep at some point? In fact, there is a widely
sanctioned race of singlehanders who race around the world. In the three-plus months
they are at sea, they must be asleep for the equivalent of a month! The courts have ruled
that the failure of the singlehander to maintain a proper – constant – lookout is
irresponsible in the context of Rule 5 AND Rule 2 (see above.) In summary, long,
singlehanded passages are by their very nature irresponsible and contrary to the
COLREGs – which govern all of us every time we leave the dock.

Perhaps that was too subtle - how about this one?

In other words, if single-handed sailing prevents one from maintaining a "proper lookout" as defined by the Rules, the very act is negligent. Single-handers beware.

It's not illegal for singlehanders to sleep; but if they don't maintain a lookout at all times, that is contrary to colregs - or in other words, illegal.

Several of your sources are irrelevant to small yachts.

Perhaps you didn't appreciate that the discussion did tangent into what constitutes "proper lookout" and someone forwarded the ridiculous notion that commercial ships aren't required to maintain a continuous watch; in a roundabout way these back up my points that the bridge (or cockpit) can't be left unattended and that radar with alarms set does not constitute a proper lookout. While many want to apply different standards to commercial and recreational vessels, at least two of those sources made the point that 'the obligation to maintain a proper lookout falls upon great vessels and small alike.'

 

[Cruiser2B]

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?
Well there's the ship that ran you down, for one.

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.

Presumably fully-manned yachts would see a merchantman with nobody on the bridge coming too. But you're making the argument for a different standard between commercial vessels and recreational ones regarding the need to maintain a continuous visual watch. If they have no chance of hitting anything other than single-handed yachters, who you've stated have accepted the inherent risk to themselves, then I fail to see how you can maintain that double-standard.


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.

Won't be stand-on to fishing, RAM or NUC vessels. This whooshed over heads before, but if nobody is on watch to react to changes in the situation - power failure at night, change in vis during the day - them "leaving it too late" might largely be the fault of the singlehander.

 

[Cruiser2B]

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

Failure at making a persuasive argument, is not proof of a closed mind. And if we all agreed, it wouldn't be called a debate.
I suggest you exercise the ignore feature, since you're not providing anything useful to this discussion.

 

[Daydream believer]

I have read a large part of this thread with interest but there is a point i seem to have missed
If single handed sailing is legal then why is it first necessary for USA & French authorities to give permission to sail single handed races

 

[charles_reed]

I have read a large part of this thread with interest but there is a point i seem to have missed
If single handed sailing is legal then why is it first necessary for USA & French authorities to give permission to sail single handed races

Gosh, are you saying that France and the US collude in law breaking? And outside their territorial waters?

There are obviously two schools of thought on this - Denny Desoutter's lot and the rest of the world. And never will they agree...

 

[Black Sheep]

Did you read this one?

Yes I did. It's an opinion piece in a magazine that seems to rely entirely on the Granholm/TFL Express case, and does the same selective reading and misinterpretation of it that you did.

Perhaps that was too subtle - how about this one?

How about it? The site doesn't say it's illegal for a single hander to take a catnap. The site says that single handers must maintain a proper lookout. Well, we all know that, it's in Rule 5. The question is how you interpret "a proper lookout" and "at all times". This site wisely doesn't make an interpretation and certainly doesn't say you can't nap.

It's not illegal for singlehanders to sleep; but if they don't maintain a lookout at all times, that is contrary to colregs.

Thank you - it looks like we agree! Single handers can sleep, but must manage their sleep so as to maintain a lookout as per Rule 5.

There's a big difference between heaving to on the starboard tack and going below for eight hours (as Joshua Slocum did, and the drift netters seemed to want to) and polyphasic sleep designed to give a full horizon sweep every 15 minutes, backed up with appropriate technology, and applied according to circumstances. We might draw the line in different places, but I'm glad we agree that it's not illegal for a singlehander to sleep.

 

[Daydream believer]

Gosh, are you saying that France and the US collude in law breaking? And outside their territorial waters?
.

No idea but other forumites have used the claim that they often give permission or are asked permission ( I forget which & do not want to trawl this lot again)to support their arguments & I just did not see anyone pick the point up. I would have thought that the " its illegal" side would have
for the record I do sail single handed on trips over 24 hours & when people go on about our waters being the busiest in the world I think they must only sail in the Solent
i have done 2 Uk circumnavigations & apart from the Channel I have been surprised how little shipping there is around our shores. In fact apart from lobster pots the thing I have had to change course for most is when closer inshore & had to avoid small anchored boats pleasure fishing. They do not work to the " 20 mins over the horizon " rule & one can only see them at fairly close range. So catnapping within 10 miles of the shore an be difficult. Plus if one hits one of those it is not the same as hitting a ship. One might easily end up drowning the crew of the fishing boat. How would the rules be applied then? Not all single handers cross oceans

 

[Cruiser2B]

Thank you - it looks like we agree! Single handers can sleep, but must manage their sleep so as to maintain a lookout as per Rule 5.

That is not what I stated. The act of sleeping is not illegal; not maintaining a lookout is. It's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if you're catnapping or polyphasic sleeping, if you are not maintaining a lookout at all times you are not meeting the requirements of rule 5.

Yes I did. It's an opinion piece in a magazine that seems to rely entirely on the Granholm/TFL Express case, and does the same selective reading and misinterpretation of it that you did.

That's a long way from:

None of your sources back up your interpretation that it is illegal for singlehanders to sleep. Not one.

Now we're making the same "misinterpretation from selective readings". Me and a District Captain with the US Coast Guard Auxiliary, both making the same mistake - no chance you might be the one who is mistaken

How is that misinterpreting the Granholm case? The very fact that he was not maintaining a lookout nullified the advantage he had in his lawsuit by being the stand-on vessel from both the overtaking and sail vice power perspectives. And that was with the other vessel also being guilty of failing to maintain a lookout.

I would think that on an English forum, the meanings of 'at all times', 'maintain' and 'by sight and hearing' would not be in dispute. While I suppose one could make the argument 'proper lookout' is open to interpretation, you don't want to accept any of the sources I've cited where 'proper lookout' is defined.

So how about you provide a link to a reputable source where it says explicitly that single-handers can legally maintain a lookout whilst sleeping?

 

[Magaz97]

I suppose this discussion could be taken to the Nth degree. It is surely about interpretation? A proper lookout at all times. Could this be construed as a uninterrupted lookout covering interlocking fields of view. This would never be possible and taken to the Nth degree would also be deemed as illegal. Or is there room for 'interpretation'?

 

[Mark-1]

Cockcroft & Lameijer might have some answers, they certainly wrote a bit on the topic:

http://tinyurl.com/q67zq5e

 

[estarzinger]

One thing to note about Rule 5 is that it applies to anchored vessels.

I wonder if C2B believes it is "illegal" for all to go to sleep while anchored? If so, then he would declare essentially every cruising boat, fully crewed or not, to be acting illegally.

Of if he might think that when anchored 'it depends on the circumstance' (eg risk of dragging, risk of collision - near a channel or fog, etc)?

In which case, logically, it also would 'depend' while sailing, since the rule makes no distinction (and we are back to the definition/standard of care of 'proper' in rule 5 as 'sufficient to detect and avoid a collision')

 

[Uricanejack]

One thing to note about Rule 5 is that it applies to anchored vessels.

I wonder if C2B believes it is "illegal" for all to go to sleep while anchored? If so, then he would declare essentially every cruising boat, fully crewed or not, to be acting illegally.

Of if he might think that when anchored 'it depends on the circumstance' (eg risk of dragging, risk of collision - near a channel or fog, etc)?

In which case, logically, it also would 'depend' while sailing, since the rule makes no distinction (and we are back to the definition/standard of care of 'proper' in rule 5 as 'sufficient to detect and avoid a collision')

Not only do I scoff at rule 5 when at anchor. I don't hoist a ball. and may even fail to show a light. if it blows out.
If anything hapened I'd be at fault

 

[OceanSprint]

Interesting thread. Read an article about the development of vessels with no crew at all, and we had a thread here about survey drones. I wonder if colregs will be changed if big business wants to flout rule 5?

 

[snowleopard]

I have read a large part of this thread with interest but there is a point i seem to have missed
If single handed sailing is legal then why is it first necessary for USA & French authorities to give permission to sail single handed races

I can't speak for the US authorities but I did come across a French skipper who got into trouble crossing the Atlantic; he was picked up by an ARC boat that was a few miles behind us. His boat was not coded for ocean crossing and he expected a hefty fine when he got back home. That was about French yacht classification rules and nothing to do with colregs or singlehanding.

 

[snowleopard]

The decision whether or not to go long-distance singlehanding is all down to risk-assessment. You look at each of the risks, decide how to mitigate them, work out the final risk and offset it against the up side of going whether it be the personal sense of achievement or financial gain. It's a bit like taking a motorway journey: do you drive above 70 mph, what are the possible consequences - accident or prosecution - how do you reduce the risk (slow down if you see a cop car or yellow cameras) - is the time saving or thrill worth the risk etc.

In formal risk assessment you take each risk, assess the severity of the consequences, multiply it by the likelihood of the event happening and decide whether you want to take that risk. In singlehanding the two big risks are (a) killing yourself and (b) killing someone else. I personally came to the conclusion that (a) was very low and (b) tiny. Set against the challenge of crossing the Atlantic alone I considered it acceptable; others may not.

To validate my risk assessment, would anyone care to offer statistics for the number of singlehanders who have (a) died as a result of collision with another vessel and (b) killed or seriously injured anyone else in a collision.

I am aware of only one such collision - between Great Britain III and a merchant ship where GB3 was seriously damaged but the freighter was not and there were no fatalities or serious injuries. There may have been others but they are so rare as to be comparable to being struck by lightning. You're more likely to kill or be killed every time you get in a car.

 

[PhillM]

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.

So what you are saying is that in the last few decades there has not been a circumstance that warranted a judge to decide upon the matter. That implies to me that the risks are very, very low.

 

[Grumpybear]

So what you are saying is that in the last few decades there has not been a circumstance that warranted a judge to decide upon the matter. That implies to me that the risks are very, very low.

Agreed that the probability of such an incident is very small. But the consequences could still be severe enough to warrant the involvement of a judge, possibly in a remote and even hostile jurisdiction. That could add up to a risk worth taking seriously.

 

[TQA]

The decision whether or not to go long-distance singlehanding is all down to risk-assessment. You look at each of the risks, decide how to mitigate them, work out the final risk and offset it against the up side of going whether it be the personal sense of achievement or financial gain. It's a bit like taking a motorway journey: do you drive above 70 mph, what are the possible consequences - accident or prosecution - how do you reduce the risk (slow down if you see a cop car or yellow cameras) - is the time saving or thrill worth the risk etc.

In formal risk assessment you take each risk, assess the severity of the consequences, multiply it by the likelihood of the event happening and decide whether you want to take that risk. In singlehanding the two big risks are (a) killing yourself and (b) killing someone else. I personally came to the conclusion that (a) was very low and (b) tiny. Set against the challenge of crossing the Atlantic alone I considered it acceptable; others may not.

To validate my risk assessment, would anyone care to offer statistics for the number of singlehanders who have (a) died as a result of collision with another vessel and (b) killed or seriously injured anyone else in a collision.

I am aware of only one such collision - between Great Britain III and a merchant ship where GB3 was seriously damaged but the freighter was not and there were no fatalities or serious injuries. There may have been others but they are so rare as to be comparable to being struck by lightning. You're more likely to kill or be killed every time you get in a car.

How would you hear about the ones who get run down and die?

 

[Daydream believer]

The decision whether or not to go long-distance singlehanding is all down to risk-assessment. You look at each of the risks, decide how to mitigate them, work out the final risk and offset it against the up side of going whether it be the personal sense of achievement or financial gain. It's a bit like taking a motorway journey: do you drive above 70 mph, what are the possible consequences - accident or prosecution - how do you reduce the risk (slow down if you see a cop car or yellow cameras) - is the time saving or thrill worth the risk etc.

In formal risk assessment you take each risk, assess the severity of the consequences, multiply it by the likelihood of the event happening and decide whether you want to take that risk. In singlehanding the two big risks are (a) killing yourself and (b) killing someone else. I personally came to the conclusion that (a) was very low and (b) tiny. Set against the challenge of crossing the Atlantic alone I considered it acceptable; others may not.

To validate my risk assessment, would anyone care to offer statistics for the number of singlehanders who have (a) died as a result of collision with another vessel and (b) killed or seriously injured anyone else in a collision.

I am aware of only one such collision - between Great Britain III and a merchant ship where GB3 was seriously damaged but the freighter was not and there were no fatalities or serious injuries. There may have been others but they are so rare as to be comparable to being struck by lightning. You're more likely to kill or be killed every time you get in a car.

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.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

There's a factor we should consider - that impact damage goes up as the square of the velocity. A single hander in a conventional cruising yacht isn't likely to cause damage to a ship. But a racing machine going at 3 or 4 times the speed will do between 9 and 16 times the damage. It could easily penetrate the relatively thin plating of a ship's hull. And, of course, rigging getting into a ship's propellers could cause serious damage at any speed.