Is this "not under command"

[haydude]

I am mostly a singlehander and I always wondered about displaying any signal, mostly when manouvering close quarters.

However when it comes to the main, there is nothing like a furling in-mast!

 

[TamarMike]

The skipper is wrong to hoist the 'Not under command' signal but for any other vessel in the vicinity, surely, they don't have the right to ignore the signal or try to interpret why it is being flown. From the outside, the skipper of that yacht could be lying dead in the cockpit and that may be a 10 year old trying desperately to get the sails down.

Ah but then the vessel should be wearing its ensign at half mast. This then raises the question that if the deceased held the warrant for a blue or defaced ensign should the 10 yr old change to a red ensign at half mast or continue to use the blue one (all at the same time as fiddling with his balls)

 

[TamarMike]

Hitler couldn't have done that - he only had one ball!

Obviously if you only have one ball you should drop anchor to lower your mainsail. If your mainsail is still up is it best to use a new generation anchor to reduce the risk of fouling as you first overrun the anchor then drop back? Right that's flag etiquette and anchoring added to the thread, someone else can figure out how to include Bavs and seahorses!

 

[Little Rascal]

Francis Chichester had two all-round reds on Gypsy Moth IV. Switched them on when he popped down for his whiskey night cap and slept merrily through the night!

 

[mcframe]

I think that this is a situation where common sense and keeping a good lookout are more relevant than sea-lawyers chewing over the details of ColRegs. If raising sail, try to do it out of the busy places. If someone ahead appears to be raising or dropping sail, give them plenty of room.

It's yer 2(a), isn't it?

"(a) Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof,
from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these rules or of the neglect of any
precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case."

The "ordinary practice of [other] seamen" is that they might be slightly less in command when they go head to wind to hoist or douse, so as a precaution, others should make allowances for it.

2(b) of course, talks about "the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these rules necessary to avoid immediate danger." - which would also cover it.

 

[dt4134]

It's yer 2(a), isn't it?

"(a) Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof,
from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these rules or of the neglect of any
precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special
circumstances of the case."

The "ordinary practice of [other] seamen" is that they might be slightly less in command when they go head to wind to hoist or douse, so as a precaution, others should make allowances for it.

2(b) of course, talks about "the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these rules necessary to avoid immediate danger." - which would also cover it.

Com'on! Trying to claim NUC for a routine operation is taking the pi55. It's like sailing around knowing nothing more than rule 17b.

I will take action to avoid a vessel hoisting or lowering their sails, but that does not mean that they have any special rights. If for some reason I'm not able to avoid them it is their fault for putting themselves in that position through inadequate planning of their manouvre.

The ordinary practice of competent seamen is not to go head to wind to hoist or lower sails when it will embarrass another vessel, if they can at all avoid it.

 

[mcframe]

Com'on! Trying to claim NUC for a routine operation is taking the pi55. It's like sailing around knowing nothing more than rule 17b.

I will take action to avoid a vessel hoisting or lowering their sails, but that does not mean that they have any special rights. If for some reason I'm not able to avoid them it is their fault for putting themselves in that position through inadequate planning of their manouvre.

The ordinary practice of competent seamen is not to go head to wind to hoist or lower sails when it will embarrass another vessel, if they can at all avoid it.

Sorry - late reply - I wasn't claiming NUC, for it *is* routine - however, my look around for appropriate searoom before doing so does not remove rule 2 obligations from say, fast dinghies or small power vessels that have the opportunity (but not necessarily the specific rule-based obligation) to stay clear.

My point is that "Ordinary Practice" says don't buzz other vessels - even if you're in the right.

<Nothing personal>
I hope your "adequate planning" allows for a jammed halyard, overpowered autopilot and consequent round-up, and hope that nearby vessels will observe your newly-acquired (but not indicated) NUC rights.
</NP>

Not based on personal experience - this morning, I quite happily found space to go head to wind and hoist a cable south of Ballast in Pompey ;->

 

[TQA]

Francis Chichester had two all-round reds on Gypsy Moth IV. Switched them on when he popped down for his whiskey night cap and slept merrily through the night!

Wow; did not know that! I knew that Tania Aebi would sleep through the night, no lights though but not Sir F.

 

[Resolution]

Re-reading this thread, it seems to me that this is a real question for those of us who sail in crowded waters. I frequently sail from Hamble to Cowes or vice versa, and it can often be a bit tricky finding clear space to come head to wind for a mainsail hoist or drop.
Whereas for those who sail in the uncrowded waters of the Clyde, it clearly is not a problem.
Or is it just that Scottish sailors are more expert......NO, don't go down that road!

 

[andygc]

The ordinary practice of competent seamen is not to go head to wind to hoist or lower sails ... etc

I thought that the ordinary practice of competent seaman was to learn how to hoist and lower sails on any point of sailing.

 

[BobPrell]

I thought that the ordinary practice of competent seaman was to learn how to hoist and lower sails on any point of sailing.

That may have been ordinary practice in some long-gone "golden age" of yachting. I crew on a variety of yachts, and find on most it is very difficult to raise or lower sails unless motoring into the wind. The mainsail will hang up on the shrouds and spreaders otherwise. Most sailors will not practise doing anything else because they want to get out onto the racing course as soon as possible. If they are not racing they mostly want to get sailing and drinking as soon as possible, or they just do because they have formed the habit.

Those who start in dinghies set their sails ashore. There are very few dinghies in which it is normal to raise or lower sails on the water.

Effectively, all yachts of any size are really motor-sailers.

There are some rigs, such as the junk and lug rigs, if unstayed, with which you can indeed, set sails on any point, but most sailors consider them "inefficient".

 

[oldharry]

Solo sailor starts engine, turns into wind, engages autopilot and goes up to the mast to drop and stow the main. Is our sailor's boat NUC, and thus not "give way" with respect anybody?

Speaking as a regular single-hander, No, definitely not. You are in command of the boat, its down to you to keep watch and take appropriate action as always. You deal with the sails when it is safe to do so. If that means motoring further until its safe to deal with the sails, then thats what you do. You think ahead, and get sails off when it is safe to do so. If you get in a mess because you left it too late, thats your problem. If you have to leave a job to return to the helm, so what? No harm done. Thats what single or shorthanded sailing is about.

How would another boat know you are short handed, anyway?

 

[Little Rascal]

Wow; did not know that! I knew that Tania Aebi would sleep through the night, no lights though but not Sir F.

Well she didn't after she got clobbered...

 

[john_morris_uk]

Content deleted

An interesting reply to an eleven year old thread. You might want to be careful about calling other forum members names (“….you pikey”) as the owners of the forum prefer people to be polite to each other. Debate /discuss the subject and not the person?

 

[Daydream believer]

deleted- had not realised it was on old thread

 

[awol]

I note that in post #29 I used the term "twazock. May I unreservedly apologise to any snowflakes (or is that banned too?) who feel offended by the term. It was, after all over 11 years ago when language was not as nuanced as now.

 

[Never Grumble]

They guy who was dead in his cockpit, I wondered what happened to him. And his 10 year old lad must now be at Uni.

 

[Biggles Wader]

I can think of at least two reasons why you cant quote "Snatch" on here. The wheels will come off if you do.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Content deleted

Not my choice. 22 years with sailors and Royal Marines makes me immune to most any words or insults. If you’ve any complaints about the way the forums are run nowadays, please address them to the owners.

Be prepared to be reminded that politeness costs nothing and insulting people or name calling is often a sign that you’ve run out of reasoned argument.

 

[awol]

Not my choice. 22 years with sailors and Royal Marines makes me immune to most any words or insults. If you’ve any complaints about the way the forums are run nowadays, please address them to the owners.

Be prepared to be reminded that politeness costs nothing and insulting people or name calling is often a sign that you’ve run out of reasoned argument.

I would like to point out that my "offending" post was completely polite and did not insult anyone or call anyone a name. It did, however, link to a Government sponsored document.