Rule 5 -- Is Single-Handing Illegal?

[john61ct]

If you want to be pedantic add "in effect" to "sleeping is what makes long solo crossings illegal".

If you want to be legal*, then do not set out on a solo journey where you know short cat naps will not be enough.

A boat's "ability" to follow COLREGs may or may not be taken into account by a judge or LEO in enforcement.

But that issue does not change whether or not the regs are being violated in the theoretical legal sense.

The interesting story above belongs in the thread about practical considerations.

This one seems completely settled to me in the theoretical legal sense.

* again, not sure why that is so important in this case to so many, I personally have no qualms in admitting I regularly break laws, both knowingly when I consider them asinine and silly, perhaps even likely to be in conflict with basic human rights, and in the sense that the average citizen commits many felonies weekly without even knowing about them.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So how is it that you could be sure that it's safe to sleep for 20 minutes at a time?

Personally from data so far from mid ocean miles. And in this particular universe you can't be sure of anything

Ais/radar alarm works extremely well, nothing is flawless but that combination has proven to be very good, can't remember anything visual way offshore which wasn't picked up by radar/ais first. The odds of seeing anything are low to start with, they see you first (cos you have a good radar return!) and more often than not make a course change if needed, add it all up the odds disappear down into the noise.
Ais/radar alarms are basically most of the time a better way to know what's going on than visual, by the time you see the ship most of the time any avoidance course changes should have been done already.
Coastal back on the shelf obviously very different and too rough for the radar filters to cope with then deal with it!

Very unlikely to see anything doing 25Kts out there.

Bigger things to worry about out there.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Personally from data so far from mid ocean miles. And in this particular universe you can't be sure of anything

Ais/radar alarm works extremely well, nothing is flawless but that combination has proven to be very good, can't remember anything visual way offshore which wasn't picked up by radar/ais first. The odds of seeing anything are low to start with, they see you first (cos you have a good radar return!) and more often than not make a course change if needed, add it all up the odds disappear down into the noise.
Ais/radar alarms are basically most of the time a better way to know what's going on than visual, by the time you see the ship most of the time any avoidance course changes should have been done already.
Coastal back on the shelf obviously very different and too rough for the radar filters to cope with then deal with it!

Very unlikely to see anything doing 25Kts out there.

Bigger things to worry about out there.

This is a sound practical view of the matter, in my opinion. However, the law does not allow you to rely on electronic aids. The Rules consider electronic aids to be only a supplement to sight and hearing, which must be used at all times. So practically speaking -- you might get away with it, for the reasons you stated, namely that the odds are reasonably good far offshore, and you have electronic aids helping you to catch the odd outlier.



But the legal situation -- the subject of this thread -- is somewhat different. Whether that matters to you is up to each of us to decide for ourselves. See John61ct's excellent post above, particularly the last paragraph.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

. . .

* again, not sure why that is so important in this case to so many, I personally have no qualms in admitting I regularly break laws, both knowingly when I consider them asinine and silly, perhaps even likely to be in conflict with basic human rights, and in the sense that the average citizen commits many felonies weekly without even knowing about them.

An excellent observation, but I would go even further -- do you break only laws which you consider asinine and silly? I don't -- I even break laws which I consider to be sensible -- if I don't think I'm causing anyone any material harm, and I think I can get away with it. Don't we all?


The question of "what is illegal" and "do we care" are separate questions!


In the case of Rule 5 -- I think there is a complex interaction between them, because I think that many people who don't accept the reality of what the law means, at the very same time, don't really understand what proper watchkeeping involves from a practical point of view. Not everyone by any means, but I guess we would find a strong correlation between poor understanding of the law and poor understanding of proper watchkeeping. I'm not talking only about single handers, and not even particularly about single handers. So I actually think that better understanding of the law might lead to better understanding of the whole process of watchkeeping.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a sound practical view of the matter, in my opinion. However, the law does not allow you to rely on electronic aids.

Should I be bothered about the legal side, as long as I'm doing the right thing as a singlehander which means making sure you are the boring one in the bar with no horror stories and no one can tell if you're solo or not?

739 posts and nothing suggests otherwise yet..

[john61ct]

That is only for you to decide. That becomes a moral/ethical question, for which there is a third thread 8-)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Should I be bothered about the legal side, as long as I'm doing the right thing as a singlehander which means making sure you are the boring one in the bar with no horror stories and no one can tell if you're solo or not?

739 posts and nothing suggests otherwise yet..

That's up to you!

I'm just a lawyer, not a cop.

Since you asked, though, I believe it is quite possible for you, even single handed, to do a much better job at watchkeeping than the average fully crewed yacht. I've said that a few times I think.

[NevisDog]

So look at it backwards - what does Rule 5 (lookout) NOT say?
It does not say "continuous";
it does not define "proper lookout";
it does not state how long between 360 degree visual horizon scans is "adequate";
it does not distinguish between lying at anchor in a sheltered bay and travelling in a busy traffic separation zone;
it does not say what we must do (update chart, check instruments, etc) nor what we must never do (read a book, close our eyes, toilet) between visual 360 degree scans of horizon; and
no court has ever held solo ocean voyaging to be illegal.

Rule 5 (and any logical ship's master) demand compliance in ways appropriate to circumstances ("proper lookout"); whether at 15-25 kts in traffic lanes or swinging at anchor in a sheltered bay; whether a 200,000t oil tanker or "all but the smallest of vessels"; in thick fog or a clear horizon... lookout must be increased or decreased "appropriately" as conditions require, for no lookout is ever 100%.

A "proper lookout" must be appropriate in the circumstances, hence a solo watchkeeper on large ships is sometimes "appropriate". So far no court has held solo ocean voyaging to be "inappropriate".

Granholm and Watson are the only cases so far that shed light on how sleeping solo voyagers may possibly be viewed in absence of collision risk. Lack of any condemnation of solo voyaging per se is significant - too significant to remain unexplained by those seeking to outlaw solo ocean voyaging.

Courts aren't stupid, don't try to outguess them.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by conachair

Should I be bothered about the legal side,...?

Yes you should!

If the "solo-ocean-voyaging-is-inherently-illegal" brigade succeed in proving their point then countries like NZ (very strict laws on everyone heading offshore) could conceivably ban solo voyaging. Considering the miniscule risk they pose to others (only those others not keeping proper watch themselves can be at risk) compared to the many real risks we face out there, that would be a sad blow indeed to freedom of the seas.

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

It would be so much better if proponents of declaring solo voyaging illegal could come up with all these guidances from Cockroft and elsewhere that suggest differing standards apply, then explain why they do not apply to solo voyagers, or should be ignored.

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Lack of any condemnation of solo voyaging per se is significant - too significant to remain unexplained by those seeking to outlaw solo ocean voyaging.

Originally Posted by NevisDog

If the "solo-ocean-voyaging-is-inherently-illegal" brigade succeed in proving their point then countries like NZ (very strict laws on everyone heading offshore) could conceivably ban solo voyaging.

Again, and again, and again (over 50 pages). I must ask who are these people who are attempting to outlaw solo sailing??? They haven't spoken up in this discussion. You have mostly carried both sides of that argument by yourself. Wouldn't it be more useful to stay with the question of how/if a solo passage maker complies with the various legal requirements incumbent upon the operator of a vessel, including the keeping of a proper lookout?

[NevisDog]

I cannot see a distinction between saying it is illegal for a solo voyager to close his eyes and saying solo ocean voyaging is therefore illegal. Yet no court has ever declared either to be illegal, where there was no collision risk. Maybe someone can explain the distinction, for the outcome seems the same.

[Note the question is: "Is Single-Handing Illegal" - that's what we are trying to determine, in particular for extended voyaging]

[Dooglas]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I cannot see a distinction between saying it is illegal for a solo voyager to close his eyes and saying solo ocean voyaging is therefore illegal. Yet no court has ever declared either to be illegal, where there was no collision risk. Maybe someone can explain the distinction, for the outcome seems the same.

You see no distinction between the legality of sleeping on watch and the legality of single handed sailing? Courts have repeatedly found the former to be a violation, but have not specifically pointed to the latter. The "where there is no collision risk" part is a red herring. There is no place or no time when there is no risk of collision. Certainly there are times and places where the risk is much less, but you are now beginning to split hairs. And that begins to shade into the discussion about the practicality of maintaining low risk while single handing.

[NevisDog]

Talk about splitting hairs! No difference between solo ocean sailing and requirement to sleep on voyage. Sheesh!

Try visiting or departing NZ without sleeping on voyage.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

So look at it backwards - what does Rule 5 (lookout) NOT say?
It does not say "continuous";. . .

Beg pardon?


"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing . . ."



"'At all times' -- definition: continuously, without interruption"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/at-all-times




You are entitled, of course, to your opinion. But not to your own special definitions of English words!

[Olddan1943]

Remember the USCG can declare a voyage unsafe and tow you in.
Less than 10 years ago, the USCG towed on guy in after recusing him 3 times in the same sailing season. I do recall, it was all for equipment failure. I believe they finally impounded his boat and refuse to let him leave the dock until he satisfied the USCG.
I am not sure what happened after that.

Then there was a cruise ship that had a significant fire in the aft laundry room. The foreign flagged ship was hurriedly trying to leave US waters. I forgot how but, the laws are different for ships inside or outside of US waters. The USCG shadowed the ship, seeing no reduction in the fire and while still in US waters, declared it to be an 'unsafe voyage', requiring it to return to a US port while still on fire.

Ah and then a rather large privately owned yacht coming back from the islands with only the captain on board. He fell asleep at the helm and ran that thing up onto a Ft Lauderdale/Miami beach.

So ya'll can say what you want, make up all the IF and or BUTs. The USGC is there to protect both individuals and or a boat load of people.