Not, Not Under Command

[Jim Cate]

We seem to go through this discussion every few months, decrying the
"drifting under NUC signals" practice as against the rules and thus a terrible thing to do.

Yet at any given time there are likely hundreds of big ships employing this tactic, spread around the world's oceans. Off the east coast of Australia there will be a couple of dozen, many in fairly high traffic areas like Stockton Bight or the ocean off Sydney... places where both commercial and recreational vessels ply the waters. And no one in authority seems to care, and enforcement is completely lacking and the number of collisions or near misses approaches zero.

IMO, with this background in mind it is silly (and pretty hypocritical) to chastise yotties for daring to use NUC when at sea, either for resting, doing repairs or simply killing time before entering harbour. A rule that is routinely disregarded by professionals and without notable repercussions is no rule at all as is, and should be reconsidered and revised to reflect real world practice. Perhaps the IMO (or whoever it is that writes these rules nowadays) should take note!

Jim

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's not a silly discussion, people want to understand the rules when the see professional mariners drifting while displaying NUC. In part to know what their obligations are in passing, and in part to know if this is a practice they could use too.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

....A rule that is routinely disregarded by professionals and without notable repercussions is no rule at all as is, and should be reconsidered and revised to reflect real world practice. Perhaps the IMO (or whoever it is that writes these rules nowadays) should take note!

Jim

What rule(s) would you propose instead?
Should drifting vessels be given a status similar to being anchored?
Should drifting vessels be obligated to stay out of the way of actual NUC and RAM vessels? How about fishing vessels?
Frankly the rules for anchored vessels might be clarified a bit. Should an anchored vessel be required to give way to a NUC vessel? Case law suggests this. If I recall correctly when the USS Eisenhower hit an anchored vessel in 1988, the anchored vessel bore some responsibility and financial liability.

[ChrisJHC]

Originally Posted by 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.

It’s also a diversion from our sixth lockdown (200 days and counting!).

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Adelie

What rule(s) would you propose instead?
Should drifting vessels be given a status similar to being anchored?
Should drifting vessels be obligated to stay out of the way of actual NUC and RAM vessels? How about fishing vessels?
Frankly the rules for anchored vessels might be clarified a bit. Should an anchored vessel be required to give way to a NUC vessel? Case law suggests this. If I recall correctly when the USS Eisenhower hit an anchored vessel in 1988, the anchored vessel bore some responsibility and financial liability.

I dunno! I'm not wise enough to propose new regs, and would leave such things to the pros... folks who actually understand the workings of big ships and their interactions with others of their ilk and with us WAFis.

But I think I am wise enough to see a rule that is routinely ignored by the pros and that ain't good... in my opinion.

Jim

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Legally you would be underway unless there was some exceptional circumstance that prevented you from controlling the navigation of the vessel.

How exactly do you "control the navigation" of the vessel while it's lying to a sea anchor?

[Lodesman]

I'm as pedantic as the next guy when it comes to the Rules, but like most rules I believe in the maxim that they are there to guide intelligent people, but to be slavishly obeyed by idiots.
Clearly if there is no rule specific to drifting, then common sense (or the ordinary practice of seamen) should prevail. A vessel that is drifting is unable to manoeuvre as is required by the Rules, so from a practical standpoint, it's equivalent to NUC or RAM in the manoeuvrability hierarchy. In the remote possibility of a NUC or RAM vessel coming into risk of collision with the drifting vessel, then anti-collision would need to negotiated as it would where a NUC or RAM vessel encounters another NUC or RAM vessel - which might mean flashing the engine(s) and getting out of the way. Or it could be that the NUC or RAM vessel is able to do the avoiding action.

Rule 2
Responsibility
(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.
(b)
In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

[Wotname]

It seems to my mind that the practice of drifting is mostly for the convenience of the vessel drifting rather than for operational or extraordinary circumstances.

Failing to follow the letter of the rules because it is inconvenient to do so hardly seems to the ordinary practice of seamen although perhaps it is becoming the ordinary practice.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

How exactly do you "control the navigation" of the vessel while it's lying to a sea anchor?

A storm is an exceptional occurrence. Having a sea anchor out to deal with the storm and being unable to control your navigation due to the sea anchor being set is by extension also exceptional.

Waiting for daylight to enter a port or harbor is not an exceptional occurrence. So setting a sea anchor to limit your drift while waiting is not either. The decision to set the sea anchor was done for convenience, not necessity.

Waiting for a berth or pilot boat is not an exceptional circumstance. By extension shutting off engines that take at least 30min to restart so that the vessel can drift while waiting is not exceptional. The skipper made a choice for convenience, not necessity. Doesn't meet the requirements of the rule, but like speeding in a car, they're not likely to get called on it.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I dunno! I'm not wise enough to propose new regs, and would leave such things to the pros... folks who actually understand the workings of big ships and their interactions with others of their ilk and with us WAFis.

But I think I am wise enough to see a rule that is routinely ignored by the pros and that ain't good... in my opinion.

Jim

Speed limits are routinely ignored. Should we do away with them in favor of something else? Does that include doing away with them in the vicinity of schools?

The NUC designation is not routinely abused everywhere by most vessels, it is abused by large vessels in specific areas, namely on the approaches to ports. I will grant you that fishing vessels routinely weld their dayshapes for fishing in place to they are routinely abusing that designation whenever they are in transit and not fishing.

Even apparently simple rules have complex implementations and interpretations. That's not a reason to do away with the rules.

[Bill_Giles]

I was not being entirely tongue in cheek when referring to a sea anchor. Firstly it would be quite difficult to respond in accordance with the rules if required and secondly in such weather conditions as might warrant a sea anchor a small boat find it actually dangerous to manoeuvre appropriately. That said perhaps a signal for RAM might be appropriate. Notwithstanding my boat has neither the day signal not is equipped with the lights needed to indicate anything other than motoring or anchoring.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Frankly the rules for anchored vessels might be clarified a bit. Should an anchored vessel be required to give way to a NUC vessel? Case law suggests this. If I recall correctly when the USS Eisenhower hit an anchored vessel in 1988, the anchored vessel bore some responsibility and financial liability.

I'm not sure this suggests a duty to give way, but rather an acknowledgement that an anchored vessel still has obligations in such circumstances.

Looking at previous instances of the ColRegs, I see RAM was introduced in the '72 rules to hive off activities such as laying cable from the NUC category. The list of activities to which RAM applies is explicitly non-exhaustive, and ships drifting as they wait to unload cargo could fall into that category without too much difficulty, similar to a survey vessel. The environmental impact could be sufficient justification, especially if paired with local emissions control regulations.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by requiem

The list of activities to which RAM applies is explicitly non-exhaustive, and ships drifting as they wait to unload cargo could fall into that category without too much difficulty, similar to a survey vessel. The environmental impact could be sufficient justification, especially if paired with local emissions control regulations.

"from the nature of her work" - which is to hold at sea until a berth a available with minimal environmental damage ?


I like it

[Jim Cate]

Speed limits are routinely ignored. Should we do away with them in favor of something else? Does that include doing away with them in the vicinity of schools?

But, while many folks ignore speed limits, they ARE enforced in many areas with hefty fines applied. The threat of such enforcement deters most from speeding, at least to some degree... myself included!

Were the anti-drifting rules so enforced, what might happen? I dunno! And I dunno if it would be a good thing, either.

Jim

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Waiting for daylight to enter a port or harbor is not an exceptional occurrence. So setting a sea anchor to limit your drift while waiting is not either. The decision to set the sea anchor was done for convenience, not necessity.

Waiting for a berth or pilot boat is not an exceptional circumstance. By extension shutting off engines that take at least 30min to restart so that the vessel can drift while waiting is not exceptional. The skipper made a choice for convenience, not necessity. Doesn't meet the requirements of the rule, but like speeding in a car, they're not likely to get called on it.

Who the * made you the arbiter to decide what is a necessity or not? The rules have developed over the years to follow changes, made necessary by technology, or the way vessels are used. When they invented steamships they made power rules; they've developed the fishing rules and RAM rules to account for how vessels are employed. It is a fairly new development that cargo carriers can't just wait around a port until they contract a shipment - this has made it necessary for them to frequently wait at sea. There are economic and environmental reasons for drifting - this is a fact of life. It does no good whinging about how it's not exceptional. The norm for these vessels is steaming somewhere with cargo - so it is in a way exceptional when they are stuck without a cargo, without a port and without a destination. Since there is no good way in the rules to indicate this condition, it behooves them to do what will best aid to avoid collision. A drifting vessel using NUC or RAM while not being correct by the "letter of the law", respects the spirit of the rules by effectively preventing collisions.