Is Singlehanding >24 Hrs. Morally Wrong?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

DH, you are a stickler for precision in these matters - so let me be picky and correct you here . . . Singlehanding does not per say violate the COLREGS at all. There is only a violation if/when improper watchkeeping happens.

OK, you got me!


You are absolutely correct. A single-hander, if he is bionic and never sleeps, or never sleeps more than whatever is -- objectively! -- a period of time which is not so long as to prevent him from keeping a "proper lookout by sight and hearing" "at ALL times" -- is in compliance with the Rules.


Thanks for the correction.






But if we'll be serious for a moment --


It requires certain resources to do everything which is needed on board on an ocean passage. It's not just sleeping -- sometimes you have to fix stuff, you have to cook, you have to navigate, there are all kinds of things which will keep you from looking out. It's hard enough with two people, but single-handed I guess it would be not too much of a stretch to say that it's impossible to do everything and also get a minimal amount of sleep and still "keep a proper lookout by sight and by hearingat all times."

[Pelagic]

Dockhead, you cannot "assume" anything.

However you can increase your level of confidence in their alertness if you have trained "competent and committed" watchkeepers, who are aware that you are checking on them regularly.

It is all you can expect

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Given the way "morality" is being used in this discussion, I think the relevant questions are:

#1 is "immorality" binary (eg yes or no - rather than a spectrum of levels) - I personally would say that it is definitely not binary (eg driving over the speed limit is a very low level of immorality while the holocaust is a high level)

and #2 at what point "immoral" = "don't do". It is "Immoral" to drive faster than the speed limit, to be overweight (which places a healthcare burden on the rest of society), to get drunk, and many many other relatively common things which place a slight extra burden or risk on society; some of which I rather suspect many of the people here do, including those who are saying singlehanding is immoral.

As I said way way back up thread . . . . the incremental risks which single handers are creating for others are infinitesimal (based on empirical facts). So, from at least one perspective that means the amount of "immorality" is infinitesimal and thus probably should be 'acceptable in common practice" to those who also drive over the speed limit, are overweight or who occasionally get drunk.

I think the non binary status of morality is well stated but from my experience the risks to me from boats that don't keep a watch, whether from singlehanding or other is a bit more than infinitesimal. Very small but not approaching zero. In my fairly limited offshore passages, maybe 25,000 total miles over 40 years, I have twice had to dodge other sailboats that were not keeping watch.

The one that came closest to a collision was about halfway between Port Antonio Jamaica and the Windward Passage. In the middle of a very dark, moonless night I came within 50-60' of a head on collision with another sailboat. Not only was there no one on watch but they also had no running lights showing. If I had not been on deck, watching closely and dodged at the minute when I saw the sails looming ahead we would have hit.

Of course I don't know if the other boat was solo or fully crewed but either way, the issue is watch standing. I agree that the risks to other boats from those not standing watch is very small but it does exist. It has the effect of placing the responsibility for collision avoidance solely on me and not as a shared responsibility as I feel it should be.

[john61ct]

Does anyone think a prohibition against stealing, protecting property rights, should be held as sacrosanct in the face of a father stealing bread to feed his starving children?

Of course, the answer is yes.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Given the way "morality" is being used in this discussion, I think the relevant questions are:

#1 is "immorality" binary (eg yes or no - rather than a spectrum of levels) - I personally would say that it is definitely not binary (eg driving over the speed limit is a very low level of immorality while the holocaust is a high level)

and #2 at what point "immoral" = "don't do". It is "Immoral" to drive faster than the speed limit, to be overweight (which places a healthcare burden on the rest of society), to get drunk, and many many other relatively common things which place a slight extra burden or risk on society; some of which I rather suspect many of the people here do, including those who are saying singlehanding is immoral.

As I said way way back up thread . . . . the incremental risks which single handers are creating for others are infinitesimal (based on empirical facts). So, from at least one perspective that means the amount of "immorality" is infinitesimal and thus probably should be 'acceptable in common practice" to those who also drive over the speed limit, are overweight or who occasionally get drunk.

I always get nervous when anyone tries to define or grade Morality as if it exists.

They will use some form of Utilitarian Philosophy to try and make it more than a fluctuating construct.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/bra...tarianism.html

For Morality to be considered real it would need to exist outside of the easily influenced opinions of a tribal group.

Killing is wrong, except in war where it is ok to do so... (on both sides)... Yet if those same soldiers are starving, its immoral to eat your dead enemy ( with exceptions in some remote tribes)

While the Tenets of most religions are extremely compassionate, the "moral" interpretation in the name of those religions have been the catalyst for the most bloodthirsty events in human history.

To put this solo sailer discussion...into context ....

Darwin never judged who "should" or "should not" survive. He only observed.... Who stood the best chance! [emoji57]

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Dockhead, you cannot "assume" anything.

However you can increase your level of confidence in their alertness if you have trained "competent and committed" watchkeepers, who are aware that you are checking on them regularly.

It is all you can expect

Well, a couple of points to this.


First of all, I think the point made above by OldMan whatsit -- that visual watchkeeping, as important as it is, has limits of efficacy, no matter how well it is done. I think this is a profound and important point.


Second -- I absolutely agree with you, and I think I made the point myself, that just "having someone on watch" hardly means anything, without considering how well the watch is actually being kept.


I'm not sure prior training means much, at least not when you're talking about yachtsmen. In fact my experience is kind of the opposite. I think the normal standards of watchkeeping on yachts are actually very poor -- that there is a culture of poor watchkeeping on sailboats. A striking and vivid example of this culture is in the record of the Clipper Round the World Race groundings and collisions:


https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/grou...ted-yacht-cv24


Watchkeeping is just one aspect of situational awareness -- awareness of where the yacht is at any given time and what obstacles and hazards there are. What is described in the MAIB report is a whole culture of cluelessness which I don't believe is at all specific to Clipper -- it reflects the way private yachts are run in general.



I have a lot of volunteer crew on my boat, of varying experience levels. The absolute worst watchkeepers (and navigators) I have on board are not indeed the beginners, but the RYA-trained yachtmasters or coastal skippers who don't have a boat of their own, who pursue the sport as a hobby based in theory and occasional charters or volunteer crewing, and especially the ones who are accustomed to a party atmosphere in the cockpit as you might expect to have when you charter a boat in a vacation destination.



I get quite good watchkeeping out of beginners who are willing to listen and learn. They take it seriously when you tell them to. I find it helps a lot to impress upon them that they are DRIVING -- like driving a car. I also get good watchkeeping out of former commercial mariners -- I guess they get proper instruction, unlike what you get in RYA zero to hero courses. But once bad habits are formed -- especially the habit of being on watch without devoting any concentration to actual watchkeeping -- then this is really hard to deal with.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, a couple of points to this.


First of all, I think the point made above by OldMan whatsit -- that visual watchkeeping, as important as it is, has limits of efficacy, no matter how well it is done. I think this is a profound and important point.

I am actually confused as to why this distinction is even being discussed.... It's not an either or!
You use all available means both electronic and human senses to maintain a proper lookout.

I also don't need to explain to you the severe limitations on small yacht radars on automatic settings, for early detection.
A proper lookout on radar is manually tuning for changing conditions.

Totally agree on the second point. Sometimes you have to "untrain" so called licensed and experienced crew who have pick up bad habits and standards.

Like you, crew with no experience often become the best watch keepers...and at the risk of being considered sexist.!
Women make the best!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I am actually confused as to why this distinction is even being discussed.... It's not an either or!
You use all available means both electronic and human senses to maintain a proper lookout.

Of course one doesn't exclude the other, but the context is really important, in my opinion. The point was made in response to thunderous pronouncements about the morality of single-handing, which seemed to have as a premise the idea that visual watchkeeping is some kind of be-all and end-all -- the point is that it is not, that the whole affair is a complex process. It also supports the idea that while not keeping constant visual watch is a violation, it is only one piece of the whole process, and it is not right to obsess over one piece without putting it into context.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Like you, crew with no experience often become the best watch keepers...and at the risk of being considered sexist.!
Women make the best!

I discovered during my business career that women are better, at most things. Sad for me, as a man, to admit, but it seems to be a fact. And for watchkeeping -- definitely. Women watchkeepers are, in my experience, far less susceptible to that kind of arrogant insouciance which is so characteristic of the male of the species -- "Why I'M in the cockpit! What else do you want?"

[Mr B]

Just a small point,
How many freighters are chugging across the world with no one on the bridge after they set their course,
They can have up to 30 people on board, All Crew,

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It also supports the idea that while not keeping constant visual watch is a violation, it is only one piece of the whole process, and it is not right to obsess over one piece without putting it into context.

Not to belabor the point and not a comment on just solo sailors..

... but it could be argued that the Visual Lookout is the Last and Best defence against hitting something. That the rest are:... Aids not Substitutes

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Not to belabor the point and not a comment on just solo sailors..

... but it could be argued that the Visual Lookout is the Last and Best defence against hitting something. That the rest are:... Aids not Substitutes

I don't disagree at all. Well said. It doesn't contradict anything which I've said, incidentally.

[OldManMirage]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, a couple of points to this.


First of all, I think the point made above by OldMan whatsit --.

Lol

Hey, its OldManMirage. That's MIRAGE.

I don't make fun with your name - even if it does cry out for it !



Here's a fun tale from my Navy days, just to illustrate the "many eyes."

We often held man overboard drills where we would throw a bright orange 6' tall dummy over the side. "Bob" floated spread-eagled on top of the water. The ship would have to turn around and go find him of course.

We had about a 50% success rate of recovery. On one 6 month deployment we only had 2 "Bobs." After we lost the 2nd we would throw a spray painted barrel in the water. Interestingly, the recovery rate was about the same !


Also shows you should watch out for floating barrels.

[cuffy]

Having never been on the bridge of a big ship what can you actually see at night and the other side do crew step outside to hear anything? Or just cosies up inside?

[David M]

In a nutshell, not having a proper watch is illegal under the COLREGS, but I would not call that immoral. I would just call it more risky. But then, going to sea is also risky. One always tries to minimize the risk of going to sea to the best of ones ability but one will never eliminate the risk of going to sea. It's a judgment call of how much risk one is willing to accept and there is no right or wrong answer.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But if we'll be serious for a moment --

Sure let's be serious a moment lol . . . you pick on others lack of preciseness all the time. The point I made is exactly why various very picky officials do not take action against single handers. Because there is no violation per say. That is a relatively serious distinction.

I guess it would be not too much of a stretch to say that it's impossible to do everything and also get a minimal amount of sleep and still "keep a proper lookout by sight and by hearing[I]at all times".

Again, let's be serious . . . for a 1-day passage you say it would be "impossible"? For a 2 day passage? For 4 days? You are making a blanket statement that singlehanding is a sure violation and that is just absolutely not true, even with adding the 'ocean passage' qualification which you did you initially include (because there can surely be 2-day ocean passages.

........