What do single handlers do at night?

[skenn_ie]

I don't believe in Poseidon ! Manannan mac Lir is the only sea-God.


Sorry, I couldn't resist writing that :-P


If you are cruising offshore, the chances of meeting another vessel are slim. Meeting them when you are asleep in your bunk, very slim. If you are close to shore, try to have internet connectivity and check one of the many "shipfinder" websites, or just come into shallow water and drop your hook for 12 hours. Being overtired is a danger to yourself and others. Better to be alert for 21 hours and asleep for 3, than asleep at the helm for 24.

[cj88]

It's been a number of years since I have slept for at least 6 hours (4-5hrs is the norm these days and for a while it was more like 2-3) so I guess I'm screwed.

[skenn_ie]

Difficult to see against a field of stars ? Was it a masthead light (I presume YES, if it was Tricolour) ? In these days of high-efficiency LED luminaries, I think the required brightness should be increased dramatically. Masthead strobe (not too bright) with bicolour fwd, and separate sternlight would seem good too. I wonder if any research has been done to determine what is the best flash energy/duration, to be visible, but not enough to reduce night-vision ?

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by skenn_ie

Difficult to see against a field of stars ? Was it a masthead light (I presume YES, if it was Tricolour) ? In these days of high-efficiency LED luminaries, I think the required brightness should be increased dramatically. Masthead strobe (not too bright) with bicolour fwd, and separate sternlight would seem good too. I wonder if any research has been done to determine what is the best flash energy/duration, to be visible, but not enough to reduce night-vision ?

I have the red-over-green configuration conforming to COLREGs Rule 25(c). The red light is a 2-mile all-around light, and the green light is actually four green 2-mile sidelights (spaced so closely horizontally that they appear as a single light) with overlapping sectors to prevent blanking from the sail heads, and mounted on the mast sides 1 meter below the red all-around. The red light is elevated 500 mm above the masthead, so the greens are only 500 mm (20 inches) below the masthead.

According to the annexes in the COLREGs, a 1 meter vertical separation can be distinguished with the unaided eye at a distance of 1 mile. It is the minimum-required vertical separation for my 8 meter boat. (How many fishing boats have you seen with non-compliant vertical spacings of the red-over-white lights of only a few inches?)

I've received a lot of comments at how noticeable the lights are at a distance. And so many questions about what the configuration means (ironically always from sailors) that I've photocopied the 25(c) definition page from the COLREGs to hand out at dockside.

The goal of getting lights up high on the mast is a good one. But tri-color lights are just not a good idea these days when extra LED lights consume only a trickle of electrons.

I also have an FAA "TSOed" aircraft strobe at the masthead. I use that only as a recognition light when the situation calls for it. I'm thinking about connecting it to automatically activate when my AIS alarm sounds.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by David M

Technically you are breaking the law (COLREG's) by not having a "proper watch", so single-handers don't have any choice but to break the law. That's how it is.

Always wondered about this especially when the USCG gives race organizers permits to run multiday sailboat races skippered by singlehanders. The CG must know something about the Colregs.

[mark_morwood]

Originally Posted by gamayun

Always wondered about this especially when the USCG gives race organizers permits to run multiday sailboat races skippered by singlehanders. The CG must know something about the Colregs.

I doubt the USCG is actually giving permits to the offshore component of multi-day singlehanded sailboat races as I don't believe they have permitting responsibility outside US waters. Obviously starts and finishes may be in US waters and permitted, but I don't think anyone is planning on being asleep for those!

Having raced single-handed offshore, my approach was:
- I did everything I could to reduce the risk to others and me within the constraints of being single-handed (researched, practiced and planned sleep to optimise performance and minimise risk, used available electronic tools, made sure I was showing appropriate lights and signals, adapted plans to conditions etc)
- I knew I was operating in conflict with ColRegs and if I was involved in an incident while I was not maintaining an adequate watch, I assumed I would be carry a significant part of the liability
- Whenever I was within anyone's territorial waters I maintained a visual watch (didn't sleep, though you could argue that at the end of 5 days it was probably compromised)

Single-handed long-distance sailing pretty clearly violates ColRegs and hence the laws of your flag country (assuming like most it has adopted colregs). However, as has been pointed out, these are rarely if ever enforced proactively offshore against sailboats, but only reactively in response to incidents of which there are fortunately very few.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by mark_morwood

I doubt the USCG is actually giving permits to the offshore component of multi-day singlehanded sailboat races as I don't believe they have permitting responsibility outside US waters. Obviously starts and finishes may be in US waters and permitted, but I don't think anyone is planning on being asleep for those!

Having raced single-handed offshore, my approach was:
- I did everything I could to reduce the risk to others and me within the constraints of being single-handed (researched, practiced and planned sleep to optimise performance and minimise risk, used available electronic tools, made sure I was showing appropriate lights and signals, adapted plans to conditions etc)
- I knew I was operating in conflict with ColRegs and if I was involved in an incident while I was not maintaining an adequate watch, I assumed I would be carry a significant part of the liability
- Whenever I was within anyone's territorial waters I maintained a visual watch (didn't sleep, though you could argue that at the end of 5 days it was probably compromised)

Single-handed long-distance sailing pretty clearly violates ColRegs and hence the laws of your flag country (assuming like most it has adopted colregs). However, as has been pointed out, these are rarely if ever enforced proactively offshore against sailboats, but only reactively in response to incidents of which there are fortunately very few.

An excellent summary; obviously an excellent seaman.


There seem to be a lot of people who think that just because the authorities don't stop something, that it must be legal. I'd just like to say that the law does not work that way, and you cannot draw any conclusions from whether something is tolerated (until something goes wrong!) or not.


I have actually queried the US Coast Guard about this, and they replied that everyone at sea is obligated to comply with the COLREGs, and being single handed is not an excuse. So it's like Mark Morwood said -- do it at your own risk.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... [The Coast Guard] replied that everyone at sea is obligated to comply with the COLREGs

You do see what they said, right? I used to help write state and federal laws. There's intent to comply with the spirit of the law and there's complying with the actual words. If things go wrong and the results are egregious, CG will most definitely parse those words and throw the Colregs book at you. Most of us comply very carefully with the intent, understanding that we do so very carefully - by not trying to "break" the law, but to make sure we are meeting the spirit of it.

To me this means that if the highway speed limit is 65 mph but traffic is proceeding along at 75, we're not going to pull over to the left lane at 65 and glare at the other drivers for breaking the law.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by gamayun

You do see what they said, right? I used to help write state and federal laws. There's intent to comply with the spirit of the law and there's complying with the actual words. If things go wrong and the results are egregious, CG will most definitely parse those words and throw the Colregs book at you. Most of us comply very carefully with the intent, understanding that we do so very carefully - by not trying to "break" the law, but to make sure we are meeting the spirit of it.

To me this means that if the highway speed limit is 65 mph but traffic is proceeding along at 75, we're not going to pull over to the left lane at 65 and glare at the other drivers for breaking the law.

Yes, I agree, and I think this is well-expressed.



And I don't glare at other drivers. I think single-handing is a valuable adventure which should not be prevented -- which should be tolerated. But I do find it important to clear up misunderstandings about the letter of the law, and the possible consequences of it, lest someone get a rude surprise.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... There is not much enforcement in the absence of an accident (almost but not none), so probably not much to worry about there. But I would be quite concerned about civil liability if you have any assets, especially in the U.S. The Pennsylvania Rule is a bitch for our Yankee friends -- the violation of the letter of one of the COLREGS creates a strong presumption of liability, and ignoring Rule 5, unlike showing the wrong anchor ball, is a really fundamental violation, Rule 5 is a primary obligation...

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Paul L
You are mixing up the rules vs what people do in practice. A single hander does not need permission to single hand and they all require sleep. On long passages they fail to maintain the required lookout. It is only an issue if there is a collision ...

That’s not how traffic courts interpret various road safety laws.
For instance, failing to stop (at a controlled intersection), passing a school bus (with lights flashing & stop sign extended), driving while impaired, etc. Those offenses, for instance, don’t require an accident, to be a chargeable violation of the Highway Traffic Act.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . That’s not how traffic courts interpret various road safety laws.
For instance, failing to stop (at a controlled intersection), passing a school bus (with lights flashing & stop sign extended), driving while impaired, etc. Those offenses, for instance, don’t require an accident, to be a chargeable violation of the Highway Traffic Act.

To be clear, COLREGs violations draw up to $5000 fine under U.S. jurisdiction, and criminal penalties including even jail in many other countries, and no accident need happen for the penalties to be applied.


Just because enforcement in the absence of an accident is rare, doesn't mean never. There are plenty of cases. The French round the world racer who sailed the wrong way up the Dover Strait TSS, for example, and someone caught motoring in circles with no one looking out, just to name two.


I've never heard of a single hander being prosecuted in the absence of an accident, but it is absolutely not outside the realm of possibility. An egregious case -- say a sleeping single-hander careens across a busy TSS -- would surely draw severe punishment.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

To be clear, COLREGs violations draw up to $5000 fine under U.S. jurisdiction, and criminal penalties including even jail in many other countries, and no accident need happen for the penalties to be applied.


Just because enforcement in the absence of an accident is rare, doesn't mean never. There are plenty of cases. The French round the world racer who sailed the wrong way up the Dover Strait TSS, for example, and someone caught motoring in circles with no one looking out, just to name two.


I've never heard of a single hander being prosecuted in the absence of an accident, but it is absolutely not outside the realm of possibility. An egregious case -- say a sleeping single-hander careens across a busy TSS -- would surely draw severe punishment.

Absolutely agree. I had recently looked up Rule 9 violation (interfering with commercial traffic) of the US inland navigation rules and it also allows the CG to impose a $5000 fine in the absence of an accident. Whether you're singlehanding or not is kinda beside the point. If someone mucks up, it can get serious real fast.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

To be clear, COLREGs violations draw up to $5000 fine under U.S. jurisdiction, and criminal penalties including even jail in many other countries, and no accident need happen for the penalties to be applied.

Is this why they are mentioned, debated, obsessed about on forums with predominantly US citizens? Seldom do you see or hear such detailed discussion/argument about COLREGs elsewhere.

[Adelie]

Rule 9 isn’t about interfering with commercial traffic, it’s about priority in a narrow channel.


https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...lgamated#rule9

If a recreational vessel is constrained by draft such that they need to remain in a Channel, a commercial vessel has no higher priority.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Is this why they are mentioned, debated, obsessed about on forums with predominantly US citizens? Seldom do you see or hear such detailed discussion/argument about COLREGs elsewhere.

Not my experience. On ybw.com, which is mostly UK yachtsmen, there are even more discussions on the COLREGS than on here, frequently heated, as far as I can tell.