Thomas

Very important error = under way means moving through the water. Even with
a sea anchor, you will be under way.

Two red lights visible all round the horizon for at least two miles and at
least two metres apart in a vertical line are the lights for "not under
command". If you are under way (moving through the water) then you also
show your normal port and starboard sidelights and your stern light.

Thomas

Nick Temple-Fry

Thomas wrote in message ...
>Very important error = under way means moving through the water. Even
with
>a sea anchor, you will be under way.

Underway actually means

"The word "underway" means a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the
shore, or aground"

>Two red lights visible all round the horizon for at least two miles and at
>least two metres apart in a vertical line are the lights for "not under
>command". If you are under way (moving through the water) then you also
>show your normal port and starboard sidelights and your stern light.

Being "not under command" is defined as

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

The question is as to whether the deployment of a sea anchor amounts to
"exceptional circumstance" under the definition of the rule. A vessel with a
sea anchor deployed is capable of recovering the anchor and, in theory,
meeting its obligations under the rules. I would have thought a more
conventional definition of "exceptional circumstance" would be when the
vessel was unable to manoeuvre through a circumstance at that time outside
of its control (steering failure, ropes/block frozen etc).

Of course in the kind of condition that makes the deployment of a sea anchor
most likely the ability of a boat and crew to either manoeuvre or keep any
kind of meaningful watch is probably academic.

Ric

"Nick Temple-Fry" <Nick@Temple-FryPPP.coPPP.ukTakeout theP> wrote in message
news:soWdnfcMf86rIlWi4p2dnA@brightview.com...
vessel."
>
> The question is as to whether the deployment of a sea anchor amounts to
> "exceptional circumstance" under the definition of the rule.

I think having a good kip down below counts as an exceptional
circumstance...

Ronald Raygun

Thomas wrote:

> Very important error = under way means moving through the water.

False. Under way means not attached to the land. Moving through
the water (or making way) is likely to mean you're underway, but
the reverse is not true (you can be underway but drifting with the
water and hence not moving through it), nor is the forward always
true (you can be at anchor in a tideway and therefore moving through
the water, though technically the water is moving around you).

> Even with a sea anchor, you will be under way.

True.

> Two red lights visible all round the horizon for at least two miles and at
> least two metres apart in a vertical line are the lights for "not under
> command".

True.

> If you are under way (moving through the water) then you also
> show your normal port and starboard sidelights and your stern light.

Not quite true, because you are confusing the meanings of under way
and making way. When you are NUC and "making way through the water",
then you should display side and stern lights in addition to the two
red all-rounds. But if you do not display these extra lights, i.e.
are showing *only* the two reds, it is presumed that you are underway.
Otherwise you'd have to be either:

at anchor - in which case you do NOT display NUC signals, or
tied up ashore - in which case you display no signals at all, or
aground - in which case you display anchor light(s) plus NUC lights
by night, or by day anchor ball plus the two NUC balls, but combined
in a line of 3.

Graham Frankland

"Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote in message
news:bqamad$eq7$1@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr...
>
> "Nick Temple-Fry" <Nick@Temple-FryPPP.coPPP.ukTakeout theP> wrote in
message
> news:soWdnfcMf86rIlWi4p2dnA@brightview.com...
> vessel."
> >
> > The question is as to whether the deployment of a sea anchor amounts to
> > "exceptional circumstance" under the definition of the rule.
>
> I think having a good kip down below counts as an exceptional
> circumstance...
>
The law requires you to keep an adequate watch at all times, it makes no
allowance for single handed sailors needing sleep. "Exceptional
circumstance" would be when you have to deploy the sea anchor to survive.

At least you should wake up pretty quickly with the acceleration when a
large vessel starts towing you with your sea anchor around his prop!

Graham.

Ronald Raygun

Nick Temple-Fry wrote:

> Being "not under command" is defined as
>
> "The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some
> exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules
> and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel."
>
> The question is as to whether the deployment of a sea anchor amounts to
> "exceptional circumstance" under the definition of the rule. A vessel with
> a sea anchor deployed is capable of recovering the anchor and, in theory,
> meeting its obligations under the rules. I would have thought a more
> conventional definition of "exceptional circumstance" would be when the
> vessel was unable to manoeuvre through a circumstance at that time outside
> of its control (steering failure, ropes/block frozen etc).

When a sea anchor is out, a vessel's ability to steer is clearly impaired,
so I think it's quite reasonable to consider yourself NUC when one is
deployed. Even if, in theory, a sea anchor is capable of being
recovered, such a procedure will take time, and the vessel will
remain NUC until the procedure has been completed. And if the thing
was doing any good while it was deployed, the vessel may well *remain*
NUC even once the SA has been recovered. In a howling gale, its
ability to steer may still be significantly impaired.

One might think, going just by the everyday meanings of the words,
that "restricted in ability to manoeuvre" might be more appropriate
in the circumstances Ric has posited. Unfortunately, that thought
is not confirmed by the definitions in the Rules, which seem to
restrict RAM status to vessels which are unable to keep out of the
way of another *from the nature of her work*. I think "exceptional
circumstances" more aptly describes what he had in mind, so NUC
would seem appropriate.

It is arguable that you should exhibit NUC signals even when
routinely sleeping while single handed, even in normal weather.
One could simply say that being single handed is itself exceptional.

Celtand40

My half pennorth, for what its worth......

I guess the lights shown with a sea anchor depend upon how its used.
If its being used as a drogue to keep the stern to the sea and you are making
way, then the lights shown are those which the vessel would use irespective of
whether she was oeing a sea anchor or not.

If she is lying to a sea anchor as a survival strategy in storm conditions then
not under command lights are probably appropriate. A securite all stations
call might also be reasonable.

If lying to a sea anchor for a kip then a good slap is probably whats required!

Bill

Nick Temple-Fry

Ronald Raygun wrote in message ...

>t is arguable that you should exhibit NUC signals even when
>routinely sleeping while single handed, even in normal weather.
>One could simply say that being single handed is itself exceptional.


Unfortunately the rules do not allow for 'routinely sleeping', if the vessel
is underway regardless of whether it is making way then

"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well
as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of
the situation and of the risk of collision".

Nothing in the rules relieves any vessel underway from that obligation.

Now if a vessel is in extremis and deploys a sea anchor as a survival tactic
then, yes, I can see the argument that it is 'not under command', however it
is still under way and likely in those circumstances to be making
appreciable way. So it is still required to maintain a proper lookout and do
whatever it can to avoid a collision situation (including putting an axe
through the sea anchor warp to dispose of it)

If however it deploys a sea anchor in order to enjoy a good kip then I'd
question whether it would really meet the criteria for not being under
command as the use of the anchor is not required by the circumstances.

But I'd question, outside of extremis, the rationale for using a sea anchor.
Surely a vessel properly 'hove to' will be more be comfortable and more able
to be put to making way again to avoid collision. Plus it will avoid the
labour of first deploying and then recovering a sea anchor. Of course this
doesn't remove its obligations under the rules. If the vessel, or the
skipper, can't heave to then it should remain in the marina.

At the end of the day, those of us who sail singlehanded have one final
protection and that is the fact that we are very unlikely to be able to turn
up (at least in corporeal form) to any court or enquiry.

Nick

Ronald Raygun

Nick Temple-Fry wrote:

> Ronald Raygun wrote in message ...
>>
>>It is arguable that you should exhibit NUC signals even when
>>routinely sleeping while single handed, even in normal weather.
>>One could simply say that being single handed is itself exceptional.
>
> Unfortunately the rules do not allow for 'routinely sleeping',

Gee. That's too bad. One has to sleep, and single handed sailing
has not explicitly been outlawed.

> if the
> vessel is underway regardless of whether it is making way then
>
> "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as
> well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the
> prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of
> the situation and of the risk of collision".
>
> Nothing in the rules relieves any vessel underway from that obligation.

That's understood. But like all the rules, the lookout rule has to
be adapted flexibly to each situation, and if a lone sailor is going
to sleep where he's unlikely to be a danger to anyone including to
himself, i.e. away from main shipping lanes, then no-one is going to
come along and give him a ticket for failing to keep a proper lookout.
This rule really would only get invoked to apportion blame, once an
actual, or near, collision had in fact occurred. It's one of those
"no harm done, no problem" things.

> Now if a vessel is in extremis and deploys a sea anchor as a survival
> tactic then, yes, I can see the argument that it is 'not under command',
> however it is still under way.

Yes

> So it is still required to maintain a proper lookout

Yes

> and do whatever it can to avoid a collision situation (including
> putting an axe through the sea anchor warp to dispose of it)

Not necessarily

> If however it deploys a sea anchor in order to enjoy a good kip then I'd
> question whether it would really meet the criteria for not being under
> command as the use of the anchor is not required by the circumstances.

Well, NUC refers to exceptional circumstances, but the rules don't go
into details of *how* exceptional circumstances have to be, and the
likely intention is that NUC is a catch-all for all circumstances in
which a vessel will be unable to comply with the rules, which are not
more specifically distinguished in other ways, such as constrained
by draught, restricted in manoeuvrability, mine sweeping, etc.

I'd say having a sea anchor out is pretty exceptional. This would be
so whether or not its use were strictly necessary. On the other hand,
I'd also say that to put out an unnecessary sea anchor simply in order
to gain legitimate NUC status would be an act of crass stupidity.
Moreover, I would argue that being exhausted and in dire need of kip
is itself exceptional enough to warrant showing NUC signals. There is
no need to put out a sea anchor in order to "qualify".

Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a breach
of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say that showing
NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary, it
is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some fair
warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one drift into
a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.

Graham Frankland

"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:UDlyb.15349$3P5.129992728@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a breach
> of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say that showing
> NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary, it
> is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some fair
> warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one drift into
> a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.
>
We all know single handers have to sleep and break the law whailst doing so
and, as even Blair hasn't (yet) tried to ban long distance single handed
races, it appears officialdom is prepared to turn a blind eye - until
there's an accident.

I do however wonder about the wisdom of lying to a drogue for a couple of
reasons - as far as a collision is concerned with your boat or drogue line,
you have effectively increased your size by 100 - 200 metres and, if trying
to avoid a collision, the time taken to recover the drogue and get under way
is greatly increased.

Lying hove to or, even continuing to sail whilst asleep, are much safer
options if clear of the coast. On a technicality, a yacht under sail is the
stand on vessel so most vessels approaching you (not knowing you are asleep)
"should" give way.

Graham.

martin

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:42:16 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
<gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:

>"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>news:UDlyb.15349$3P5.129992728@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a breach
>> of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say that showing
>> NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary, it
>> is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some fair
>> warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one drift into
>> a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.
>>
>We all know single handers have to sleep and break the law whailst doing so
>and, as even Blair hasn't (yet) tried to ban long distance single handed
>races, it appears officialdom is prepared to turn a blind eye - until
>there's an accident.

Perhaps you had better learn a little about international maritime
law.
How could Tony Blair make something illegal that is already illegal?
--
Martin

paul cooke

"Graham Frankland" <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Lying hove to or, even continuing to sail whilst asleep, are much safer
> options if clear of the coast.**On*a*technicality,*a*yacht*under*sail*is
> the stand on vessel so most vessels approaching you (not knowing you are
> asleep) "should" give way.

Attempting to insist on your "technical" rights is guaranteed to leave you
at the centre of a spreading area of debris...

There are far too many motor boat drivers out there who think they're in
some kind of motorway when they're tootling on... can't cope with the fact
that dinghies and small yachts will need to tack when proceeding against
the prevailing wind...

it's even worse in that massive shipping lane called the channel...

--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!

Ronald Raygun

martin wrote:

> How could Tony Blair make something illegal that is already illegal?

Mr Blair can do anything if he sets his mind to it and gets
Mr Bush's permission. But what you claim to be illegal is not
in fact illegal, unless you're using a non-standard definition
of "illegal".

Graham Frankland

"martin" <anon@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:kn7ksvce47ep40umvdh26uib7dteo6pb1n@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:42:16 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
> <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> >news:UDlyb.15349$3P5.129992728@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >> Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a breach
> >> of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say that showing
> >> NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary, it
> >> is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some fair
> >> warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one drift into
> >> a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.
> >>
> >We all know single handers have to sleep and break the law whilst doing
so
> >and, as even Blair hasn't (yet) tried to ban long distance single handed
> >races, it appears officialdom is prepared to turn a blind eye - until
> >there's an accident.
>
> Perhaps you had better learn a little about international maritime
> law.
> How could Tony Blair make something illegal that is already illegal?
> --
Perhaps you had better learn to read posts properly! There was no
suggestion that Blair makes it "illegal".

It would be a very simple matter for "any" government (not just ours) to
enforce maritime law if they wished to do so. It seems a nonsense that
single handed racers can blatantly disregard the law without fear of
prosecution whereas officialdom in some areas is pretty quick to punish
yotties for trivial offences such as not having correct documents on board.
If an amateur sailor has an incident whilst asleep at sea, the outcome will
be far different than for someone like Bullimore or Ellen.

Graham.

martin

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:36:25 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
<gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:

>"martin" <anon@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:kn7ksvce47ep40umvdh26uib7dteo6pb1n@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:42:16 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
>> <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> >news:UDlyb.15349$3P5.129992728@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> >> Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a breach
>> >> of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say that showing
>> >> NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary, it
>> >> is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some fair
>> >> warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one drift into
>> >> a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.
>> >>
>> >We all know single handers have to sleep and break the law whilst doing
>so
>> >and, as even Blair hasn't (yet) tried to ban long distance single handed
>> >races, it appears officialdom is prepared to turn a blind eye - until
>> >there's an accident.
>>
>> Perhaps you had better learn a little about international maritime
>> law.
>> How could Tony Blair make something illegal that is already illegal?
>> --
>Perhaps you had better learn to read posts properly! There was no
>suggestion that Blair makes it "illegal".

so what does ban mean?


--
Martin

Hugo 'NOx' Tyson

martin <anon@invalid.com> writes:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:36:25 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
> <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >"martin" <anon@invalid.com> wrote in message
> >news:kn7ksvce47ep40umvdh26uib7dteo6pb1n@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:42:16 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
> >> <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> >> >news:UDlyb.15349$3P5.129992728@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >> >> Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a breach
> >> >> of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say that showing
> >> >> NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary, it
> >> >> is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some fair
> >> >> warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one drift into
> >> >> a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.
> >> >>
> >> >We all know single handers have to sleep and break the law whilst
> >> >doing so
> >> >and, as even Blair hasn't (yet) tried to ban long distance single handed
> >> >races, it appears officialdom is prepared to turn a blind eye - until
> >> >there's an accident.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you had better learn a little about international maritime
> >> law.
> >> How could Tony Blair make something illegal that is already illegal?

> >Perhaps you had better learn to read posts properly! There was no
> >suggestion that Blair makes it "illegal".
>
> so what does ban mean?

"Begin to enforce this law" rather than "not enforce this law" - non of
which affects the illegality of the illicit activity.

Bliar could do this by issuing policy guidelines to the Coastguard and DPP.

Perhaps in this case, guidelines could legitimize the presumption that a
single-hander sailing for more than 20 hours will at some stage fail to
keep a proper lookout, and HMCG, on inspection of the passage plan (that
you must make under SOLAS V), might interrupt your voyage if it features
such a single-handed passage.

FAOD, I think this would all be a terrible idea. I'm just posting on the
matter of english usage and how the interaction between guv'mint and law
and enforcement works, a bit.

- Huge

paul cooke

Hugo 'NOx' Tyson wrote:

>
> martin <anon@invalid.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:36:25 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
>> <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"martin" <anon@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> >news:kn7ksvce47ep40umvdh26uib7dteo6pb1n@4ax.com.. .
>> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:42:16 -0000, "Graham Frankland"
>> >> <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> >> >news:UDlyb.15349$3P5.129992728@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> >> >> Although sleeping single handed is likely technically to be a
>> >> >> breach of the lookout rule, that mere fact is not enough to say
>> >> >> that showing
>> >> >> NUC signals while asleep is being doubly sinful. On the contrary,
>> >> >> it is a common sense thing to do, since at least it provides some
>> >> >> fair warning to others of one's likely non-compliance should one
>> >> >> drift into a situation in which one would be the give-way vessel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >We all know single handers have to sleep and break the law whilst
>> >> >doing so
>> >> >and, as even Blair hasn't (yet) tried to ban long distance single
>> >> >handed races, it appears officialdom is prepared to turn a blind eye
>> >> >- until there's an accident.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps you had better learn a little about international maritime
>> >> law.
>> >> How could Tony Blair make something illegal that is already illegal?
>
>> >Perhaps you had better learn to read posts properly! There was no
>> >suggestion that Blair makes it "illegal".
>>
>> so what does ban mean?
>
> "Begin to enforce this law" rather than "not enforce this law" - non of
> which affects the illegality of the illicit activity.
>
> Bliar could do this by issuing policy guidelines to the Coastguard and
> DPP.
>
> Perhaps in this case, guidelines could legitimize the presumption that a
> single-hander sailing for more than 20 hours will at some stage fail to
> keep a proper lookout, and HMCG, on inspection of the passage plan (that
> you must make under SOLAS V), might interrupt your voyage if it features
> such a single-handed passage.
>
> FAOD, I think this would all be a terrible idea. I'm just posting on the
> matter of english usage and how the interaction between guv'mint and law
> and enforcement works, a bit.
>
> - Huge

please define "proper lookout"... it's almost as open to lawyerly
introspection as "take reasonable care"... and "due diligence"

--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!

Nick Temple-Fry

>please define "proper lookout"... it's almost as open to lawyerly
>introspection as "take reasonable care"... and "due diligence"

Well the starting point for a 'proper lookout" is

"proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available
means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions "

Which would seem to suggest that you need to be where you can see and hear
what is going on all around you and that you need to be looking and
listening.

The more 'toys' you carry (radar detectors, radar) then the more means you
have available and therefore your obligation increases.

Nick
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!

Ronald Raygun

Nick Temple-Fry wrote:

>
>>please define "proper lookout"... it's almost as open to lawyerly
>>introspection as "take reasonable care"... and "due diligence"
>
> Well the starting point for a 'proper lookout" is
>
> "proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all
> available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions
> "

That's just quoting the rule which says by which means a PL should
be kept. It comes nowhere close to actually defining a PL.

> Which would seem to suggest that you need to be where you can see and hear
> what is going on all around you and that you need to be looking and
> listening.

And how many large commercial vessels keep a lookout by hearing?
Perhaps *they* should be banned...

Ric

"Nick Temple-Fry" <Nick@Temple-FryPPP.coPPP.ukTakeout theP> wrote in message
news:z8mdnc39I4uw1FSiRVn-this
> doesn't remove its obligations under the rules. If the vessel, or the
> skipper, can't heave to then it should remain in the marina.

Heaving too is just one storm survival tactic. Sometimes and on some boats
it is not really appropriate - eg if the wind is so much that you can't
carry any sail at all. And in some cases it is not possible - eg if
dismasted. And on all boats I've sailed I find I still trundle downwind
when hove-too - I'd feel much better in some circumstances with a sea anchor
out so that my drift is at worst a few tenths. Another time I wished I had a
sea anchor was last summer when halfway between France and Menorca I found
that a huge sheet of plastic had got fouled up under the keel and prop. The
only way to clear it was to dive under the boat. I was tied to the boat
while under it and had warps and buckets out to slow the drift - but
neverteless I would have felt even safer if it was properly sea-anchored.
Considering how little they cost, how little they weigh, and how little
space they take up, I can't see any arguments against having one on board.

Ric

"Graham Frankland" <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0uWdnTB5L_91gFeiRVn-hQ@brightview.com...
>
> I do however wonder about the wisdom of lying to a drogue for a couple of
> reasons - as far as a collision is concerned with your boat or drogue
line,
> you have effectively increased your size by 100 - 200 metres and, if
trying
> to avoid a collision, the time taken to recover the drogue and get under
way
> is greatly increased.
>
> Lying hove to or, even continuing to sail whilst asleep, are much safer
> options if clear of the coast. On a technicality, a yacht under sail is
the
> stand on vessel so most vessels approaching you (not knowing you are
asleep)
> "should" give way.
>
These are good points. But we don't have priority over fishing boats and
their nets which can be a good mile in length in the Med. These are my main
concern where I sail. I think the danger from cargo ships is not that high
in the Med as the shipping denisty is fairly high (compared to say Pacific
or Atlantic) so they tend to keep a fairly good lookout - certainly I have
never once had one come anywhere near me. I have however once (and twice
nearly) ran into unlit/unmarked nets. I do sail on and sleep - but only for
very short naps (paradoxal sleep) before taking a look out. There have been
times when I have become almost comatose through deprivation of profound
sleep which requires an uninterrupted kip of an hour or so. There have been
times where I felt that it would be far safer to stop and properly sleep
than to carry on under reduced sail or hove-too.

Graham Frankland

"Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote in message
news:bqg198$k7l$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
> Considering how little they cost, how little they weigh, and how little
> space they take up, I can't see any arguments against having one on board.
>
Are we talking sea anchor or drogue here? There's a hell of a difference in
the price and performance of a 10 or 12 ft sea anchor compared to a drogue
normally used to slow the boat when running downwind. Unless sailing a tin
bath, I doubt a
small drogue would make any noticeable difference as an "anchor".

Graham.

Graham Frankland

"martin" <anon@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ddgmsvc5v10urbt8ii6id85dnobmkcljml@4ax.com...
> so what does ban mean?
>
Take action to stop those events which clearly contravene maritime law and
cost all of us increased insurance premiums when things go wrong.

Graham.

Ric

"Graham Frankland" <gdfltdatnospamglobalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k5Sdnb9D68tcCVai4p2dnA@brightview.com...
> "Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote in message
> news:bqg198$k7l$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
> > Considering how little they cost, how little they weigh, and how little
> > space they take up, I can't see any arguments against having one on
board.
> >
> Are we talking sea anchor or drogue here? There's a hell of a difference
in
> the price and performance of a 10 or 12 ft sea anchor compared to a drogue
> normally used to slow the boat when running downwind. Unless sailing a
tin
> bath, I doubt a
> small drogue would make any noticeable difference as an "anchor".
>
The one I have just bought has an opening diameter of 1.9m, and is 1.45m
long, and it cost 36 euros. If you go to www.svb.de, click on "Anker,
Tauwerk,Fender", then again on "Anker" it should open up on the first page.
I think it should be big enough to hold my boat (32foot).

Nick Temple-Fry

>That's just quoting the rule which says by which means a PL should
>be kept. It comes nowhere close to actually defining a PL.

What do you want? A set of proscriptive rules and regulations that states
for a vessel of 'x' size with 'y' crew and 'z' equipment then if visibility
is '@' then they need to do

Action 'a' every 30 seconds
Action 'b' every 2 minutes

Ronald Raygun

Nick Temple-Fry wrote:

>>That's just quoting the rule which says by which means a PL should
>>be kept. It comes nowhere close to actually defining a PL.
>
> What do you want? A set of proscriptive rules and regulations that states
> for a vessel of 'x' size with 'y' crew and 'z' equipment then if
> visibility is '@' then they need to do
>
> Action 'a' every 30 seconds
> Action 'b' every 2 minutes
> .
> .
> .
> Action 'z' every 5 minutes

Not quite, but some kind of guidance on what the intended meaning
of "proper" is might be nice.

> The rules are clear that the minimum requirement you must meet is a
> lookout by sight and sound at all times, if your vessel has the capability
> to maintain lookout in other ways then the onus is on you to demonstrate
> why the use of that was unnecessary or inappropriate to the conditions.
>
> At the end of the day thats what demonstrating due diligence means
> - that you have thought of the risks
> - that you have put in place processes to manage those risks
> - that you can demonstrate that you have complied with those
> processes.

Sounds good to me. The point is that some people's interpretation
of "at all times" as meaning "continuously, full time, and without
interruption" is flawed. Interruptions are permissible, and I would
say that this permission is derived from how one interprets "proper".
Their lengths will be determined by the circumstances in which you
find yourself, such as visibility, your vessel's size, speed, and
maneouvrability, the types of vessel you are likely to meet, and
the likelihood of so doing.

A single-hander going off-watch for even just 5 minutes to use the
head, update the log, or make some tea can be too long in dense
traffic, while catnapping for an hour or so at a stretch can be
acceptable at low speed on a lonely ocean where the probablility
of even encountering another vessel, never mind being on a collision
course with it, is negligible. And that's without high-tech gizmos
such as radar alarms which will wake you up when anything comes within
range; they could easily justify going for a prolonged sleep.

> I don't critise the argument that, if forced through lack of sleep, we
> show the signs/lights for "Not under Command". Its prudent, however slim
> the chances of anyone noticeing our lights/signs.

Good.

> What I question is to
> whether in fact this use of "Not under Command" gives us any
> rights/protection under the rules.

Why do you question this? A vessel seeing another showing NUC
must keep out of her way, since generally the signals vessels show
should be taken in good faith, i.e. if it shows NUC, then it should
be presumed in fact to be NUC. I can understand your reservation
that a vessel might be showing NUC when in fact it is not, and would
thereby seek to acquire stand-on status it would not normally deserve,
but I really don't see a problem with designating a vessel whose
entire crew are asleep as being NUC, *even if* they are not keeping
a proper lookout.

>>And how many large commercial vessels keep a lookout by hearing?
>>Perhaps *they* should be banned...
>
> I'm afraid I don't justify my actions by the failure of others.

I was not trying to say that there is no point being good when so
many others are bad. The opposite would be more likely, since it
means you're forced to assume, particularly if you're vulnerable,
that until the opposite becomes apparent, that the LCV has not
seen you, and act accordingly. Unfortunately, that tends -strictly
speaking- to put you in breach of rule 17 (or at least initially
of 17a1).

Rather, I meant that if one is going to be judgemental about breaches
of the rules, one would do well to target first those breaches which
are likeliest to increase risk of collision.

Mike Cobbe

> opening diameter of 1.9m, and is 1.45m...
> I think it should be big enough to hold my boat (32foot).

Highly unlikely it will hold - for that size boat you need a parachute
diameter of 10 to 15 feet, subject to displacement.

Never under-spec a para anchor because of the consequences if it doesn't
hold. Specifically, if you drag any type of anchor you usually lie beam to
wind i.e. the most dangerous angle and you may well be rolled.

For comparison, our anchor is 18 feet diameter, for 38 feet LOA, heavy
displacement.

Mike