One for colreg experts - NUC & RAM lights

MapisM

MapisM

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
20,658
Visit site
I understand that, if in the three allround used for RAM lights the white is wired separately from the reds, the same reds can be used also as NUC lights (leaving the white turned off, of course).
BUT, is it ok to use the allround white placed between the reds as the anchor light (again, leaving all other lights turned off, obviously)?
I can't see why not from a common sense viewpoint, but I can't find any reference for that, either.
Ta!
 
As long as it meets the requirements for siting and visibity. RAM and NUC - "where they may best be seen" - its the same for anchor lights if you are less than 50m.
CC
 
Well, if that's the only requirement, the answer to my previous question should be yes...
In fact, the only difference between the white in the vertical line of RAM lights and the "normal" anchor light is that the latter is usually on the very top (hence totally unrestricted for its whole 360°), whilst the "RAM" white is along a pole, which means that there is at least the pole obstruction in one point around it, albeit very minor.
What I can't find anywhere is a specific confirmation that the "double" use of such allround white is allowed.

PS: yep, I'm talking of <50m.
 
There are plenty of examples of multiple use of lights. Deep draft, NUC, RAIM (er..thats it) And nothing in the rules to say you shouldnt do it. You will however not be able to be exhibit RWR and anchor lights simultaneously. So if you're not thinking about a spot of night diving or pipeline laying you should be OK.
CC
 
Capt Cautious said:
So if you're not thinking about a spot of night diving or pipeline laying you should be OK.
Click to expand...
Doh! That was indeed one of my thoughts... Night diving I mean, not pipeline laying! :D
You've got a point there, I didn't think about it, thanks.
 
There is nothing in Colregs prohibiting dual-use of lights and therefore you may do it. Rules such as this and modern laws generally do not usually specify what you may do; only what you must and must not do

I don't think you would ever have both anchor light and RAM light together would you? I thought anchor light was top trumps in terms of stand on vessel, followed by RAM. It would be a strange message to send to others if you displayed both anchor and RAM. If i anchored next to you with just anchor light on and you drifted into me I would say you were wrong ie you were give way and I was stand on. It may not be illegal though, I dunno.
 
jfm said:
There is nothing in Colregs prohibiting dual-use of lights and therefore you may do it. Rules such as this and modern laws generally do not usually specify what you may do; only what you must and must not do

I don't think you would ever have both anchor light and RAM light together would you? I thought anchor light was top trumps in terms of stand on vessel, followed by RAM. It would be a strange message to send to others if you displayed both anchor and RAM. If i anchored next to you with just anchor light on and you drifted into me I would say you were wrong ie you were give way and I was stand on. It may not be illegal though, I dunno.
Click to expand...
I would show an anchor light(s) and the red /white/red/ if engaged in some special op such as a helo landing for example :-) when anchored.

As for anchor light - thats it you are at anchor and not underway.

You are underway and maybe making way too if not aground, made fast or at anchor..
 
jfm said:
I thought anchor light was top trumps in terms of stand on vessel, followed by RAM.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting quirk of the colregs that a vessel at anchor has no special status whatsoever!

Any "rights" (please note the inverted commas) that she may have arise from Rule 2, because it is obviously "the ordinary practice of seamen" to avoid driving into anchored vessels!

But an anchored vessel is not (in the colregs) exempt from the requirement to keep a proper lookout by all available means, and it has been argued (by the MAIB) that an anchored vessel should, if necessary, be prepared to cut her cable or drop it in order to avoid collision if it becomes necessary under Rule 17. FWLIW, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that one, and I don't know whether that case ever went to court!

If there were ever a collision between a NUC and an anchored vessel, I think my money would be on the NUC winning in court.
 
jfm said:
There is nothing in Colregs prohibiting dual-use of lights and therefore you may do it. Rules such as this and modern laws generally do not usually specify what you may do; only what you must and must not do

I don't think you would ever have both anchor light and RAM light together would you? I thought anchor light was top trumps in terms of stand on vessel, followed by RAM. It would be a strange message to send to others if you displayed both anchor and RAM. If i anchored next to you with just anchor light on and you drifted into me I would say you were wrong ie you were give way and I was stand on. It may not be illegal though, I dunno.
Click to expand...

The only vessels which are precluded from showing an anchor light while RAM are dredgers. The requirement to show RAM lights while engaged in launching or recovery of aircraft applies both underway and at anchor. Transferring persons, provisions or cargo RAM applies while underway,
Engaged in underwater operations (diving) shows anchor lights and RAM, laying submarine cables or pipelines shows anchor lights and RAM. Hope that clears things up.

You may want to have a look at the recent case of the Hebei Spirit if you think you are away and clear with your anchor lights up !!
CC
 
Last edited:
Lookout at anchor

While the Colregs are somewhat confusing in this regard (at all times...) and before some pedant jumps on it in the forum claiming that all owners of leisure craft need to sit up all night watching the owls, STCW and in particular STCW.7/Circ.14 makes it clear that in sheltered anchorages the keeping of a lookout is entirely up to the master.
CC
 
timbartlett said:
If there were ever a collision between a NUC and an anchored vessel, I think my money would be on the NUC winning in court.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that wasn't the question and is a total red herring. Mapis's proposal involves consideration of whether you would ever display RAM (not NUC) and anchor light at the same time (which has now been answered), and that led to the question of who would be stand-on in the case of a collison between an anchor light only vessel and a RAM+anchor light vessel
 
jfm said:
Mapis's proposal involves consideration of whether you would ever display RAM (not NUC) and anchor light at the same time
Click to expand...
Correct. My consideration of NUC lights was actually just a "free" consequence of fitting RAM lights - just a matter of proper wiring.
Actually, my initial thought was mainly related to RAM for night diving. This doesn't necessarily implies being anchored: while supporting a drift dive, the boat is under way and definitely in a RAM condition.
What Capt Cautious pointed out re. the "compatibility" of anchor+RAM is very interesting though, because it restricts my inital idea of using just one light for both anchor and RAM.
By the same token, I suppose that also the anchor and NUC are compatible, whenever a NUC boat drops the hook.
Anyway, thanks everybody, I can't imagine how my initial question could have been more accurately addressed. :)
 
timbartlett said:
It's an interesting quirk of the colregs that a vessel at anchor has no special status whatsoever!

Any "rights" (please note the inverted commas) that she may have arise from Rule 2, because it is obviously "the ordinary practice of seamen" to avoid driving into anchored vessels!

But an anchored vessel is not (in the colregs) exempt from the requirement to keep a proper lookout by all available means, and it has been argued (by the MAIB) that an anchored vessel should, if necessary, be prepared to cut her cable or drop it in order to avoid collision if it becomes necessary under Rule 17. FWLIW, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that one, and I don't know whether that case ever went to court!

If there were ever a collision between a NUC and an anchored vessel, I think my money would be on the NUC winning in court.
Click to expand...
Tim - years ago a ship with a techn. issue (cannot remember the detail) come into Flushing Anchorage and managed to hit 11 ships at anchor I think it was....

Reminds me of Newtown Creek a few bank holidays back!

Anyhow it was judged that some % blame went to the anchored ships for not acting
 
Yep, but do you mean "necessarily"?
What I meant is that if and when a NUC vessel manages to anchor... erm... before running aground, common sense suggests that NUC+anchor light would be appropriate.
 
MapisM said:
Yep, but do you mean "necessarily"?
What I meant is that if and when a NUC vessel manages to anchor... erm... before running aground, common sense suggests that NUC+anchor light would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I don't think there is such a status as NUC and anchored.
An NUC vessel anchored is still NUC.
In the case of a vessel 'restricted in ability to manouvre' the regulations specifically mention the additional use of anchor light. No mention for NUC.
 
Talulah said:
I may be wrong but I don't think there is such a status as NUC and anchored.
An NUC vessel anchored is still NUC.
In the case of a vessel 'restricted in ability to manouvre' the regulations specifically mention the additional use of anchor light. No mention for NUC.
Click to expand...
iirc - NUC lights and shapes are when underway.

When you are anchored being NUC is no longer an issue
 
mjf said:
iirc - NUC lights and shapes are when underway.

When you are anchored being NUC is no longer an issue
Click to expand...

Not having read up but applying some logic:
NUC and anchored is potentially still an issue.
An anchored vessel can be expected to up sticks and move.
Hence NUC at anchor is still NUC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top