Red over Red - Not Under Command (NUC) Lights

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The fundamental point here is that using NUC outside it's accepted definitions is engaging in an attempt to bend the COLREGS into covering something they don't.

Equally you might as well

* sail with tricolour and nav lights as well, sure I'll be seen better

* turn on my anchor , nav, and everything elselights. ( like powerboaters)

*use your stern light on it's own ad a boarding light ( see that thread)

Etc etc

All you are doing is corrupting the COLREGS for you own purposes. Sure do that.

Dave

There has not been ONE case law example showing that it is corrupting the COLREGs or even one decent explanation that it not in the spirit of the regs.

There's some examples of eceptional circumstance from reference books but only the more common..... but they are not all the possibilities of NUC (because you are supposed to have a watch...but....)

So I think it's only one set of opinions disagreeing with another....

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You first point is wrong; the vessel is not disabled.

Your fifth point is correct.

My appologies, I will rephrase: There are some here that would consider the showing of NUC signal acceptable, it is prevents a collision (due to the prudential rule). Even though the vessel, isn't NUC... It is also unclear whether the authorities condone the practice, as there are no examples of law enforcement penalising skippers for showing this false signal.

From the examples of court verdict and USCG responses previously sighted. The authorities seem to be unconcerned with what signals a vessel is showing, and only get involved when there is a collision. Signals seem to have no role in determining fault.

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by psneeld

show me in the rules the word disabled for NUC....

The term Not Under Command (NUC) is the opposite to Under Command. A vessel is said to be Under Command when:

• the steering answers the helm,
• the propulsion answers the throttle,
• and the wind is in the sails.

That is the most basic definition of this nautical phrase, which refers to the vessels ability to carry out commands given by her skipper. But does not apply to the vessel, whose skipper is derelict in duty, and not present to give her command.

A vessel that is NUC in earnest enjoys the privilege of right of way under all circumstances. Because despite the best efforts of her skipper she has no manouvering capability at all. International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). If a vessel that is NUC were involved in a collision, her skipper is assigned a smaller portion of blame, due to her incapacitated nature. But the same cannot be said for the skipper that is not keeping watch.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke

The term Not Under Command (NUC) is the opposite to Under Command. A vessel is said to be Under Command when:

• the steering answers the helm,
• the propulsion answers the throttle,
• and the wind is in the sails.

That is the most basic definition of this nautical phrase, which refers to the vessels ability to carry out commands given by her skipper. But does not apply to the vessel, whose skipper is derelict in duty, and not present to give her command.

A vessel that is NUC in earnest enjoys the privilege of right of way under all circumstances. Because despite the best efforts of her skipper she has no manouvering capability at all. International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). If a vessel that is NUC were involved in a collision, her skipper is assigned a smaller portion of blame, due to her incapacitated nature. But the same cannot be said for the skipper that is not keeping watch.

Again...I don't see any of that written in the "rules" books I have or have seen on line. People keep giving examples they have seen or can find OUTSIDE of the COLREGs books ....but...so what???? Are those legally binding documents???? Or just explanations from experts like ourselves?

[highseas]

So if the singlehander is tired beyond being able to making prudent decisions,should that not be NUC?Seems to me it would be more prudent to heave to than to try and continue.

[Gracies]

This thread seems to be going in circles.

Its very easy to read in the colregs Rule 3 Para F.

The rule describes ´the vessel´ not being able to manoeuvre as required by the rules and the vessel is therefore not able to manoeuvre to avoid a collision. My interpretation as backed by a Master Mariner i was talking to yesterday is that the vessel itself should be through an exceptional circumstance damaged, and or disabled so it can not manoeuvre. When saying that due to the solo sailor, or crew being asleep, they could show 2 vertical red lights this is not strictly an exceptional circumstance as the vessel is completely able to manoeuvre and is not damaged or disabled in any form other than its crew not keeping watch.

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by highseas

So if the singlehander is tired beyond being able to making prudent decisions,should that not be NUC?Seems to me it would be more prudent to heave to than to try and continue.

No it is not NUC. It may be prudent to heave to. It may also be prudent to show two red lights (or some other signal). But this is not NUC, and this should not be considered as such. Technically, you'd show running lights even when hove to. Maybe a cone, pointing upward, to indicate a sea anchor extended from your vessel. Maybe signal flag 'M' for not making way.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke

No it is not NUC. It may be prudent to heave to. It may also be prudent to show two red lights (or some other signal). But this is not NUC, and this should not be considered as such.

heavy weather and being hove to WAS one of the examples in one of the documents people posted....unable to adhere to the rules is most certainly an exceptional circumstance and therefore in my opinion would also be NUC.

Whether you CAN'T comply or you refuse to comply by heaving to or going to sleep...I don't see where the NUC lights are anything but IN the spirit..

Single handling by nature ISN'T in the spirit...but if you are gonna...then NUC when you ain't at the helm seems perfectly OK to me....

Going in circles???? of course we are...we are red over red!

[Bash]

One is not relieved of the responsibility to stand watch when hove to. It is still possible to maneuver to avoid collision when hove to. You are therefore not NUC when hove to.

Making the same silly argument a dozen times doesnt make it less silly.

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Again...I don't see any of that written in the "rules" books I have or have seen on line. People keep giving examples they have seen or can find OUTSIDE of the COLREGs books ....but...so what???? Are those legally binding documents???? Or just explanations from experts like ourselves?

Unable to manouver, means that you couldn't manouver even if you tried.

I actually recall a similar discussion between a group of professional mariners. As the general practice of their cruseliner was to shutdown engines and drift off shore. It was argued that this would place the vessel in a NUC siduation, because the engines take time to startup, and could not provide thrust in sufficient time to prevent collision. It was concluded that even though the vessel in that siduation couldn't avoid collision - it still wasn't NUC. Because the engines were deliberately shutdown and not broken.

Hence, the master was still responsible for not taking action - even though he placed the vessel in a siduation where he couldn't do that. So the prudent thing for them to do was to have the engines ready at all times... Sailing vessels with no watch is exactly the same thing. The prudent thing to do is stay on watch, and sleep when the risk is minimal (ie. daytime).

[David M]

The purpose of NUC is if you are unable able to maneuver in order to avoid a collision through a propulsion or steering failure or for some other mechanical reason. It really is that simple.

If you need to attract attention then show a light that cannot be confused for a navigation light.

[TheManWhoSpoke]

Originally Posted by psneeld

heavy weather and being hove to WAS one of the examples in one of the documents people posted....unable to adhere to the rules is most certainly an exceptional circumstance and therefore in my opinion would also be NUC.

Being hove-to due to heavy weather, may be NUC. But being hove-to by choice is not. The correct understanding of NUC, is that you have exhausted all your options and are still not in control of the vessel.

[highseas]

That was my point.Physical,mental exhaustion is an impairment(though not the vessel).It takes a person to command a vessel.

[psneeld]

out of post #27

Examples of vessels which are likely to be accepted "not under command":
a vessel which have had breakdown of her engine(s);
a vessel which have had breakdown of her steering gear;
a vessel which have lost a propeller;
a vessel which have lost her rudder;
a vessel with her anchor down but not holding;
a vessel riding to anchor chains with anchors unshackled;
a sailing vessel becalmed;
a vessel affected in such an exceptional way by weather conditions, that she is unable to keep out of the way of another vessel by alteration of course and/or speed, thus justifying her showing of not under command signals.

With reference to "A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules" by A.N. Cockcroft and J.N.F. Lameijer.

If I'm hove to for survival....and below...seems "published" authors think it's OK to show NUC

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by TheManWhoSpoke

Being hove-to due to heavy weather, may be NUC. But being hove-to by choice is not. The correct understanding of NUC, is that you have exhausted all your options and are still not in control of the vessel.

You like others are only interpreting the rule...you are quoting no DEFINITIVE example or court case.