LED Anchor light - is the jury out?

So if I flag my vessel in Beleze I can have a light to their satification. I don't think they would have such a detailed specification.

One of my points is who's responsibility is it to prove or disprove the lights on my vessel comply to the relevant specification.

IMHO it if the authority to prove my lights do not comply NOT mine to prove it does comply.

Where does MCA specify to what standard the nav light must comply. I they don't in writing then that appendix is of no relevance in the UK
 
[ QUOTE ]
- if you have the sort of insurance policy that might start voiding the policy if you are not showing the proper lights then I would change insurer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it just be easier to show the correct lights?
 
May or may not be useful information, but I have just been offshore to replace a red light on a crane boom tip (Helicopter warning) on a large commercial vessel. (Flotel).
To my surprise they are all LED lights with red lenses, not sure how this ties in with the thread, but they certainly have no power problems so LED's are not required to save on batteries. I assume they must conform to Colregs and certainly with aviation regs. They certainly didnt like it when I accidentally left it flashing and had to go out and remove the link to make it static. Of course the physical size of them is much larger than you would want on a private yacht, but surely the theory is the same.
 
Hi Hannabella,

If it costs a lot of money to replace a bulb then the priorities change. Electricity consumption and price become less of an issue and you can just use as many LEDs as you need to get the required spread and power of light.
 
First, as other posters have said, there are plenty of LED nav and anchor lights on the market that state they comply. Just buy a product that claims to comply and there shouldn't be a problem.

The problems arise in the case of a major investigation. Remember the Ouzo? The accident investigators took sample masthead units off of similar vessels and conducted all sorts of tests with a view to establishing what happened and, ipso facto, apportioning blame. As soon as you enter the blame apportionment realm you are in danger of being presented with a bill for negligence. Such a claim could conceivably run into millions if a major accident occurred. If you fit a cheapskate product that does not comply then you are exposing yourself to risk. Why not fit a quality product that complies, removing that risk and giving you peace of mind. In all probability the Hellas and other tested quality products will be of higher quality, in any case?

If the smaller producers believe that their products comply there is no problem (in the UK) with them carrying out their own tests and claiming that they comply with xxxx. It is perfectly normal practice. In some other countries (US and much of the EU) the rules require the products to have been submitted to a test house for type approval testing. In this respect the UK manufacturers have a head start - they can enter the home market and then go for type testing when they have established their product in their home market. I cannot understand why some of them can't be bothered to do even that, unless they don't expect their products to meet the requirements or unless they simply don't understand how these things are done.
 
A couple of corrections

(a) As a private boat owner I don't think you could legally be sued for negligence. Legally that only applies where there is a duty of care, and I am pretty certain you do not (in the legal sense) owe a duty of care to other ships.

(b) Isn't there some strange term in maritime law that limits the amount of damages a ship owner is liable for to the value of their ship or some such. So you could do millions of damages and only be liable for a few thousand.

(c) Fitting a light that you reasonably believed to be compliant would pretty much absolve you of blame - if there were an action it would probably be taken against the manufacturer of the light, not the boat owner.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A couple of corrections

(a) As a private boat owner I don't think you could legally be sued for negligence. Legally that only applies where there is a duty of care, and I am pretty certain you do not (in the legal sense) owe a duty of care to other ships.

[/ QUOTE ] Then why do yachts carry third party liability insurance?

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Isn't there some strange term in maritime law that limits the amount of damages a ship owner is liable for to the value of their ship or some such. So you could do millions of damages and only be liable for a few thousand.

[/ QUOTE ] Then presumably we wouldn't have insurance with third party liability cover for more than the value of our yachts. My cover is for at least two million GBP and (sadly) my yacht isn't worth that.

[ QUOTE ]
(c) Fitting a light that you reasonably believed to be compliant would pretty much absolve you of blame - if there were an action it would probably be taken against the manufacturer of the light, not the boat owner.

[/ QUOTE ]You were talking about the legal situation. The law doesn't go in for 'pretty much' as a definition of responsibility. If damage has been caused then the damaged party will try to recover the damages from whoever is in the firing line. If you are in the firing line and have assets, then you are best advised to play things as safe as you reasonably can.

Why would you want to buy a light from a firm that stated that its products are not tested or approved when you can buy a light from any of several other firms that do? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
A couple of corrections



(b) Isn't there some strange term in maritime law that limits the amount of damages a ship owner is liable for to the value of their ship or some such. So you could do millions of damages and only be liable for a few thousand.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are - I think - referring to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1896 - or thereabouts.
This allows for a ceiling to be set on damages payable if a small vessel causes expensive damage to a large one.

There is a set amount of £s per ton of the smaller vessel.

I expect it has been changed in the last century or so, but I believe the principle still applies.

Certainly some years ago another boat's insurers tried to wriggle out of paying my damage by quoting this Act.

My brokers advised me that "The Act is never used by Lloyds when settling claims between small vessels" I got my full costs after a lot of hassle.
 
If you had no reason to suppose that the light was not adequate then you could not be guilty of negligence. Normally fitting and using a light in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations would mean that you would not be liable.

However on reflection I think I am wrong about the duty of care - I think as skipper we do owe some duty of care to other boats; but that is not the same duty as if we were professional sailors.

I've had another look at the liability limits and they do exist, but are much higher than I thought. In international law the limit for damage caused by a small ship is $250K, but under UK law that limit is raised to $1.5 million
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you had no reason to suppose that the light was not adequate then you could not be guilty of negligence. Normally fitting and using a light in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations would mean that you would not be liable.

[/ QUOTE ]You are required to show the proscribed lights. If you fail to do so then the fault is yours. You could try to deflect the responsibility onto the light manufacturer but regardless, you would be guilty of not complying with the colregs.

Suppose you were facing a damages claim due, it is claimed, to your inadequate lighting, then how would your lawyers defend your choice of a nav light which, according to contemporary literature from the manufacturer, was not tested to comply with with the requirements, when you could have easily chosen a lamp which did? I think your decision is indefensible.

Try getting out of a speeding charge by claiming that your speedometer is inaccurate. It's your job to see that your kit is working to the required standards.

If you buy a light that is tested and stated to comply, and you install it and maintain it in accordance with the instructions, then you are in a very strong position. If you buy cheaper kit that isn't tested then the buck might well end up with you, if you are good for the money especially if the el cheapo manufacturer is a limited company with a small capital base and few assets (a kitchen table and some light electronic assembly kit). If the el cheapo manufacturer is a sole trader with his own home, you might be better off - it might come down to whether there is more equity left in his home, or yours.

I don't see the point in putting yourself knowingly in that kind of situation albeit that the risk is probably very tiny. What astonishes me is that the el cheapo manufacturers don't just send a few samples to a test house for testing, or find out how to test them in-house. Approvals testing can be very expensive but nothing in the colregs covers the environmental protection, RFI, corrosion, and other stuff that costs the most. A simple light intensity and colour measurement across a defined arc is all that is required. If they haven't gone into all that in detail at the design stage then you can almost guarantee that it won't pass or comply in any case, and it's as well to find out now and not when you are being boarded by the Dutch CG at 0230.
 
I really dont think the extra current used by quality bulbs is an issue ?

When at sea, we use a towed genny.. at achor - 8 amps for a night is nothing really, compared to say a fridge at 50 amps per day apx.
Unless you are living on board and cruising - and anchoring for long periods - with no means of non engine charging, then surely it is of no concern? most boats in the above category have alternative charging systems anyway..

Perosnally - I have a strobe on the top of the mast for emergencies - and the nav lights are at dec level to mae bulb replacement simple - but a very rare occurance - they last for yonks n yonks.
 
I don't agree with that as a generality, Joe. I don't worry about power - we are power-hungry, run laptops, entertainment, radar (two displays) plotter, autopilot all the time, etc. and we have a generator. But many yachtsmen go for the minimum power option - no genny, small batteries, no telly, because getting away from all the high-tech trappings is part of the experience and because once you start to go down the power-hungry route you end up with big batteries, solars, wind, charge controllers of various types, battery monitoring systems, generators, etc., all of which are expensive, take up space and weight and can go wrong.

LEDs are now at the stage where they are an obvious choice for sailing yachts that have not gone down the 'power-hungry' path. If I was refurbing my yacht I would fit LEDs even though power isn't such a big issue for us - they are more reliable and don't burn out in the middle of the night when you cannot replace them, for a start. I'm very pro-LED though they are not an obvious thing to spend limited cruising funds on if power isn't an issue for you.
 
Could you point to any case law to back up your assertions?

The speeding analogy is not appropriate as that is a criminal matter, not a civil matter, so different standards apply.

I don't think you will find any example of where in a civil case a (non expert) user has been held responsible for defects in design or manufacture of any equipment used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. On the contrary in the recent lifejacket case the manufacturer was held responsible even though it seemed likely that any problems were caused by the owner misusing the lifejacket.

The situation would be different if you were a professional and so regarded as having expert knowledge.
 
I think you'll find that this is covered by international maritime law. You are required to show nav lights in accordance with the colregs. Failure to comply with the colregs is cause for authorities responsible for the sea area you are sailing in to deal with you according to their laws. The equipment you are required to carry depends on the requirements of your flag country and there are no laid down standards for UK yachts other than the overriding requirement for the lights to meet the requirements of the colregs. In Spain, all such equipment needs to be coded for use on a yacht so the sale and use of such product would be illegal. That makes it easier for the Spanish skipper/owner because if it is claimed that his lights don't comply then he can point to the approvals on the product. In the UK, the onus is on the skipper/owner to satisfy himself. Surely he would select a product that can give him the guarantees he is seeking?

I get the impression that some people here would be far more fussy about the approvals and standards of their double glazing units than their yacht lights. I find it a bit bizarre; why not just fit lights that clearly comply, and have peace of mind? Are the cheapo ones so very much cheaper?
 
To me, if it is bright and of an appropriate colour then LEDs are good things, regardless of the paperwork that goes with them. It is hard to argue the toss about these things from the bottom of the North Sea.

However, what makes me a little nervous is the case of the bouncy castle that has just been in the media. Could it be that if a friend died as a result of what was contrued as 'your negligence' that you could be hung out to dry with a civil action?
 
[ QUOTE ]
To me, if it is bright and of an appropriate colour then LEDs are good things, regardless of the paperwork that goes with them.

[/ QUOTE ] It isn't quite as straightforward as that. The lamps need to give a uniform arc to defined angles and must not be visible outside those and it must be visible on defined angles from the horizontal so that it is visible from the bridge of a large vessel and a small boat at sea level. LEDs have be be made up as a cluster and it is not inevitable that a cluster will meet the visibility requirements - needs careful design and testing. Having done that, why not get it tested?
 
Hello,

I've been watching this thread with interest, and, at least from my perspective as a mfg., it's been interesting to see the thoughts.

First, the certification process by an independent lab is not an inexpensive one, nor does it imply that a certified light is 'better' than a non-certified one. There is a large body of economic thought about all of this. At least in the case of the USCG, the special labeling, on top of the testing, adds quite a bit of cost to units being built to a relatively small market. It (certification) is only required of mfg and importers of boats mfg'd post 2003, not of the current boat owner. All of this is cited above, so it comes down to an individual's spending preferences.

Replacement 'bulbs' can be USCG certified, but they have to be submitted within the fixture. Thus, for a replacement to be certified for a Aqua-Signal 40 and an Aqua-Signal 25 would require two submissions. In a practical point of view, the process is worthless.

I had a customer who wanted me to retro-fit some of our LED lights to his tri-colour/anchor combo since his 'didn't work anyways'. Well, the original lights worked just fine, the lenses were so crazed, cracked, and smoked that you could't see that the bulbs were lit at all! (I suggested, and he complied, to replacing the fixture). Of what use the certification process in cases like this? Had he not complied with my suggestion, what govt regulation can stop someone from shooting themselves in the foot?

On the insurance, we have a disclaimer on our site about it (actually, several!), but a long-term, repeat customer approched his agent and got back an answer which fundementally read as'so what?' (I have a copy of the emails, but the insurer's side of things has a priviledged communications clause, or I'd post it).

If I would have concerns, they would be three-fold, all related to COLREG being a bit on the slow side to adapt.

First, COLREG specifically prohibits dimming mechanisms in lights. LEDs must have a current regulating circuit built in or their life will be measured in milliseconds (quite a nice pop, in case you are wondering!). Since the light output is linear to the current input, can this be construed as a 'dimming mechanism'?

Second, all white LEDs (at this time) work by wearing out the reflector coating. High quality ones (immodestly, which we use), wear out slower than the 'el cheapo Maplin's', but nevertheless, still wear out. At some point in their life, they will no longer meet spec. I've toyed with ideas for timing the light so that it will no longer light after a given number of hours. The problem with that is just how long the circuit will have to function without error. At the masthead, a lightning 'magnet', how can I harden a circuit enough to withstand the potential damage AND keep the costs under control?

Third (somewhat of an adjuct to number 2), is that vessels are to show the correct range of light. If a light has a measured output of 5 miles is installed on a boat with a required 1 mile range, it is a violation. If we produce a light, knowing that it will slowly degrade, with a 5 mile range and call it a 1 mile light to cover the eventual degrading process, should the light still be certified as being applicable to its use?

My guess is that this is all 'dancing on pins' and that 'sometime' in the future, COLREG will catch up with lighting technology. Being in my late middle years, it may or may not happen within my lifetime. Some of you are quite a bit younger than I, so you just may well see it.

In the interrum, I would boldly suggest to evaluate the various manufacturer's published data before you purchase so as to make an individual, informed decision.

Hope this helps,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top