Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[boatman61]

You guys are more than welcome to use your anchor light when hove to...
I will stick to my red, green and stern light which gives any boat approaching an indication of which direction my nose is pointing and anything approaching from the stern knows to alter to port or starboard to steer clear.
Its worked just fine to date.. but dont let me stop you guys from your fun.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Love it!!

In my mind this is me discussing a discount at the chandlery ..

Totally OT, but I just caught the last couple of minute of this last night on Oz ABC:

Monkey (Magic) is being rebooted. Here's why '80s kids loved the original TV show - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Jim Cate]

I have been passed by other sailboats at sea, within 50’, with their having no running lights, and no one on watch. It is VERY hard to see such a boat!

Unlit boats are obviously very very wrong, immoral and illegal. But in the case you present as evidence of why continuous watchkeeping is necessary...

Mark, how do you know no one was on watch? I've had plenty of boats under full command pass within 50 feet of me whilst I maintained course and speed to my best ability. In this case, if you could hardly see t he vessel, how could you see if there was someone on watch?

You mention sailing quite near to floating debris, etc, so you must feel that your helmsmanship is good enough to make that a safe practice... perhaps the skipper of that unlit boat felt the same way, and was in control all the while. Bad juju by your and my standards, but hell, he could see you and knew he would miss the collision.

All conjecture for sure, but all the quoted anecdotal "near misses" that folks have experienced don't support the view that there have been many collisons at sea due to a singlehanded sailor not keeping adequate watch... nor losses of life or property due to rescue efforts resulting from such collisions... nor bereavement of the families of the lost solo sailors who have perished in collisions. There are a few examples of soloists running into reefs, rocks, islands and continents, but AFAIK no one else has been harmed by such events. And for sure there have been solo sailors lost at sea, but no evidence that the losses were due to collisions or other failures of watchkeeping... more likely MOB losses, I suspect.

For the folks who say that to cause ANY incremental risk to others is unacceptable behavior... well, extremism in any form is questionable, and picking on solo sailing at sea as an immoral activity even though there isn't evidence that it has caused losses smacks of extremism to me. You are entitled to your opinions; I don't share these.

Jim

PS To defuse any thoughts that I'm trying to justify my own behavior, while I've done singlehanded ocean racing in the past, they were all <24 hours in duration, and our practice whilst cruising is to stand watch routinely.

[TeddyDiver]

The basic dilemma is not if one is single handed or not but what's adequate watch. Nobody in any vessel (except on a war ship) has someone with binoculars wathing around constantly, never..
But what is adaquate? Every five minutes, every fifteen minutes? That of course depends of the circumstances, trafic and weather. You moraly superior beings answer that please

Teddy

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The basic dilemma is not if one is single handed or not but what's adequate watch. Nobody in any vessel (except on a war ship) has someone with binoculars wathing around constantly, never..
But what is adaquate? Every five minutes, every fifteen minutes? That of course depends of the circumstances, trafic and weather. You moraly superior beings answer that please

Teddy

I'll answer that .... We actually have two morally superior beings onboard and one is always at the wheel.

PS. One does not require binoculars to be on watch altho' we do have two pair at the wheel.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by conachair

It's implicit loud and clear. You think single handing is wrong therefore shouldn't happen.

Luckily the real world doesn't listen

Work on your reading comprehension. I never suggested any such thing.

Either you believe the rules are there for good reason for all our safety or you don't. Your moral compass depends on which path you take.

I never assigned which one you should believe. You are the one who made the jump ready to defend your actions without provocation.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The basic dilemma is not if one is single handed or not but what's adequate watch. Nobody in any vessel (except on a war ship) has someone with binoculars wathing around constantly, never..
But what is adaquate? Every five minutes, every fifteen minutes? That of course depends of the circumstances, trafic and weather. You moraly superior beings answer that please

Teddy

Dunno about being MS, but I reckon an adequate watch is one that prevents a collision. No collision = adequate watch. While some may argue otherwise, clearly the reverse is true. Collision = inadequate watch.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The basic dilemma is not if one is single handed or not but what's adequate watch. Nobody in any vessel (except on a war ship) has someone with binoculars wathing around constantly, never..
But what is adaquate? Every five minutes, every fifteen minutes? That of course depends of the circumstances, trafic and weather. You moraly superior beings answer that please

Teddy

This is a great question, very relevant.

One of my recurring nightmares is that I'm not looking and run into something. I wake up in a cold sweat.

I almost ran into a buoy once in North Brittany. A big ugly rusty steel one. Scared the carp out of me. I was on deck and actually behind the helm, and thought I was keeping an adequate watch but just didn't see it until it was sliding by the starboard side a couple of meters away. Taught me a valuable lesson.

I think an "adequate watch" is looking out more or less constantly, scanning the horizon. I believe that's the standard on well-run commercial vessels. And I think about 0.0% of recreational sailors do it like that. We simply don't have the manpower for it. There are too many other things to do on passage and too few people to do it all plus rotate watchkeepers to have someone constantly staring out like that. So I think better run yachts at least have someone in the cockpit NOT reading a book and scanning the horizon regularly, but that's really not, by itself, an "adequate watch".

For me, the answer is to do the best we can with the visual watch -- horizon scan every few minutes, watchkeeper alert and on deck and not distracted too much by conversation or a meal or whatever -- and this takes a lot of discipline. PLUS a really good electronic watch -- and I think this is the key thing for us. AIS with alarms set according to the situation and adjusted as often as necessary, radar guard zones, with radar carefully tuned and guard zones adjusted as often as necessary.

[boatman61]

Methinks theres to much scanning of the horizon and not enough looking under your nose...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Dunno about being MS, but I reckon an adequate watch is one that prevents a collision. No collision = adequate watch. While some may argue otherwise, clearly the reverse is true. Collision = inadequate watch.

So if you are driving, get distracted and run a red light at a busy intersection but by pure chance you slip thru a gap in traffic without an accident....you done good at driving and should continue to run red lights without paying attention to traffic?

[boatman61]

I have got to wonder how many of the posters on here actually sail at night.. I remember in a past thread along similar lines someone claiming that they could see a boats lights 12 miles away..
While this may be true of large ships the smaller freighters are often not visible till just a couple of miles away headed toward you as they tend to darken ship.. once past they are bright at the stern.
A sailboat however is even harder to spot and often will not be spotted till 1 mile or often much less away.. depending on conditions at the time.. their lights are only rated for 2 miles under optimal conditions so if your scanning the horizon your looking right past them.. same with buoys.. so many cannot see them till the last moment because they are looking to far.
Learn how your optics work and you will see so much more out there..

[peter57]

The posters who think it is immoral to SH also must think that Joshua Slocum along with all the other famous single handers were, lucky for Pirates morals, they were mostly always crewed.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by peter57

The posters who think it is immoral to SH also must think that Joshua Slocum along with all the other famous single handers were, lucky for Pirates morals, they were mostly always crewed.

These references always confuse me. Just because there is a popular book in the cruising community about the guy doesn't make him a saint or an excellent seaman.

Should we all hold the Kardashians up as paragons of virtue because they are plastered all over the place?

PS: Your pirate comparison is faulty logic. Not breaking one moral rule doesn't mean you can't break other moral rules. Example: If I don't lie, it's therefore OK to murder?

PPS: Not saying it's moral or not moral just addressing logical falsies in the argument.

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a great question, very relevant.

One of my recurring nightmares is that I'm not looking and run into something. I wake up in a cold sweat.

I almost ran into a buoy once in North Brittany. A big ugly rusty steel one. Scared the carp out of me. I was on deck and actually behind the helm, and thought I was keeping an adequate watch but just didn't see it until it was sliding by the starboard side a couple of meters away. Taught me a valuable lesson.

I think an "adequate watch" is looking out more or less constantly, scanning the horizon. I believe that's the standard on well-run commercial vessels. And I think about 0.0% of recreational sailors do it like that. We simply don't have the manpower for it. There are too many other things to do on passage and too few people to do it all plus rotate watchkeepers to have someone constantly staring out like that. So I think better run yachts at least have someone in the cockpit NOT reading a book and scanning the horizon regularly, but that's really not, by itself, an "adequate watch".

For me, the answer is to do the best we can with the visual watch -- horizon scan every few minutes, watchkeeper alert and on deck and not distracted too much by conversation or a meal or whatever -- and this takes a lot of discipline. PLUS a really good electronic watch -- and I think this is the key thing for us. AIS with alarms set according to the situation and adjusted as often as necessary, radar guard zones, with radar carefully tuned and guard zones adjusted as often as necessary.

DH,

When reading the above it occurs to me that you may never have spent any time at sea aboard a cargo ship. So, here is a thought -- there are cargo ships that are set up to carry up to 12 passengers. This might be something to add to your bucket list. It is a very relaxed atmosphere with a friendly crew, access to the entire ship, and an opportunity to observe all aspects of the ship's operations. A quick google found this page: https://wikitravel.org/en/Freighter_travel

[conachair]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Work on your reading comprehension. I never suggested any such thing.

Either you believe the rules are there for good reason for all \.

You might want to look up the definition of implicit.

And the world is not such a black and white place, as already been discussed in some ways a solo boat with good electronics can be keeping a better offshore watch than a crewed boat keeping to rule 5.

Anyway, luckily the real word doesn't care about internet rants when there is no problem to fix