Sailing retro low tech - legal risk?

There is a lot to be said for your approach as it helps develop the judgement and skills that will avoid difficulties and disaster. I think that having proper rescue equipment is desirable, even if its never used. And while I use traditional methods to sail and navigate the use of a plotter or Navionics when exploring new or little used anchorages is a real help. And as said in poor visibility or at night.

(New) and little used anchorages, in some parts of the world (Australia) have never been surveyed and are simply 'white' portions of the chart with the word 'Unsurveyed' printed in black across the white :).

The real world is a bit like the curates egg.

Sailing from Sydney to Hobart - get out to the 100 fathom line (as that's roughly where the East Australia Current will give you a decent lift) count the lighthouses and turn right at the appropriate number (which I forget) - its roughly a 550nm passage.

It seems to work as most yachts get there.

Jonathan :)
 
Even if you don't want a plotter cluttering up the place, Navionics or one of the other apps on your phone would be a useful safety precaution. A bit like a liferaft, you've no intention of using it, but if you need it, you'll be damned glad you have it. Unforecast fog is far from unknown, and it would be a shame to emulate Sir Cloudsley.
thats the thing with still having a method of GPS location on board and charts. It just wouldn't be instantly to hand or automatically plotted
 
(New) and little used anchorages, in some parts of the world (Australia) have never been surveyed and are simply 'white' portions of the chart with the word 'Unsurveyed' printed in black across the white :).

The real world is a bit like the curates egg.

Sailing from Sydney to Hobart - get out to the 100 fathom line (as that's roughly where the East Australia Current will give you a decent lift) count the lighthouses and turn right at the appropriate number (which I forget) - its roughly a 550nm passage.

It seems to work as most yachts get there.

Jonathan :)
Very true, and caution even in apparently charted areas is wise. We have encountered unmarked rocks in well charted UK areas. And sailing offshore is straightforward though perhaps knowing where you are is also wise!

I think the OP's point is whether it's negligent to not have or not use modern aids. I think it's OK providing you can substitute wisdom, experience and caution for them.

But I would still carry VHF and EPIRB in case!

Appreciate that your waters and many others are less well charted and frequented than ours.
 
First Mate and my cruise to Londonderry was made far simpler by the plotter. We could have achieved it without, but it would have been far more stressful, plenty of bearings taken, chartwork, estimating how far off we were, identifying the correct channel markers and cardinal marks.
How did you pass the time instead?

If the OP intends serious passage making a plotter and AIS will be of great benifit. If cruising in known waters he is familiar with, not so much.

Do you think Drake or Columbus would have turned one down had they been available?
I made it single handed to Sweden and back without a plotter, plus a few other North Sea crossings as well as the easy coastal pilotage as you say. As have probably all the older contributors here done similar. My fear is making it too easy and getting addicted to it. I think the happy medium is basic GPS on board as a back up and times when other position fixing isn't an option. Just wondering on the negligence thing but no one is coming with any examples that make me worry that its a risk
 
Negligent manslaughter. I'm not living in fear of this unlikely event but it could still be an outside possibility so I'm curious. Gross Negligence Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

There was someone recently, experienced boating person decided not to wear a lifejacket while on someone elses tender (IIRC) and drowned. Skipper of dinghy I think was legally pursued. Boat skippers even if a couple of mates in a dinghy are legally held to account.

If plotters are seen as basic safety equipment might I be considered negligent for not using one. Its at a point where AIS is seemingly considered basic safety gear now.

I'm unironically posting that the tour leader in the SUP deaths should be put in prison on the other thread. Should we be responsible to avail ourselves of every now available safety device...? Its not really comparable to what she did but I can't help wondering if i'm putting myself at risk even if I do everything else right if something goes wrong.
You only have to read your link to see how unlikely it is that not using navigational aids would ever pass any of the tests. Don't know the details of course but in your example of the dinghy death I very much doubt failing to wear a lifejacket would have any relevance. I suspect if there was a case it would first be to establish a duty of care (not difficult) then establish a breach - that is an act or omission by the skipper which caused the loss. These are really tough tests, as indeed they should be as the offence is serious with life imprisonment as the maximum sentence.

Most of the cases that go down this route in relation to boating involve activities where the duty of care is high - that is professional or commercial relationships and the breach clear - as in the Haverfordwest case. While duty of care is present in most everyday social encounters such as having a crew on board your private yacht, establishing a breach is much more difficult because there is not a professional relationship. Even if there was (for example a professional skipper), lack of navigational aids would not be considered a breach unless it was a coded boat where such equipment was a legal requirement (which I don't think it is). even then you would have to show that the lack was a cause and directly resulted in the death.

You can dream up all sorts of scenarios (that is what we do when we set exam questions) and subject them to the tests using case law (as in the link)and once you do that with your scenario you quickly realise that your fears are unfounded.
 
You only have to read your link to see how unlikely it is that not using navigational aids would ever pass any of the tests. Don't know the details of course but in your example of the dinghy death I very much doubt failing to wear a lifejacket would have any relevance. I suspect if there was a case it would first be to establish a duty of care (not difficult) then establish a breach - that is an act or omission by the skipper which caused the loss. These are really tough tests, as indeed they should be as the offence is serious with life imprisonment as the maximum sentence.

Most of the cases that go down this route in relation to boating involve activities where the duty of care is high - that is professional or commercial relationships and the breach clear - as in the Haverfordwest case. While duty of care is present in most everyday social encounters such as having a crew on board your private yacht, establishing a breach is much more difficult because there is not a professional relationship. Even if there was (for example a professional skipper), lack of navigational aids would not be considered a breach unless it was a coded boat where such equipment was a legal requirement (which I don't think it is). even then you would have to show that the lack was a cause and directly resulted in the death.

You can dream up all sorts of scenarios (that is what we do when we set exam questions) and subject them to the tests using case law (as in the link)and once you do that with your scenario you quickly realise that your fears are unfounded.
Yes I think you're right. At most I imagine it might appear in a report as a recommendation of what might have helped. Hard to imagine a situation where it could be the entire reason for failure but where I was doing normal sufficient navigation with other methods. If i wasn't doing that navigation then that would be the point of blame.
 
... I’d say there may be advantages for the kids in having a plotter from my experience: they seem to actually get a better spacial awareness of where we’ve been... You can have a rolling road etc which some people prefer to steer to...

That's the one section I'd strongly disagree with. In my experience people solely using GPS/Chartplotter, most especially in a rolling road mode, both afloat and driving on the roads have a reduced awareness; when the screen goes blank they're left without the first idea of where they are or even what direction they ought to be going.
 
UKHO are stopping printing in 4 yrs but others will continue. I think it’s wrong to even say paper charts will be unavailable for some never mind many waters.
Again it depends which waters people plan to sail in. NOAA I believe is stopping publishing paper charts sooner than UKHO, and UKHO produce the primary paper charts for many countries outside the UK (and it looks like they will stop well before 2026j.

In UK waters NV started introducing some excellent chart atlases, but didn’t cover much beyond the South coast. Imray publish excellent chart folios and have said they will continue for the foreseeable future. They recently added a new folio increasing coverage in Scotland.
But there are still many areas where the only non-UKHO paper chart is the Imray C series at circa 1:160,000, whereas the UKHO paper charts currently go to 1:25,000 where necessary. Personally I do not believe 1:160,000 is safe for close pilotage and going into rocky anchorages etc (1mm pinpoint covers 160m of water/mud/rocks - wider than most channels and anchorages where I sail).

Note the UKHO paper withdrawal was announced as “by 2026”, and apparently is starting as soon as this year, Dec 2022. So don’t rely on stopping printing “in 4 years”, could be much earlier. And no timetable yet for what stopping when, but will be based on “demand”. So low volume / low profit yachtie charts could be discontinued soonest, particularly in places like north Scotland (where fewest alternatives).

But my point was using paper “to teach the kids” may not help real world navigation for them. Enough old paper will be around to see out most of the old fogies on this forum, but not our children and grandchildren. It will be 100% electronic navigation - albeit hopefully with capabilities to cope with GNSS (eg GPS) unavailability.
 
I think one should look at it a little differently. Accidents are , fortunately, pretty rare. But they DO happen Even though they always happen to the other bloke. Someone has to be the "other" bloke.
So let's take the scenario where one has a perfectly good working chart plotter & , say, a similarly set up AIS transponder.
But due to one's desire to use old fashioned methods - perfectly understandable to most on this forum- they are turned off.
Then god forbid, one happens to be the "other" bloke.

What would be one's response to this remark from the coroner:-
Well sir, I see that you had a perfectly good chart plotter on board as well as a perfectly good working AIS. Is that correct?"
"Yes"
"It seems to me that the incident could have been avoided if these instruments had been deployed. Do you not agree?"
" Well err "
"So can you explain to the court why they were TURNED OFF in a busy shipping lane & why you FAILED to use them to full effect?"
"Errmmm"


So with that very hypothetical scenario ( well someone has to win the lottery) now tell us why you would not turn them on & keep an eye on them whilst sailing ?
In fact why one would not make use of modern technology, if at all within their means & applicable to the craft & its use, in question.

I suppose a similar argument could apply to any safety item or even procedure, on a boat, be it life jacket, harness line etc etc. But for the sake of the thread it is about navigation technology & its legal requirement, as asked by the OP.
 
Last edited:
So my question is if there is any precedence for someone doing something as it was done for hundred of years but when something goes wrong being prosecuted for negligence for not availing themselves of the latest tech? Having passengers its a bit of a worry but just wondering really.

No. Not that I am aware of and in any case there are people who cruise dinghies long distances. Your insurance company might have a different view but their view is about claim risk not legality. All you have to do is to follow colregs to the best of your ability and using all "available" means plus obey any harbour bye laws etc.

All IMHO of course and I am not a lawyer
 
did sailors of old just heave to for fear of hitting the bottom or was it that usually mist comes with no wind and so they had little choice?
With my first couple of boats I was sailing with paper charts, compass, and log, plus the latest electronic aids of echosounder and hand held RDF. Around the north of Scotland we often got thick fog with strong easterly winds. When I started teaching RYA shore based courses, and later practical courses, the techniques of blind navigation was an important part of the course.

I now have all the electronic toys and navigation into rock bound channels in fog has lost its satisfaction but is a lot safer.
 
But my point was using paper “to teach the kids” may not help real world navigation for them.
on that we are agreed! Paper charts will likely be available in one format or another for the life of anyone alive today - that might be Imray or others picking up where Admiralty drop out or it might be some sort of custom printing service but it’s not how any of our children’s peers will learn to navigate nor is the easiest / simplest method to do it. It would be like teaching my engineering student son how to use a slide rule. Possible, perhaps an interesting curiosity, but not something that makes him actually want to get involved.
What would be one's response to this remark from the coroner:-"
I love a hypothetical “what would you say to the coroner” argument. Do coroners actually cross examine witnesses? We don’t have them in Scotland, but I expect they would never be having the conversation you suggest, and if they tried you need better legal representation. If someone wanted to cross examine me on why I hadn’t used a chart plotter I would only need to show them the screen that appears when you turn it on. You have read that screen? The one that says it shouldn’t be used for navigation, right?
 
As everyone has said you have no legal requirements other than SOLAS and so have no liability provided you can show you are competent to navigate in whatever way you choose. Clearly that is not an issue and you have the great advantage of being untroubled if the fuses blow or the battery dies (ok no lights is an issue at night but you get my point)

Technology makes life easy but you have to keep sharp on what to do when it fails as it often does in the grand scheme of things

Its the same as people telling us not to sail on and off pontoons or backwind the jib to anchor -" why not use the engine ? " I have been sailing exactly 10 years now (including 5 years Med cruising full time) so when I started, all the tech was available and I admit I have it and use it all but I read a lot of old books and talked to a lot of older sailers to learn what to do when nothing works and we have regular practice days when cruising to keep fresh ... and its fun if you don't have to do it every day

Enjoy sailing unfettered but, on a serious and I hope not offensive note, if you are of advancing years , be honest about when your sharpness dulls off and look at how technology can keep you safely sailing as long as you want .
 
I love a hypothetical “what would you say to the coroner” argument. Do coroners actually cross examine witnesses? We don’t have them in Scotland, but I expect they would never be having the conversation you suggest, and if they tried you need better legal representation. If someone wanted to cross examine me on why I hadn’t used a chart plotter I would only need to show them the screen that appears when you turn it on. You have read that screen? The one that says it shouldn’t be used for navigation, right?
Their adverts generally sell them as "Chart Plotters". Why would they do that if not meant for that purpose? --So one can use them as such of course ? . The AIS does not carry that notice, on my boat at least.
The point is that I was trying to present a reason as to why one might think a chart plotter should be used. Clearly you do not think it should. You might think the same about life jackets & harness lines. Where is the difference?
But to each his own. I only presented my opinion.
 
I have a traditional boat but I’ve kitted it out like the 777s I used to fly. Like the aircraft there is no steering compass just a standby one like the E2B in all aircraft. I like my glass cockpit ?
Upstairs and downstairs ?View attachment 147500View attachment 147501
Do you ever throw anything away? ??
Your 777 is old school these days. My A220 puts it to shame! And similarly, I have all the information you have on one cockpit instrument and an iPad ? But I do have a classic magnetic compass for steering and a sextant for fun ???
 
I think one should look at it a little differently. Accidents are , fortunately, pretty rare. But they DO happen Even though they always happen to the other bloke. Someone has to be the "other" bloke.
So let's take the scenario where one has a perfectly good working chart plotter & , say, a similarly set up AIS transponder.
But due to one's desire to use old fashioned methods - perfectly understandable to most on this forum- they are turned off.
Then god forbid, one happens to be the "other" bloke.

What would be one's response to this remark from the coroner:-
Well sir, I see that you had a perfectly good chart plotter on board as well as a perfectly good working AIS. Is that correct?"
"Yes"
"It seems to me that the incident could have been avoided if these instruments had been deployed. Do you not agree?"
" Well err "
"So can you explain to the court why they were TURNED OFF in a busy shipping lane & why you FAILED to use them to full effect?"
"Errmmm"


So with that very hypothetical scenario ( well someone has to win the lottery) now tell us why you would not turn them on & keep an eye on them whilst sailing ?
In fact why one would not make use of modern technology, if at all within their means & applicable to the craft & its use, in question.

I suppose a similar argument could apply to any safety item or even procedure, on a boat, be it life jacket, harness line etc etc. But for the sake of the thread it is about navigation technology & its legal requirement, as asked by the OP.
well yes thats exactly the situation I was imagining myself in. And makes me think better to not have something i don't want to use rather than turn it off.

If I thought going without it was really dangerous I wouldn't do it anyway. End of the day a plotter is just a GPS and a chart in one device. I'm having a chart and numerous ways to position find inc a GPS to pull out if needed. So its not really going without anything other than convenience. Its just they are so ubiquitous now I wondered if they are de facto obligatory in some sense. But I think not on reflection

But not having AIS will I keep an even better look out and make sure I have a decent radar reflector. Rather than just relying on new tech which some other vessel might not have. I'm guessing the recent fishing boat and ferry both had AIS? In fact of course thats how we can see their tracks.

Its just the plotter, i have all the safety gear inc PLB.
 
a chart plotter I would only need to show them the screen that appears when you turn it on. You have read that screen? The one that says it shouldn’t be used for navigation, right?
haha ok I've not seen that. My car satnav sometimes freezes in a position for a while. Would be a shame to rely on it entirely for positioning
 
Top