dunedin
Well-Known Member
Unless applying a space time continuum, “at all times” means ….. well, at all times, including when not underway.
(Unless there is another formal definition or caveat written into the words.)
Sunken yacht in Solent
- Thread starter wonkywinch
- Start date
(Unless there is another formal definition or caveat written into the words.)
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
The IRPCS are absolutely terrible at defining their terms. The attitude was to write something woolly and let people search through world wide court cases to find out what they mean.
Compare that to the RRS over the last 30 years where they started afresh and now revise them to make them clearer every 4 years. And it's worked, the rules are night and day clearer than they were when I was a lad. Plus the case book is cheap and online: Racing Rules of Sailing.
Having said all that, hard to imagine a moored boat would be considered to be in an "exceptional circumstance".
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
So what is the definition of underway?
Little Tern
Member
Oh dear, you do need help with the colregs, don't you?
Rule 3(i) The word 'underway' means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.
Not sure of the relevance though, as rule 5 applies to all vessels at all times, whether underway or not.
If the intention was that rule 5 should only apply to vessels underway, I would expect it to read "Every vessel when underway shall at all times maintain a proper look-out". But it doesn't.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Loving the progression of this thread:
"All rules must be obeyed without exception or your insurance is invalidated" --> "some rules don't matter" --> "At least one rule is clearly nonsense.".
Some people have been on quite a journey over the last 15 pages.
"All rules must be obeyed without exception or your insurance is invalidated" --> "some rules don't matter" --> "At least one rule is clearly nonsense.".
Some people have been on quite a journey over the last 15 pages.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
That would make a lot of sense now, wouldn't it.
So would 'an anchor watch is required to be kept at all times'
But neither is in the rules, or I suspect, in marks cock book.
And in #282 actually found something that I can agree with him.....
Little Tern
Member
No, what the rules say is that "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
Which shouldn't be this hard for some people to understand.
ylop
Well-Known Member
I think there is a subtle difference though. IRPCS are practical rules which are intended to be applied as early as possible, with a degree of common sense and self-preservation and where only an idiot would intentionally invite themselves into an "inquiry" to score "points", despite what it may seem like from the forum. The RRS are, by their nature pushed to the absolute limit, tested and challenged and racing sailors seem to enjoy a petty argument in front of the protest committee.
I've not tried but the absence of case law isn't definitive. There must be cases where an unattended leisure craft has been hit by another vessel. If those cases usually settle with a payout in full to the anchored vessel then no case law arises because the point was seemingly so uncontentious that the parties didn't dispute it. Even when there is a dispute I think most marine claims never make it to court, with arbitration being preferred, so you need really deep pockets to try and prove the point you are aiming to make, whether that is to try to argue that vessels that collide with anchored, unattended vessel have no, or significantly reduced liability, or that a claim
Of course, theoretically failing to follow the Colregs is a criminal matter in most jurisdictions. Given that the practice of small pleasure boats being left unattended at anchor/mooring is common globally, it is somewhat surprising that if the interpretation is correct, no prosecutions have been pursued, it would seem easy money for countries that actually enforce things like anchor balls to issue fines for not keeping a proper lookout on anchor too. Perhaps no prosecutor is willing to risk asking the courts to make a decision on something which seems to be an internationally accepted custom and practice.
It is interesting that if your strict interpretation also applies to moorings the Crown Estate have licensed my mooring with lots of conditions but no such stipulation and the Scottish Government Marine Directorate had opinions on its location, including getting input from the MCA which included a lot of expectations about notices to mariners for dive operations during its installation, but nothing about expectations for manning or vessels left on the mooring.
Little Tern
Member
Loving the progression of this thread:
"All rules must be obeyed without exception or your insurance is invalidated" --> "some rules don't matter" --> "At least one rule is clearly nonsense.".
Some people have been on quite a journey over the last 15 pages.
It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance: where people unknowingly hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.
If you believe that "I always obey colregs" and also "I don't always maintain an anchor watch", then if someone comes along and says "but colregs says you must keep an anchor watch", then there is a dissonance. A truly rational approach would be to challenge the existing beliefs and the new information equally, and if necessary be prepared to accept "I don't always obey colregs". But none of us are truly rational. One common response is to selectively ignore or deny the new information, as it conflicts with existing beliefs. Which is understandable. And of course in a public forum, a person with a strong sense of their correctness may have difficulty saying "you're right, I was mistaken". But carry those too far, and we end up in ridiculous situations arguing that "at all times" must really mean "sometimes".
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
That's my point. For there to be case law to say that (say) a vessel tied up at a dock didn't need to keep a lookout there would need to be a collision where the boat underway blamed the tied up boat and it went to court. Most likely as you say it would be uncontentious, in which case the lack of lookout is irrelevant and therefore no case law regarding lookouts. Alternatively the lack of a lookout really had contributed to the collision in which case the court is hardly going to say "Yeah, it's fine, the lack of a lookout contributed to this disaster, but you didn't need a lookout.".
So I see no path whatsoever where there could be case law that you don't need to keep a lookout "at all times". (Maybe someone can find some, though.)
Rule 5 means exactly what it says. In law undefined terms are given their ordinary, everyday meaning. People can imagine situations where "at all times" makes no sense, but unless they are situations where the lack of the watch could cause a collision that was caused by the lack of watch they really don't matter. If you're tied up in your Marina and there's a situation where your lack of a watch causes a collision, then yeah, you broke rule 5 and it might matter. Can't say I lose much sleep over it, but maybe that's just my lack of imagination.
Chiara’s slave
Well-Known Member
The law is renowned for an absolute lack of common sense. I now realise that if I were to clobber a moored boat in a marina, all I have to do is sue him, as he wasn’t keeping a watch as per rule 5
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
You say that but last weekend we went Bembridge, which was nice and I kept a lookout.
The week before, we left on the start of the ebb and went quantum tunneling through a wormhole to a parallel universe. So that weekend we didn't bother with a lookout.
...and if his failure to keep a watch caused the collision then you'd win. Reckon you'd get far with that argument? I don't, I reckon the blame would fall on you. In much the same way if you collided with a tied up boat who didn't have a VHF license you couldn't say "He's breaking the rules so it's his fault I hit him and he has to pay."
Last edited:
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile:
The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea (COLREGs) do not require a continuous anchor watch at all times but mandate a "proper look-out" by sight, hearing, and all available means to assess the situation and risk of collision. The need for a constant watch, or more intermittent checks, depends on the prevailing circumstances and conditions, such as heavy traffic, strong tides, or other factors that might increase the risk of an incident. The vessel's master is ultimately responsible for ensuring an adequate watch is maintained for the specific conditions.
but that may be open to interpretation, especially by people on here. The usual suspects.
Roberto
Well-Known Member
Two documents with IMO ''guidance'' could be useful
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Documents/STCW7 Circulars/14.pdf
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...IMOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.285(8).pdf
finestgreen
Well-Known Member
Appropriate in the prevailing circumstances
Little Tern
Member
Meanwhile:
The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea (COLREGs) do not require a continuous anchor watch at all times but mandate a "proper look-out" by sight, hearing, and all available means to assess the situation and risk of collision. The need for a constant watch, or more intermittent checks, depends on the prevailing circumstances and conditions, such as heavy traffic, strong tides, or other factors that might increase the risk of an incident. The vessel's master is ultimately responsible for ensuring an adequate watch is maintained for the specific conditions.
but that may be open to interpretation, especially by people on here. The usual suspects.
Why do you say that the colregs " do not require a continuous anchor watch at all times" when rule 5 literally says ""Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out"? Or is it that the colregs don't use the term Anchor Watch?
Are your links intended to back up your assertion? Because they're just links to google searches. Or are you relying on the AI summaries? If so, Wow!
But if you're a fan of AI summaries, here's another for you: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/do-the-colregs-mandate-an-anch-0d1UzR.CSwugJqcfuRkrzQ which includes: "Under Rule 5 of the COLREGs, all vessels, whether underway or at anchor, must maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing, using all available means appropriate to prevailing circumstances and conditions. " with references
Now, as it happens, I agree with you that in practice, one's watchkeeping will depend on the prevailing circumstances and conditions. But the regs themselves don't allow for that.
Last edited:
Little Tern
Member
My parsing of the sentence is:
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out
* by sight
* and hearing
* as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions
so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision
My reading is that the lookout shall be at all times, must include sight, must include hearing, and must include "all available means appropriate", so might include radar in fog if fitted.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
You're right. It says "as well as". So sight and hearing are required at all times. Other means in addition as required.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
as well as
Chiara’s slave
Well-Known Member
How about Roberto’s documents. Which say you must keep a watch if anchored in open water. That certainly implies you don’t need to in your favourite sheltered overnight spot.