What lights when not under command?

Re: I live it . . .

This thread just gets better and better - so many sea lawyers here . . .

On the occasion that I was referring to conditions were sufficiently bad for us to have retired below hove to under bare poles (yes it is possible) with the washboards in and the hatch snibbed. This is generally regarded as good seamanship among the long distance cruising fraternity, although it would no doubt be downright irresponsible in the solent. (We were 45nm NE of Porto Santo at the time, in the Atlantic ocean)

Hove to for lunch or to put in a reef is obviously not NUC. However, hove to or lying ahull under stress of weather with the crew safe below does however seem to come very close to the definition of NUC, so I thought the question was valid. In those seas and 40 knots of wind manoevering a 27 ft yacht to get out of the way of an oncoming ship would not have been easy even if we had seen it.

As regards lights - being seen was the priority, and what my or anyone else's insurance company might have to say was utterly irrelevant. We only have third party anyway. I suppose a container ship could have run us down and claimed for scratched paintwork or loss of earnings caused by having to stop and pick up the pieces, and then perhaps our 3rd party insurance might not have paid up . . . but frankly I find that a somwewhat unlikely situation.

An engine operating in neutral is not propelling machinery . . . so we were not operating propelling machinery. Some of you need to think a bit before you type.

(right - that should be enough to get a few of you going again . . . )

- Nick
 
IRPCS ..... common mistake

It is a common mistake to take IRPCS as cast in stone and absolute. Yes they are enforceable as Regs to prevent Collsions but ....

When they were written - the '72 version - they were delayed in implementation because of non-ratification by various Countries. The arguments mainly centred around meanings and interpretations. It also explains why some strange clauses are inserted ....
The whole point of the IRPCS is to prevent collision between two or more vessels. If you read them through - as Countries authorities found - there are many instances of vague or non-explicit writings. Some are too seemingly explicit and lead to such as this interpretation of engine running etc.

I can remember the lengthy debates ... 2nd Mates, Mates and Masters back when I was doing tickets on many issues with the IRPCS ........... many of which are still not fully sorted today. It was generally accepted in our debates - which included many Excellent Reputable Marine Authorites - that the IRPCS are a set of rules to organise vessels meeting at sea .... they have plenty of clauses that give let-outs particularly to allow Prudence and Act of Good Seamanship to be used ...

I don't mean to start an argument as to whether rules are rules etc. but they have to be read in context of what they are designed to do.

Rule 2 (I apologise that in a previous post I mis-numbered by saying Rule 1 !!) is specifically about the acts necessary to safeguard your and other vessels.
Rule 3c specifically mentions " ... propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used" This surely should be interpreted as propelling the vessel ...

......
 
Re: I live it . . .

[ QUOTE ]
hove to or lying ahull under stress of weather with the crew safe below does however seem to come very close to the definition of NUC

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to agree with you. There comes a time under stress of severe weather when it is obviously not possible to manoeuvre, such as you describe
 
Re: I live it . . .

We were off Finnisterre in Tomes "dusting" (Force 9) we could only really steer a course quartering to the waves - it was put out by Finnisterre Radio on an all Ships we were "a hazard to shipping and not under command"
we were still sailing!
 
Re: NUC or not

Becoming confused by this thread.

Your quote describes NUC thro stress of weather or interestingly by being becalmed.

Neither of these conditioned apply to the situation quoted ie hove to to ride out bad weather.

The boat is still under command - you could sheet in and sail away.

If not NUC then only appropriate nav lights should be shown.

If however the conditions were so bad that you were lying ahull or running trailing warps or even lying to a sea anchor then I would say you were not under control. You cannot simply sheet in or change course to resume control. Your engine is not able to drive the boat and you have no sail set so you have no means to change course/speed.

In those circumstances then I think there is an argument to show lots of lights since proper nav lights indicate you are able to change speed/direction - and you can't.

Or have I got it wrong - again
 
Re: NUC or not

We had no sail set . . . helm was lashed to leeward and was bringing her head up, somewhat, meaning boat was somewhere between lying ahull and hove to - and very comfortable in fact. No way of quickly altering course or direction. Thought I had made this clear - sorry.

Liked Ian's comment - considered NUC though still sailiing . . .

-Nick
 
Re: Lovely

Crikey Tome i'm glad i don't go to sea with some of this
lot, i hope for their sakes they are only wind up merchants.
Would be a worry if they meant it /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
Re: I live it . . .

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you need to think a bit before you type.

- Nick

[/ QUOTE ]

Nick, I certainly did think before I typed... it is just that you (and many others) don't agree with me but that doesn't mean that I didn't consider what I wrote before I typed it.

I think it depends on whether we are talking about common sense or whether we are talking about the strick interpretation of the rule should a lawyer get hold of it.

IMO I stick to my interpretation because it is safest... if my engine if OFF then it can never be misinterpreted by other skippers as in gear.

For example... in a situation where there were two yachts on a collision course and one had it's engine running but not actually in gear and the other had it's engine off. There could be a situation where the yacht with the engine off heard the engine running and believed the other yacht to be motoring and so had interpreted that he was the stand-on vessel. On the other hand the yacht that had it's engine on might be on starboard tack and consider himself to be the stand-on vessel.

So, a situation now exists where both skippers believe they are the stand-on vessel. I know about rule 2...

"(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."

None the less... it only needs two stubborn skippers that leaves it a little two late before taking avoiding action and we have the real potential for a collision.

In this situation the fact that the yacht had it's engine running but not in gear would not be a defence as he was NEVER the stand-on vessel and in assuming he was he created the situation.

OK, in that case if a real collision occured then as neither yacht actually applied rule 2 in sufficient time they could both be considered at blame but my point is that it would never be a defence to claim that as you engine was not in gear. You would know it is not in gear but other skippers might not.

So, if I have my engine running, in gear or not, I assume that other skippers may see smoke from my exhaust and hear my engine noise and may interpret that to mean I am under power and so assume that they are the stand-on vessel.
 
Re: NUC or not

[ QUOTE ]
...The boat is still under command - you could sheet in and sail away...

[/ QUOTE ]

think Nick and iangrant have answered this - I think tho' you might be too worried about semantics. IMHO "hove to" indicates direction is somewhat controlled - applies with sail and power vessels, and bow is aimed more or less into the sea; "lying ahull" means rudder amidship, bare poles/engines not propelling, and letting the sea carry you in the direction she wishes. This is my opinion only and I'm certainly open to correction or modification. I think either case can be considered NUC, even under sail or propulsion, particularly if altering from your course puts you in danger of broaching. Conversely, if one is just "drifting" (either hove to or lying ahull) say for lunch, and is able to make way and manoeuvre, then one is not NUC.

Kevin
 
Re: I live it . . .

[ QUOTE ]
So, if I have my engine running, in gear or not, I assume that other skippers may see smoke from my exhaust and hear my engine noise and may interpret that to mean I am under power and so assume that they are the stand-on vessel.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IRPCS have a very specific device to avoid this situation, it's called a motoring cone and should be shown where any doubt exists. The fact that it's rarely used doesn't change the rules

And I believe it would be a poor skipper who assumed, because of exhaust water or engine noise, that the other vessel was necessarily under power and therefore stood on into a collision
 
hang on ....

we are really digressing away from original ...

The guy was hove to all closed up huddling below out of the weather ... put on loads of lights to be seen .....

Now whether he had engine running or not to me is immaterial ... I think he did the right thing.

Now the "off-course" posting that now starts to talk about yachts meeting each other ... one seeing exhaust smoke, hearing engine etc. really is calm weather stuff and not relevant IMHO.

As to not going to sea with some .... because I dare to differ from a number on this thread - I assume that I am included in that "dastardly bunch" who you would not dare to go to sea with ... No problem (And I'm not complaining or bitching ....!!).
But let me try and describe the picture in my mind when I posted reply to this originally ....

Boat 27ft long out at sea ... weather is awful - such that skipper decides to call it a day and hove to, shut up shop and stick on lights ....

Nothing else ... Then I imagined myself as on the bridge of a ship ( dare I repeat I did do this for 17 yrs ... as did many on here ... and some still ...) ... would I see two tiny red lights hanging nay swinging about in a crosstrees of a 27ft boat amongst the rolling swell and waves ... or would I prefer to see a mass of light iluminating a yacht so that I can see it more easily ? (A matter that is an aside and just for the record ... if I did see such a thing ... I would call up on 16 and check on them - see if they needed assistance etc. - but that's me ....)

So that was my mental picture ... and I based my entire posts on that .....

So if that is unsafe .... well sorry I do not agree. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
Hey Tome ..... cut it out will yer !!!!

I have to agree with you AGAIN !!!! We'll be pals soon at this rate !!!

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: I live it . . .

Arny,

I see your point. Now that you've explained your reasoning, I can see how you came to your interpretation. Sorry but I don't agree with it. Smoke could come from a diesel stove; engine noise could be a generator. The rules specifically point out that the propelling machinery is being used, in part or wholely, for propulsion - not that it is running or at immediate notice to do so. By your interpretation, a sailing vessel fitted with electric motors would be considered a power-driven vessel as long as there's juice in the batteries, as the engines are a simple flick of the switch from being usable.

Kevin
 
Standing into danger!

Nigel and Tome,

What are you two on about? I think you're both dangerously close to agreeing with me /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top