Not, Not Under Command

[goboatingnow]

Displaying NUC while drifting with operationally capable engines would be totally contrary to the use of NUC under COLRegs

[goboatingnow]

NUC is defined as “ exceptional circumstances “

[Lodesman]

Cockcroft says this:

In addition to vessels which have had a breakdown of engines or steering gear, or which have lost a propeller or rudder, examples of vessels which are likely to be accepted as being not under command under the 1972 Rules are: a vessel with her anchor down but not
holding, a vessel riding to anchor chains with anchors unshackled,

So anchored, but not "anchored" might be NUC, which is indistinguishable from drifting, machinery-wise or for that matter, from a movement standpoint.

[Bill_Giles]

It seems to me that the situation is more akin to Restricted in Ability of Manoeuvre when transferring a pilot or having to hold a position awaiting the man with the white hat and red face, RAM is also more flexible in its definition than NUC.

[shimari]

Interesting article discussing NUC:

https://www.tradewindsnews.com/opini...n-/2-1-1051299

[skipperpete]

A lot of the worlds largest commercial vessels have direct coupled reversing 2 stroke engines..... there is no clutch or reduction gear. If the propeller shaft isn’t turning, the engine is stopped and the engineers need to be available for the restart/s.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by shimari

Interesting article discussing NUC:

https://www.tradewindsnews.com/opini...n-/2-1-1051299

It’s a pretty lame piece.

Yeah a lot of ships do it.
But it’s like driving a car on the road, just because large fraction of drivers exceed the speed limit doesn’t mean an infraction has not been committed. Wanting to drift and kill time waiting for a berth is not an exceptional circumstance. Plain reading of the rule.

“The meaning of the terminology may make perfect sense to the bureaucrats writing the regulations, ….” indicates that he feels the rule was written by people who don’t know what they are talking about when in
Reality they were written by commercial seafarers, fisherman and various admiralty lawyers with years and decades of experience.

If you are a licensed skipper you know the technical interpretations of all the rules, even the ones “buried away somewhere deep on a page in some other manual” or you wouldn’t deserve your skipper’s license.

Claiming NUC while intentionally drifting doesn’t meet the plain reading of the rule. But it’s also a non-issue, it isn’t regularly or even occasionally leading to collisions. So why did the author even bring it up? Because he had a writing deadline and wasn’t inventive enough to come up with anything better. And because he didn’t seem terribly chuffed that non-professionals were calling out professionals for doing something sketchy.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Adelie

It’s a pretty lame piece.
...

Well said!

[Bill_Giles]

If using a sea anchor would one be NUC or at anchor?

[ChrisJHC]

Originally Posted by Bill_Giles

If using a sea anchor would one be NUC or at anchor?

Not sure if you left the smiley face off your question, but if serious, the answer is neither.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by ChrisJHC

Not sure if you left the smiley face off your question, but if serious, the answer is neither.

But it's a good question - how would you signal your condition to other vessels? You certainly wouldn't be able to manoeuvre in accordance with the rules.
I think rule 2 gives a bit of leeway in the interpretations - and either would be suitable, perhaps depending on the conditions.

[ChrisJHC]

Hmm, from Colregs:

“Vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules.

1. Deliberately deploying a sea anchor - which can be removed at any time - is not an exceptional circumstance.
2. Slowing your boat down does not mean it is unable to manoeuvre. You can still turn to port or starboard as required.

Hence not NUC.

Anchoring isn’t defined in Colregs, but the Collins Dictionary describe it as:
“If a boat is at anchor, it is floating in a particular place and is prevented from moving by its anchor.”

Similarly, the Journal of Navigation states: “A ship is deemed to be anchored when she is held in position by an anchor attached to the bottom of a body of water.”

Hence deploying a sea anchor does not meet the commonly-regarded meaning of being anchored.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Bill_Giles

If using a sea anchor would one be NUC or at anchor?

Legally you would be underway unless there was some exceptional circumstance that prevented you from controlling the navigation of the vessel. A very severe storm would probably qualify. Killing time to sleep or awaiting light before entering a new port would not.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageNam...lgamated#rule3

(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

(i) The word "underway" means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.

You might try arguing that a sea anchor is an anchor, but I don't think it will fly in court.

All this said, unless you are in a marine casualty or are in one of the more persnickety jurisdictions, you will not be called on putting up the NUC signals when you want to drift.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ChrisJHC

Anchoring isn’t defined in Colregs, but the Collins Dictionary describe it as:
“If a boat is at anchor, it is floating in a particular place and is prevented from moving by its anchor.”

To quote Cockcroft:
"A vessel is only considered to be at anchor when the anchor is
down and is holding. Vessels using an anchor to turn in the river, or
riding to their chains with anchors unshackled, or dredging with the
tide, or dragging their anchors have been held to be under way."

[BillKny]

This is such a silly discussion, akin to the angels on the head of a pin. What do YOU care if the drifting ship is NUC or not???? From a practical standpoint it matters not a WIT to YOU.

Most of these large ships have direct drive propellers. There is no reverse gear, and no neutral. If he is drifting and not making way, his engine is OFF. Are you REALLY going to hold your course and insist on your "rights" as a sailboat to force him to start his engine and move out of your way? If you have any thoughts at all that this is a good plan, then you're an ass, and a damn stupid one.

If you are going to be reasonable and take a 5 degree course change and leave him a safe CPA, then you have treated him EXACTLY as if he was NUC, so why do you care if he is, nor not?

The only reason to make a point of this is because you want to demonstrate your "superior" knowledge of the ColRegs.

But I would point out that the status listed on AIS has no legal standing in the ColRegs. It is not mentioned in the ColRegs (yet) and doesn't really enter into the legal status of the ship.

If the ship drifting to kill time has lights and dayshapes indicating NUC while merely drifting THEN you can get on your soapbox and preach away, and we'll all cheer your superior ability as a fo'c'sle lawyer. Otherwise... just chill.