Not, Not Under Command

[Jim Cate]

Relative to the large number of ships drifting near the New South Wales coast, following is a letter I just received from our friend Bruce Morely, who lives aboard in the Newcastle marina, copied with his permission. I think it interesting and informative.

*********

"I have read some of the posts under the subject of NUC on the cruisers forum. This is my understanding of the problem of ships off the NSW coast drifting and NUC.

After the what is now known as the Pasha Bulker storm in 2008 ? Newcastle Port Authority introduced a new regulation concerning the anchoring of ships waiting to enter Newcastle harbour. As the ship departed the port which it unloaded its cargo and was scheduled to leave on passage back to Newcastle it would be given a scheduled berthing date for Newcastle harbour. The ship would not be permitted to anchor off Newcastle for more than 7 days prior to its schedule berth date in the Harbour and the main engine was to remain serviceable. Keep in mind that the state of NSW only has control of the ocean out to the 3 mile limit.

This then caused any ship arriving off the NSW cost sooner that the 7 days prior to its schedule berth date in Newcastle just needed to drift NUC waiting out time. This also gave the crew some time to effect repairs or maintenance required on the main engine.

I can only assume that similar regulations are still in place. The port is very busy at this tine with up to 20 ship movements per day not that uncommon."

**************

This rule does not directly approve the drifting practice, but it surely encourages it.

Jim

[Pelagic]

I look at this from a pragmatic point of view and support the idea that
A solo sailor can display NUC, when sleep is needed
A Cargo Ship Drifting in open waters alerts via NUC lights and AIS that they have no maneuverability, since they are not making way

In essence any scenario where approaching vessels are given early warning to give the NUC target a wide berth.

It only helps, it doesn’t hurt

[Jim Cate]

^^^^

Agreed, Pelagic! I think this attitude should prevail no matter what the strict interpretation of COLREGS might be. But then, I'm just a WAFI, so who cares what I think!!

Jim

[donradcliffe]

Two nights ago I had to dodge an 800 ft ship drifting about 70 miles off Santa Cruz. They had been headed downwind at about 0.7 knots for 6 hours, then called me at 5 miles out and requested that I change course to give them 1.5 mile clearance. They were not showing NUC status, but they said they were drifting waiting for their pilot boarding time, and would continue to drift until I was past them. I was able to head 15 degrees closer to the wind without major issues, so I told them I would. No big deal, and I hope they will return the favor some day.

I was just glad the AIS was working again, as it had been installed by a 'professional' who spliced its 12v wires in the bilge without any protection. My delivery fix was to strip back the wires, scrape the corrosion, twist them together, and rely on fast acting 5200 covered with electrical tape.

[Curtis L Dean]

I am a small commercial fishing/sailing vessel at 60'. I struggle with turning on the anchor light at night when I'm drifting in 100 fathoms. I also struggle with turning on the NUC colors when that is not really the case either. I might add that it is impossible for a crew of 1 or 2 to post a watch every night during the drifting hours. My question is this! What would the other traffic rather see? NUC or Anchor? It seems to me that either would alert another vessel that we won't be giving way quickly. As a larger vessel what would you prefer to see and why.

[skipperpete]

Well, you pointed out that this is a commercial fishing vessel so red over white should work.
Maintaining a lookout is not optional , if you find it difficult, you‘re undermanned.

[Jim Cate]

^^^

I have long thought that the anchor light is a practical if not legal solution to that issue... especially for small yachts who are hove to in fierce weather. For any approaching vessel it will appear the same as a stern running light. If closing on it, he must be technically overtaking and must keep clear. The hove to vessel will continue to maintain course and speed as required and no harm will come to either one.

While not approved by COLREGS, this could be considered as normal practice of seamen for it has been done for very many years. The Hiscocks were fond of the method, and many other small voyaging craft have done so as well. Not legal, but it helps avoid collisions and that is the aim of COLREGS, after all! No harm, no foul as the jocks say!

Would also work for lying to a sea anchor for that matter.

I have posted this opinion before, and it has brought forth howls of protest from some respondents... but none have posited a better solution for the situation.

Jim

[Bill_Giles]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Most of the NUC situations we see are tankers and bulk carriers. They often also have destination set to something like Awaiting Orders,
We just stay clear of them. They are out making a living, we are cruising our retirement away.

Just my answer, don’t mess with professionals. (I even give way to taxi drivers.)

[CaptTom]

I love it when ancient NavRules threads are dredged back up...

But we've certainly been here before. Drifting is "underway, not making way." The rules are very specific on the lights and sound signals for this. Of course you can choose not to follow the rules, but in that case, why ask?

The rules on maintaining adequate watch are also very clear. And also argued here a lot. Again, either follow the rules, or don't. That's your call. But there's not really much to debate.

[boatman61]

In a recent Mars Report, a drifting vessel collided with a fishing vessel. In this case, the drifting vessel was the “give-way” vessel under the Colregs (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea). So, The Nautical Institute warns that crew should realise that when drifting, they are still a vessel underway.

The Nautical Institute gathers reports of maritime accidents and near-misses. It then publishes these so-called Mars Reports (anonymously) to prevent other accidents from happening. A summary of this incident:

A container ship under way was stopped and drifting at sea due to port congestion at the next destination. The officer of the watch (OOW) was supported by another crew member as lookout. The vessel was drifting sideways towards the east under the influence of the westerly wind.

At 03:10 the lookout reported spotting a small vessel on the radar 6 to 7 nm away and fine on the starboard bow. About thirteen minutes later, this target now 3.8 nm away, was plotted by the lookout.

At 03:30, the lookout operating the radar reported to the OOW, who was occupied with other tasks, that the target was showing a small closest point of approach (CPA). The OOW was not concerned; he assumed, correctly, that the target was a fishing vessel. His expectation, although flawed, was that fishing vessels usually altered course and would keep out of the way, especially as the ship was drifting. Meanwhile, the lookout was now using a red laser pointer directed at the fishing vessel to warn its crew of their presence.

At 03:50, the OOW became concerned that the fishing vessel was getting too close and did not appear to be altering course. At 03:55, a relief OOW arrived on the bridge and spent a few minutes familiarising himself with the ship’s situation. He then went to the electrical equipment room behind the bridge with the OOW on duty to investigate a water leak that had developed there during the night.

About three minutes later, both officers were back on the bridge. The relieving OOW asked about the fishing vessel, which was now 0.5 nm away and still closing. They soon lost sight of the fishing vessel in the blind sector ahead of the ship caused by the container stow. At this distance the ship’s radar lost definition of the target and any displayed data became unreliable.

Very soon after, the fishing vessel made contact with the container ship, but the bridge crew later recounted that they did not see, hear or feel the collision. The lookout was sent forward with a radio to investigate, while each officer went to one of the two bridge wings in an attempt to see what was occurring at the bow.

Colregs apply even when drifting. This drawing shows where the fishing vessel hit the container ship.
At about 04:05, the fishing vessel emerged from the container vessel’s port bow and remained in the vicinity for about ten minutes. The bridge team made no attempt to contact the fishing vessel, nothing was recorded in the bridge logbook and the master was not informed.

The fishing vessel had crossed the container vessel’s bow with the narrowest of margins; so close that the stabiliser arm collided with the stem of the ship’s bow. The fishing vessel then pivoted around the stabiliser arm and its port bow collided under the flare of the container vessel’s port bow near the anchor. Still on autopilot, and with its engine still driving ahead, the fishing vessel slowly scraped along the container vessel’s hull as it rose and fell with the waves.

The fishing skipper, who had left the wheelhouse for other tasks, arrived and put the engine in reverse, backing away from the container ship. It soon became apparent that the watertight integrity of the hull was intact. The skipper then attempted to contact the container vessel by VHF radio, but because the communication antenna had been damaged this was unsuccessful. The crew then severed the fishing line and departed the scene, heading for port.

Investigation findings
The investigation found that, although drifting, the container vessel was nevertheless considered to be a power-driven vessel underway and was therefore required to follow the Colregs and take the appropriate action to avoid a collision, which it did not. The container vessel’s bridge crew had detected and were plotting the progress of the fishing vessel on their radar. They had correctly identified the target as a crossing vessel, but it did not occur to them that their vessel was the give way
vessel.

The bridge crew were working on two false assumptions:

First, that because their vessel was drifting this put the onus on other vessels underway to avoid their ship.
Secondly, because the target was probably a fishing vessel, it would give way to them by virtue of their size.
The fishing vessel’s skipper made no attempt to sight the container vessel after noticing it on the radar at 4nm distance because he was occupied with other tasks elsewhere on the vessel – no one was in the wheelhouse.

Another important finding of the investigation was that there is mounting evidence showing a compromise in crewing levels aimed at keeping small fishing vessel operations economically viable. This in turn is resulting in fishing crews either not achieving full compliance with national and international legislation or operating when fatigued. Either way, the result will be a higher risk of these vessels being involved in collisions and groundings.

Advice from The Nautical Institute
All vessels have a part to play in preventing collisions at sea, regardless of whether they are the stand-on or give-way vessel.
Making assumptions about the intentions of other vessels based on false or scanty information is high risk, which will inevitably contribute to collisions at sea.
When drifting, you are still a vessel underway and may need to manoeuvre as per the Colregs. Keep your engines at the appropriate level of readiness given the local circumstances.
Should you wish to attract the attention of another vessel, do not use a laser pointer. Try the Aldis lamp, the ship’s searchlight or the ship’s horn (at least 5 short blasts).

[donradcliffe]

Some commercial watch standers are idiots. The fishing vessel was obviously asleep, and 5 horn blasts from 1/4 mile away would have prevented this accident.