Nav. Light failure. What would you do ?

[toad_oftoadhall]

I can see both arguments. By showing the tricolour you are in fact telling people you are sailing when you are not.

Yes, you're lieing about your propulsion but you're telling the truth about your orientation and the fact you're underway.

If you go with the all round white you're (slightly) lieing about your length but you're concealing what kind of vessel you are, what your orientation is and whether or not you're underway.

I'm not saying any solution is wrong - both seem fine to me. I just can't understand why you said showing the Tricolour was *not* the best answer, it seems to have many advantages and no real drawback.

Maybe I'm missing something, can you clarify.

 

[oldfatgit]

Priority 1 - Be seen.
Priority 2 - Be recognised.
Priority 3 - Be identified.

Show lights so you are seen, even if wrong.
Show lights so you can be recognised as a motoring/motorsailing yacht, even if it means a torch shined onto your mainsail.
Show lights so your direction and intentions can be identified. If pullpit light cannot be easily repaired or replaced mast head tricolour would be only option.
Get onto QHM (Ch 11) and just inform them what you are doing, and they will tell any large vessels which are moving as well as keep an eye out for you.

 

[jason -and the arguenauts]

You're being altogether too logical Toad. Got to remeber this is, in effect, a colregs thread which means all the barrack room lawyers are out to play.

If you have some lights, then people kwon you are there. Working out what you are is very much a secondary issue.

 

[Observer]

Priority 1 - Be seen.
Priority 2 - Be recognised.
Priority 3 - Be identified.

I disagree. The principle of operating a small vessel, particularly a small, slow moving vessel, is "see and avoid" not "be seen and be avoided".

So the absolute first priority, as a small vessel (and, to a degree, whether you have lights or not), is to avoid conflicts with things that can hurt you. That includes ships and nav marks. That leaves other small vessels who may be operating under the same philosophy. If correct lighting is not possible (I ignore the distinction between sailing and steaming), I would prefer to be totally unlit.

What would you do if you have no lights on your tender when returning to your boat? Keep the hell out of the way of everything else. This is no different. You certainly don't want to be diverting attention from "seeing and avoiding" to any sort of running repair, or even jury rigging a temporary solution.

 

[bbg]

Observer: google "Bismark Dinius" and ask yourself again whether you would prefer to be totally unlit.

 

[Evadne]

I was once sailing into Portsmouth harbour in the dark(possibly the only time I've done that), halfway up the channel, with a ferry following us in when the sternlight went out. Or we noticed it was out. I switched on the cabin lights, with the main hatchway open, it seemed the logical thing to do at the time. Maybe some coloured cellophane over the for'ard windows and a bulb in the forcabin would be a useful addition to our emergency equipment?

 

[oceanfroggie]

Carry on and effect repairs when in port

 

[Thistle]

I would prefer to be totally unlit.

Surely you've got to make sure that you are seen. A vessel you are trying to avoid may have to alter course. If they can't see you they may alter course towards you.

Failures do happen and, IMHO, it's then up to us to try to get as close to complying with the regs as we can in the circumstances. I thing OldFatGit has got it pretty much spot-on.

 

[bbg]

I was once sailing into Portsmouth harbour in the dark(possibly the only time I've done that), halfway up the channel, with a ferry following us in when the sternlight went out. Or we noticed it was out. I switched on the cabin lights, with the main hatchway open, it seemed the logical thing to do at the time. Maybe some coloured cellophane over the for'ard windows and a bulb in the forcabin would be a useful addition to our emergency equipment?

I don't understand the instant reaction to resort to a makeshift arrangement. If you're concerned enough about nav light failure to PLAN a makeshift arrangement, then you should be concerned enough to make a proper plan - battery powered nav lights, or a tricolour.

To me, it is a bit like saying - I have a plotter which I rely on. Perhaps, in case of failure, I should carry an AA road atlas?

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Expanding on Fireball's thread re incorrect nav. lts. I would be interested to know whatt people would have done in this situation which happened to me many years ago.

Approaching Portsmouth about a quarter of a mile off the entrance, skipper of a 33 foot sail training yacht with 5 crew all doing 'competent crew'. It's night time, there is a lot of traffic about, you have the mainsail up allthough there is very little wind. You are showing bicolour, steaming and stern lights when the bicolour suddenly gos out. Tapping the surround does not work so you are left with a number of choices. You have a spare bulb but no emergency nav. lights. You have a tricolour, a deck light and a powerful torch. What are you going to do ? Change the bulb yourself, at night, which requires you to lean over the pulpit and try and undo 2 screws which are almost certainly half siezed. Get a crew member to do it or show some other forms of light ?

Chris

In my own boat .......
I would nip below to my chart desk and get the new LED torch SWMBO bought me from the 'in flight shop' of BA. It has red, green, blue and white lights and I'd stick her up front tied to the mast with red and green pointing for'ard.
I'd then get the temporary nav' lights from out of my electrics box and tape them to the pullpit and switch on. If you havn't got spare nav' lights.....why not??
But , taking your point about being only 1/4 mile out from harbour entrance... Any form of being lit up in the smallboat channel would be a help, so in the meantime I would light up my boat and sails in every which way possible and if nervous about traffic I would call CG on 16 or HM to alert all .

 

[Observer]

Observer: google "Bismark Dinius" and ask yourself again whether you would prefer to be totally unlit.

I didn't know about the case but, having briefly researched it, I think it makes my point.

There is (I believe) some dispute about whether the yacht was lit or unlit. Even if it was lit, there is (I suggest) very little certainty that it would have helped in the face of a reckless power boat doing 40kts+ in pitch dark.

As I said, the principle for a small vessel, is "see and avoid". AIUI, the yacht was becalmed. If it was unable to manoeuvre (no wind and no engine) so "avoid", I think there was contributory negligence IF it was also unlit (whether that was Dinius or the skipper/owner is another matter).

If my nav lights have failed AND I cannot manoeuvre (no wind and no engine) then, obviously, "see and avoid" breaks down and I have to fall back on "be seen", so I light up as best I can.

 

[awol]

God may well know but as far as I was aware the boat had everything it was required to have. It was a sailing school boat, perhaps you are advocating I should have bought a set out of my own money ? ( btw, I always carry a spare emergency set on my own boat ). Your'e not one of the people I failed at Day Skipper are you ?

You're right. I'm getting my Blue Book and ISAF offshore regs mixed up. Coded boats just need one set of IRPCS compliant lights; offshore need a separate, independent, minimum of 10W set which my D-cell back ups certainly don't meet (but my tri and bi/stern do).

You actually fail Day Skippers? I thought they got it automatically by paying for the course.

 

[Observer]

Surely you've got to make sure that you are seen. A vessel you are trying to avoid may have to alter course. If they can't see you they may alter course towards you.

Failures do happen and, IMHO, it's then up to us to try to get as close to complying with the regs as we can in the circumstances. I thing OldFatGit has got it pretty much spot-on.

As far as I am concerned, the 'golden rule', that trumps colregs and everything else, is "never rely on someone else to take action that is necessary for your own safety".

Applying that to the OP, if my nav lights have failed and I am not certain that I can see and avoid everything else on the water, then I would light up as best I can with torches or whatever is available. However, if I am sure I can "see and avoid", I will not divert concentration and resources by attempting to comply with rules that will not assure my safety.

p.s. WRT "A vessel you are trying to avoid may have to alter course. If they can't see you they may alter course towards you" - if I am effectively avoiding it, a change of course won't matter.

 

[bbg]

There is certainly a dispute about whether the sailboat was lit or unlit, but if you think it helps you make the case for being unlit, I disagree.
Being unlit DOESN'T help you avoid someone else.
Being unlit DOES open you up to liability in the event of a collision.
I suspect your insurance company wouldn't pay out if you were in a collision and unlit.
Just to be clear, are you saying that you navigate at night without nav lights because you think it is safer? Or are you saying that, given the choice between incorrect lights and no lights, you would choose no lights?
Either way is pretty scary for the rest of us.

 

[bedouin]

For those with local knowledge you could take the alternative view point -

Approaching Portsmouth at night it is lit up "like a christmas tree" and even for someone familiar with the entrance it can be hard to distinguish all the lights (both nav aids and ashore). In particular the area is so brightly lit that there is zero chance of not being seen by anyone looking out, and also zero chance that anyone would be navigating there without keeping a good lookout.

It is an area where in many case a small boat will stand out best as a patch of dark against an otherwise bright background. Any of the actions suggested would be fine (apart maybe for the one about trying to fix it immediately!)

 

[fireball]

For those with local knowledge you could take the alternative view point -

Approaching Portsmouth at night it is lit up "like a christmas tree" and even for someone familiar with the entrance it can be hard to distinguish all the lights (both nav aids and ashore). In particular the area is so brightly lit that there is zero chance of not being seen by anyone looking out, and also zero chance that anyone would be navigating there without keeping a good lookout.

It is an area where in many case a small boat will stand out best as a patch of dark against an otherwise bright background. Any of the actions suggested would be fine (apart maybe for the one about trying to fix it immediately!)

Not if you're closer to shore and looking out - towards the IOW ... as happened to us last Friday. The 'offending' yacht was not at all clearly visible

 

[Observer]

Just to be clear, are you saying that you navigate at night without nav lights because you think it is safer? Or are you saying that, given the choice between incorrect lights and no lights, you would choose no lights?
Either way is pretty scary for the rest of us.

Where did I say that I navigate at night without lights or that I think "no lights" is safer? That is illogical and is not part of my thinking.

My thinking and my argument is as I have said. My first priority, at all times in a small vessel, is "see and avoid". If I have working lights, I use them, but I still operate "see and avoid". If my lights have failed or could cause confusion, "seeing and avoiding" will remain #1 priority and I will not worry too much about "being seen" unless and until I am unsure that "see and avoid" will be effective.

That is not in conflict with colregs, it's complementary. Why is that scary?

 

[bbg]

Where did I say that I navigate at night without lights or that I think "no lights" is safer? That is illogical and is not part of my thinking.

Your first post. You said:

If correct lighting is not possible (I ignore the distinction between sailing and steaming), I would prefer to be totally unlit.

 

[Observer]

Yes - I said (emphasis added):

If correct lighting is not possible (I ignore the distinction between sailing and steaming), I would prefer to be totally unlit.

The further qualification, which I agree was not stated there, but was implied and stated explicitly in a subsequent post, is that I am able to "see and avoid". If I cannot avoid, then, as I said later, any lights will be better than none. If I can avoid, it is not hard to imagine circumstances where a makeshift and incorrect lighting configuration may result in ambiguity. If that is the case, it is safer, imo, to concentrate on "see and avoid". Put another way, incorrect lights is not always or automatically 'safer' than no lights, and may be less safe.

 

[Sailfree]

Moitessier on principle did not light his boat at night. He felt it much better for ships not to see him since if they didn't see him they couldn't take unpredictable avoiding action. In contrast something as nimble as a yacht could easiliy nip out of the way of a ship on a steady course.

I disagree.

The whole basis of Col Regs is that the more manoevreable boat gives way to the least. Hence motor gives way to sail and both give way to boats fishing. I don't regards sailing yachts as nibble when directly in the path of a container ship doing 28kts.

W R T the OP providing you make boat clearly visible I believe most would consider you have done the right thing in the event of a bulb failure.

WRT coded boats they are not obliged to carry emergency Nav lights but are req to carry NUC lights if over approx 40'