# Is sleeping OK?



## wannabsailor (Jul 9, 2012)

I’ve been watching solo crossings/sailing on you-tube. What’s the rule on sleeping while sailing in the middle of nowhere?


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Well, the "rule" says that you are required to maintain a watch. Most solo sailors interpret that to mean that it is okay to cat-nap, getting up every 15-20 minutes or so to check the horizon. Some people insist that this is unsafe and does not meet the rules. Personally, I don't see a problem with it.

Now, if you go off to sleep for hours at a time... That's a whole different matter.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

It's the Dirty Harry rule. Do you feel lucky?

The best modern mitigant is an AIS receiver/transmitter w alarm.. Even then, you might get 15 mins at a time.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

I am a singehander and break the rules all the time on passage. Section I, Paragraph 5 of the COLREGS:


> Section I
> 4. Application
> The rules apply in any visibility (e.g., in sight or in restricted visibility).
> 5. Look-out
> Every vessel must at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight (day shape or lights by eyes or visual aids)and hearing (sound signal or Marine VHF radio) as well as by all available means (e.g., Radar, Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA), Automatic Identification System (AIS), GMDSS...) in order to make a full assessment of the situation and risk of collision


I use my radar and AIS (transponder) but as soon as I get some shut-eye I am breaking rule 5. If anything happens while I am not actively on deck and keeping lookout then I am either partially or completely at fault.
If I am at fault in a collision with a big vessel then I'm also dead. Even if I am the stand-on vessel but not on watch I am both dead and at fault.


----------



## johnnyquest37 (Feb 16, 2012)

Solo sailors have to weigh the risks associated with not keeping a full-time watch and the risks associated with sleep deprivation. Fatal mistakes can occur due to either of these conditions. Ten to twenty minute cat-naps can cover you for shorter voyages, but over longer voyages, the solo sailor has to sleep sometime or he will end up doing something super stupid.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

Radar is your friend.


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

The single handers claim to sleep 20 minutes at a time, for example those in the mini transat atlantic race. However when you read their accounts, you often hear of them going below for several hours to sleep after an especially tiring day (many sail changes, bad weather, etc). They rely on the radar with a beep that wakes you up when it sees something passing nearby. That combined with an AIS tranceiver, radar detector and active radar reflector (though these only work with the older generation radars I have heard) seem to cover you pretty well.

However I know that one of these mini 650's had an issue where the sailor accidentally turned down the volume on his radar and wasn't awakened until it was too late. He lost his rig in the middle of the atlantic after hitting a tanker. He was lucky he didn't hit it straight on or he would have certainly died.

I often wonder how coastal single handers do it, since it will be rare that you will have nothing on the horizon for 20 minutes at a time, ever...


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I saw very few boats and ships off the coast of Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, on the 3 trips I took this summer, when I slept for 10 - 20 minutes at a time in the cockpit or on the foredeck at night if I could.

What's really sad is the pitiful number of other sailboats out there. I saw 3 on my first trip and none on my second trip, not counting in the immediate vicinity of the Cape May inlet. At 28', my boat was clearly much smaller than the 3 other sailboats I saw - 1 of which I passed going in the Ocean City inlet as it left. Where is everyone? (This true for the Chesapeake, too, once you get away from the Northern Bay and the large marine towns/cities like Baltimore, Annapolis, or Solomon's Island, you really don't see that many other vessels out there, even in the summer).

I saw a dozen large luxury powerboats and sport fishing boats at different times, running up and down the coast, but none at night, and none very close.

I saw only 2 or 3 commercial vessels, and only 1 I needed to avoid, converging near the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay in the early morning hours.

I am sure it is much worse near large cities like New York, but I really didn't see that much vessel traffic on my coastal trips. So the reality is, you can go hours without seeing any other boats, even on a coastal trip. In fact, it was a somewhat unnerving experience for me to be far away from shore, and to not see anything other than the sea and the sky for hours at a time.


----------



## LoboPops (Jul 28, 2012)

Radar doesn't pick up some of the trash out there that can really ruin your day! Have seen logs, trunks, house roofs, etc. that can make nightmares.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

how 'bout: 
you die, is your own damn fault--just dont take anyone else with ye....

i have a friend who solos and does go below to sleep-i keep telling him this. 

even shorthanded sometimes ye get really tired--i will cop short naps in cockpit, not below, and i make sure to sweep horizon before i shut eyes for a second or two. .


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Simon .... do you have AIS as well as radar ? (Hi to you both btw, trust all is well with you.)

LoboPops .... maybe a house roof will be visible to the naked eye but the reality is that even awake it is going to be pretty damn easy to miss the odd log or tree trunk. On passage, how many solo sailors are keeping a full time forward lookout ? Very few methinks. I rarely sail solo these days but on anything over ten hours or so for at least part of the time there will only be one of us on deck and that one is probably sitting in the cockpit looking aft or abeam. 

For mine I like AIS. Picks up pretty much all commercial craft these days. A while back we were caught in a pea souper off Sydney with a tanker moving up the coast and into Sydney Harbour. Without AIS I would have been ever so slightly on edge.


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

I single hand and yes I do sleep when I am away from shipping lanes. With modern navigation and the cost of fuel, those freighters stick to the shortest routes and don't stray away from them and as far as statistics go, singlehanders have a pretty good track record of not bumping into each other. I set the radar on a 3 mile perimiter and hit the hay for as long as I can sleep. As far as the stuff goes that drifts around out there, I bet that even keeping watch at night one would not spot a half submerged container or other such stuff, that is a risk, I and in reality we all have to take, or stay at the dock. I have seen first hand what not having had enough sleep can do when a single hander hit the harbour wall when he finaly fell asleep with his boat running on auto pilot. It got trashed beond repair and is sitting next to the travel lift slip in Horta. 
So as far as I am concerned, I get as much sleep when I can, because ye never know when ye have to be proper awake and have yer wits about ye.

ATB

Michael


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I sleep as soon as the sun has been up for a few minuets untill noon and just hope they see me. it's been working for over 20 years, no gadgets. I take a nap from 4 till sunset and stay up through the dark hours. This keeps me from being sleep deprived.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

I have no experience with sleeping underway. I do have some experience being in Northern California coastal waters. Ships can close on you at an alarming rate. If I were to sleep, I would have a reliable loud alarm clock that I could set for about 10 to 15 minutes or so. As mentioned above radar and AIS could help reduce your chances of being run down, if they are working properly.

Paul T


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

No, sleeping is not OK.

A relevant court case

FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS


----------



## Silvio (Nov 10, 2010)

As with most things, I think the answer depends. I sleep underway when single handing for more than 15 hours or so. Mostly when well outside shipping lanes and away from heavy traffic areas. Mostly I sleep in the cockpit for an hour or two at a time. The 20 minutes cat naps don't do much for me. If the cockpit is uncomfortable due to weather I will go below and nap. I try to stay up most of the overnight hours and sleep during the day when I can. I couldn't sleep through an AIS alarm if I wanted to, darn thing is loud. I judge that I am better off sleeping and being fully awake and alert when I do get into traffic areas or am making a harbor entrance. 

To each their own, at the end of the day the captain is responsible for his/her ship.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Sure, but the sailor who was run down in the case was the one who brought the lawsuit and he was awarded half his damages:

"Summary of Damages In view of the foregoing, I allow plaintiff's claim for damages as follows: Lost Property: $149,358.00 Personal Injury: 5,000.00 Travel Expense: 952.60 Total: $155,310.60

Under the Court's resolution of the liability question, plaintiff will recover judgment for one-half of this amount, $77,655.30, against the vessel TFL EXPRESS in rem and defendant Timur Carriers (Pte.) Ltd. in personam. The complaint against defendant Trans Freight Lines, Inc. will be dismissed."

Yes, he shared in the fault for the accident because he went belowdecks to sleep. I am somewhat surprised he sued the ship that ran him down. He thought the fact that the Camera was a sailing vessel put the motor vessel Express at fault. Both parties claimed the other had inadequate watch and at least one of them claimed the other was not displaying lights.

So the long and the short of it is he lost his vessel and he was awarded damages.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

James

The Express was found partially at fault for not maintaining a proper lookout. Had they done so, the finding would probably have been different.

Most collisions do not find 100% fault with one party.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

You have to know when it's ok, for how long, where you are etc. If I'm approaching a shipping lane, I may heave to in day light and sail into when rested . If you are heading towards a coast line, heave to and set the hand crank egg timer for 15 minuets, and cat nap. but to say it's not ok to sleep is to say single handed ocean crossings, circ's, etc. are not ok. And it's probably not ok if you don't do it prudently and properly. Single handling isn't for everyone and for some like me it's all there is. It's why I sail.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

jackdale said:


> James
> 
> The Express was found partially at fault for not maintaining a proper lookout. Had they done so, the finding would probably have been different.
> 
> Most collisions do not find 100% fault with one party.


The Defendant Express denied that they did not have a proper watch. The judge seems to have reached the conclusion based on reverse logic. He first concludes that the S/V Camera was displaying the proper lights. Then he concludes that the Express must not have had a proper watch or it would have seen the lights:

"Given the finding that the CAMERA was displaying proper navigation lights, the fault of the EXPRESS logically follows.Defendants offered evidence, which I accept, that had the CAMERA been displaying no lights, she could not have been seen by those on board the EXPRESS in sufficient time to avoid collision, given the characteristics of the latter vessel. But I have found that the CAMERA was displaying the lights required by the rules; and there is no suggestion that the EXPRESS could not have fulfilled her obligation of avoiding the CAMERA if the CAMERA was displaying a proper sternlight which the EXPRESS's lookout had timely observed. In these circumstances, the EXPRESS must be held in fault."

So, basically, since the motor vessel hit the sailing vessel at night while the s/v displayed lights, the motor vessel shared in the fault.

Well, the sailboat owner lost his boat, but at least he caught up on some sleep (and was awarded damages). All things considered, he was a lucky fellow that night...


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

I sleep during the dayand hope anything else is keeping a good watch. 

If I was outside the shipping lanes I would risk a longer sleep say two to 3 hours followed by cat naps otherwise 20 minute naps with two timers to wake me.

Keep watch at night.

A single hander on passage has no option as you will be hallucinating after 48 to 60 hours without sleep. You have to sleep.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

tdw said:


> Simon .... do you have AIS as well as radar ? (Hi to you both btw, trust all is well with you.)


Hi A&W Yes I have AIS but this is on the chartplotter wich has a silly beep beep warning, On my Radar which is also my old back up chartplotter that is pre AIS I have a 110 db Pisso alarm (think smoke detector alarm). I do not sleep when in the traffic lanes. I must say now Julie is with me I tend to sleep deeper but still wake every hour, even at anchor.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

SimonV said:


> Hi A&W Yes I have AIS but this is on the chartplotter wich has a silly beep beep warning, On my Radar which is also my old back up chartplotter that is pre AIS I have a 110 db Pisso alarm (think smoke detector alarm). I do not sleep when in the traffic lanes. I must say now Julie is with me I tend to sleep deeper but still wake every hour, even at anchor.


With the Wombet in the cockpit I sleep like a log. Now while I don't wake every hour I'm still having a look around every two and like you even when at anchor, indeed even on dry land I find myself up and about every couple of hours .... and that's not only due to a 60 year old bladder ... 

AIS alarm is pretty pissweak. Barely capable of waking me when at anchor let alone when at sea.

I must say that unless the Wombet wakes up to herself and shows me the door my single handing days are over. Minor regret there but the old chatterbox makes up for that in many other ways and she loves sitting out on deck starring at the stars moon and dolphins as much as I.

btw .... for the fifteen minute nap an egg timer is the go, preferably one that has an auto reset.

A


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

A few thoughts...

First, I think it's somewhat naive in today's world to adhere to the notion of well-defined "shipping lanes" offshore... With highly sophisticated weather routing, virtually real time satellite imagery of the Gulf Stream, and so on, the old rules and patterns of ships making open ocean passages simply no longer apply, to a considerable extent. With the exception of well-defined traffic and separation schemes on approaches to ports or straits, it's virtually impossible for a small yacht traveling at 5-6 knots to realistically assess their proximity to "shipping lanes", they're EVERYWHERE, these days:










Second, IMHO, effective sleep management for a singlehander is, for most individuals, a practiced and acquired skill. One that might take years to fully master... Within the Anglo-Saxon culture, unlike the Latin, there has never been a widespread adaptation of the practice of daytime "napping", and to do it effectively, and come to understand your body's circadian rhythms, and what works best for you, can take a LONG time to figure out... I believe it's totally unreasonable for someone, for example, who has lived a conventional workaday existence, to suddenly jump into a life of singlehanded sailing, and do so in relative safety immediately...

For anyone seriously considering extensive singlehanded passagemaking, I'd highly recommend the sleep seminar conducted by Dr Claudio Stampi in conjunction with the Bermuda 1-2 every other year... He's the world's foremost authority on sleep research with singlehanded racers, the guy certainly knows his stuff...

Lastly, while coastal passages are certainly more stressful as a rule, even along the East coast, there can often be a surprising lack of traffic out there... As James W noted, the lower Delmarva is one such area, that can be a very lonely piece of real estate... And, between Hatteras and Canaveral, inshore of the Stream and away from the various approaches to Cape Fear, Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville, there's really not nearly as much going on out there, as many might assume...


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

LoboPops said:


> Radar doesn't pick up some of the trash out there that can really ruin your day! Have seen logs, trunks, house roofs, etc. that can make nightmares.


Actually, the new 3G and 4G radar systems WILL pick up the trash. You can see crab pots, gulls floating on the surface and flying off as your boat approaches, pretty much anything out there including styrofoam cups. The only 3G Radar system I've seen personally is the Lowrance, and it was absolutely incredible. So in this situation, radar is definitely your friend.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## VK540 (May 6, 2011)

This is probably a really dumb question but here goes! If a sailing vessel is stopped, heave to or hove to, are they ok to go and have a good nap without worrying about the legal obligations of a lookout? Daytime or night time? With proper nav lights on. Would heaving to only require anchor lights?


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

To a bulk carrier it makes no ods weather you are siling at 5 knots or are hove to and as far as the legal aspect goes, who cares when you end up under the bow of one of them. But to answer your question, no you are not at anchor and are by rights sailing the fact that you are not making any way does not matter. You still have the rags up and your vesel is able to manuver.

ATB

Michael


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

VK540 said:


> This is probably a really dumb question but here goes! If a sailing vessel is stopped, heave to or hove to, are they ok to go and have a good nap without worrying about the legal obligations of a lookout? Daytime or night time? With proper nav lights on. Would heaving to only require anchor lights?


Now look, someone is bound to pop in and prove once again that i don't know my arse from a hole in the ground but as far as I am aware you would be still underway, even when hove to.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I spend a lot of my life in a commercial wheel house on watch. We see sailboats very well in the day time. The day's of the untrained junky nodding off on radar watch is a thing of the past. Night time approaching Cartagenia is not a good time to sleep, hove to in the day time out in the ocean is safer than not sleeping. Shipping lanes basically exist. time is money and the line drawn between busy ports is a lane, ships stick to routes. Ofcourse they can be any where. 100 ships pass me on the way to Bahamas, one will pass in six day's on my regular route to Honduras, because I'm out of the "major" shipping traffic. I don't think you need to be raised in siesta ville to take a much needed sleep after an all night watch nor do I think long off shore single handed passages are for the average cubical paper sales man from suburbia, all though those dudes do sometimes pull it off. You either have the sea coursing through your veins or you don't. I did an 8 day passage when I was 19, fell asleep the third night out for 7 hours in the Yucatan channel, stupid luck got me through that night. I was niave to think trying to stay up as much as possible was the best tactic. Now when I do that run I sleep in the light of day and stay up all night.


----------



## LoboPops (Jul 28, 2012)

jackdale said:


> No, sleeping is not OK.
> 
> A relevant court case
> 
> FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS


Thank you for the above. The case goes along the lines I have seen in the past. The point is also driven home. Do NOT expect the other ship/boat to look out for you. There are too many things that can happen (lights burn out, lookout not utilizing proper techniques or something else gets their attention, other equipment malfunction, etc.)

The only reasonable conclusions I can draw:

1. Find an inlet or other place to moor or drop anchor out of the way.

2. Sail with someone else along to share watch duties (plus never hurts to have extra hands in an emergency.)

3. Continue with as much navigational warning equipment on that I have on board and realize that responsibility for any accidents may or will be my fault!


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

LoboPops said:


> Thank you for the above. The case goes along the lines I have seen in the past. The point is also driven home. Do NOT expect the other ship/boat to look out for you. There are too many things that can happen (lights burn out, lookout not utilizing proper techniques or something else gets their attention, other equipment malfunction, etc.)
> 
> The only reasonable conclusions I can draw:
> 
> ...


How do you pull into an inlet half way across an ocean? How do you single hand with someone else on board? Yes if you get run over by a ship it's your fault, stay out of the way and stay visible. Orange weather cloths and bright on deck safety gear helps tremendously. The chances of another sail boat hitting you at noon half way across the atlantic for instance is hardly worth thinking about, the chances of a cargo ship hitting you in broad day light while hove to out of major shipping lanes , is worth the risk IMO as it is highly unlikely. Single handling on long off shore passages is not for everybody.


----------



## Silvio (Nov 10, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> ... Single handling on long off shore passages is not for everybody.


And there you have it.

Like I said earlier, it depends. For some the risk of leaving the clubhouse is too great, for others the risk of sailing out of the harbor is too much. For a few the risk of being run over in the middle of an ocean in broad daylight is less than the risk of extreme sleep deprivation when on a passage. It is about acceptable levels of risk, assumption of those risks, and mitigating the multiplying factors that can be managed by making well reasoned and thought out calculations of the individual circumstances.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I found Andrew Evan's "Thoughts, Tips, Techiniques & Tactics for Singlehanded Sailing" to be a great resource, with chapters on sleeping, eating, single-handed spinnaker handling, etc:Singlehanded Tips Book

It inspired me to set up and fly a symmetrical spinnaker singlehanded.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> I don't think you need to be raised in siesta ville to take a much needed sleep after an all night watch...


All I'm saying is, that to perfect the art of "napping", and learning to maximize the benefits of 20 minute naps, and perfect the ability to subsist on them for extended periods of time, is not likely to come as naturally to most Americans or others not raised in a culture where midday napping is commonplace...

Every individual is different, the "rules" about sleeping will vary from person to person somewhat. All I'm suggesting is that is can take a considerable amount of experience, and experimentation, to learn what works best for you...

The videos posted by Drake Paragon of his voyage to Bermuda were illustrative of this... He really didn't have a clue about how to best manage his sleep as a singlehander, and it showed...



travlineasy said:


> Actually, the new 3G and 4G radar systems WILL pick up the trash. You can see crab pots, gulls floating on the surface and flying off as your boat approaches, pretty much anything out there including styrofoam cups. The only 3G Radar system I've seen personally is the Lowrance, and it was absolutely incredible. So in this situation, radar is definitely your friend.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gary


Probably just me, but I think the effectiveness of the use of radar as a watchstanding substitute for a singlehander offshore is generally overrated, especially in a seaway... No radar is gonna be discerning styrofoam cups floating about with a 10' sea running...

And, if your guard zone alarm is indeed picking up things like seabirds or flying fish, well - you are NEVER gonna get more than a minute or two of sleep at a time... (grin)

In thick weather or restricted visibility, radar can be invaluable, of course... But, as a means of avoidance of debris, not so much... Given the choice between watching the water ahead, or monitoring a radar screen, I'll take the former every time... And, after dark, I'll stick with attempting to maintain my night vision, rather than degrading it with continuous reliance upon radar...


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Like Aaron, I don't advocate sleeping/napping while underway at night--it's just plain foolish. It's risky during the day, but at night it's insane. 

As for spotting partly submerged debris at night, even with the best night vision - not a prayer. In 10-foot seas, especially with close wave intervals, you'd be lucky to see a telephone pole at night, let alone have the ability to avoid it during one of those 20-minute naps. 

Sleep deprivation can be dangerous to your health as well, and from my viewpoint those 20-minute naps are nothing but a modified form of sleep deprivation. There have been numerous studies by major medical centers that clearly show sleep deprivation can lead to a heart attack, even for those that are relatively young. Essentially, those short naps are the medical equivalent of sleep apnea, a conditions which eliminates REM sleep from taking place.

Keep in mind that I DO NOT advocate using radar for a night watch while the captain is fast asleep--even if just for 20 minutes. Most people would not hear the high-pitched electronic alarm sounding, at least most old codgers that I know. The radar, however, makes sailing at night a lot safer than sailing at night without radar. With broadband radar you can readily identify smaller targets that traditional radar may not even see, thereby providing you with the ability to avoid them.

Sleeping during the day, especially with something on deck that is day-glo orange to make your boat highly visible, makes perfectly good sense to me, especially if you're well out of the commercial shipping lanes. Inshore, where commercial traffic is often limited to a confined area, and the surrounding water is relatively shallow, I would find an inlet, lee side of an island, etc..., drop the hook and set the GPS/plotter's anchor alarm. Eight hours of sound sleep during the day beats the Hell out of 20 minute naps in the middle of the night.

Just my 2-cents worth,

Gary


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

travlineasy said:


> ... from my viewpoint those 20-minute naps are nothing but a modified form of sleep deprivation... Essentially, those short naps are the medical equivalent of sleep apnea, a conditions which eliminates REM sleep from taking place.
> 
> Sleeping during the day, especially with something on deck that is day-glo orange to make your boat highly visible, makes perfectly good sense to me...
> 
> Gary


Actually, some of the polyphasic sleep studies show otherwise.

We humans have amazing minds and bodies. It seems your brain will adapt your sleep to the type of sleep you need. If you practice sleeping in 20 min. segments, you will no longer go through the normal 3 hours sleep cycle and you might immediately enter deep sleep or only get REM in the 20 minutes, depending on what you need.

We are designed to be bi-phasic, to sleep at night and be awake during the day, perhaps with a midday nap, so early morning or late afternoon daytime sleep will always be somewhat unnatural and will never be as satisfying as nighttime sleep or your natural siesta. On the other hand, nighttime alertness or periodic awakenings might have served a beneficial purpose in our evolution. Of course, it is best to sleep naturally at night without interruptions, but that is not possible for the solo sailor without some risk of collision.

I believe you can program your brain to be a little more conscious while you are sleeping lightly, so you will be aware of any changes in wind, waves, moonlight, etc., on a coastal trip. This is the benefit of sleeping in the cockpit or the foredeck in a beanbag chair - not only can you tell when your boat is off-course or the wind direction has changed, but you also might be able to hear the engine of an approaching boat or sense some change that would allow you to avoid a collision at the last moment. Sleeping belowdecks seems dangerous to me on a coastal trip because you have that much less sensory perception and less ability to wake up in time.

I have similar nightmares for several weeks after an extended cruise - my boat is in jeopardy and I have to wake up to remedy the situation. I assume this is a carryover or extension of some kind of underlying anxiety about this really happening, and this mindset causes me to sleep lightly and alertly when I am cruising (for short periods).


----------



## CapnBones (Sep 20, 2010)

Capt.Aaron - I am wondering if you have any of these systems on your boat, radar or AIS?


----------



## johnnyquest37 (Feb 16, 2012)

Spent over 20 years in the Army (and I mean the real muddy-boots Army), so I have some experience with sleep deprivation. Jameswilson29 is right about REM cycles modifying to your needs. If sleep deprived, you will go quickly into REM sleep. If severly sleep deprived, you'll practically REM sleep while awake - aka hallucinate. The trick is to get enough REM sleep over time. You don't have to get it all at once, but as long as you can get enough each day, you can function relatively highly. Don't get enough and you become a zombie. How much is enough? Depends on the person. I've gone for a week to two at a time on 2 hours a day or so, as long as I had a 4 hour catch up every few days. Spent almost 10 years of my life living on 4-5 hours of sleep in "normal" circumstances. Some folks can get by with less. Most need somewhat more.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

If you want to know about sleep deprivation, talk to any new mother. They probably have a lot in common with the single handed sailor.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

It appears then that most people say that single handing is definitely irresponsible and should be avoided. And yet sailors have been doing it for centuries.

And like any endeavour in life, there will be people who will die but there will be many thousands who won't. If one is that afraid of dying it's probably best to do it now and get past it.

I did just one voyage single handed - from Seychelles to Indonesia via Christmas Island (Indian Ocean), a voyage of six weeks during which I knew going in that I wasn't going to stay awake the whole time (duh). But it was a voyage of necessity - I had no crew and could find no crew and had to get home. Seychelles does not allow boats to be left there with the owner/skipper moving on so single handing was the only choice.

I slept in one hour intervals whenever the need arose, day or night and had many vessels mostly long-line fishing boats around me for a good portion of the trip. I never had a problem with them or they with me.

Another point, despite the image showing ships in every square inch of the worlds oceans (posted earlier) I sailed with my family from the USA to New Zealand keeping a full-time watch and in 24 days of sailing from San Diego to the Marquesas we saw just one ship and no yachts. And without any communication, the ship diverted his course to go around us.

I would sail that voyage single handed without hesitation.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Agree with above post. I travel many high speed undivided single lane roads and more concerned about the other driver falling asleep at the wheel (or just inadvertantly swerving) and running into me than the danger of sailing single handed and dealing with the sleep issue.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

travlineasy said:


> Like Aaron, I don't advocate sleeping/napping while underway at night--it's just plain foolish. It's risky during the day, but at night it's insane.


Well, call me insane, then - 'cause I do so pretty routinely... (grin)

On any given passage, there are so many variables at play, it's difficult to establish such hard and fast rules... Depending upon your position, or an anticipated change in weather, it can often make far more sense to grab some sleep during the night, if conditions favor that. As James mentions, I generally find napping at night to be a bit more "natural", and as a result more effective and beneficial, than those snatched during the day. Not to mention, I think the wisest course is often simply to go with what feels best at any given time, and go with what your mind and body are telling you, all other things being equal...



travlineasy said:


> As for spotting partly submerged debris at night, even with the best night vision - not a prayer. In 10-foot seas, especially with close wave intervals, you'd be lucky to see a telephone pole at night, let alone have the ability to avoid it during one of those 20-minute naps.


Not sure what your point is, there... Sure, sailing at night always entails some degree of risk, but what's the alternative? Heave-to after dark? In high latitudes where ice might pose a risk, that would certainly be a prudent strategy... But for the normal sort of passagemaking most cruisers undertake, seems to me the only option is to simply accept the risk involved, and take your chances...

Personally, I think one the biggest risks a singlehander can take, is sleeping while under power... That mode is far more likely to dull the senses, and reduce the chances of being alerted to subtle hints of a change in conditions that one wold be more likely to detect while under sail alone...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Omatako said:


> Another point, despite the image showing ships in every square inch of the worlds oceans (posted earlier) I sailed with my family from the USA to New Zealand keeping a full-time watch and in 24 days of sailing from San Diego to the Marquesas we saw just one ship and no yachts. And without any communication, the ship diverted his course to go around us.
> 
> I would sail that voyage single handed without hesitation.


I think you are right. When flying across the Pacific in many directions I often like to look out the window and look at the sea below. Although I am at 35-40,000 feet I can pick up large ships, or even large motor and sailing yachts and I rarely see any. When you fly 10 hours at 500 mph and only see blue you realize how big the ocean is.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Seems to me that strict observance of all the rules and regulations is simply incompatible with single handing and in reality probably with double. Indeed in many respects , if not most, we choose to ignore what we in reality think of as tiresome. 

Example ... according to local regs I am supposed to wear a PFD whenever I get in my tender and row to shore. Is not going to happen. Simple as that and not the only supposed best practice that I regularly ignore. 

So think about it .... you are on watch, its cold wet and miserable and you are hunkered down in the cockpit , under the dodger, for the most part looking aft. Keeping a good watch are you ? 

As Andre says, some of us will die doing what we love. Be that sailing, climbing mountains, racing fast cars or bikes. Such it is.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

CapnBones said:


> Capt.Aaron - I am wondering if you have any of these systems on your boat, radar or AIS?


NO, I have no engine and no gen. I have one solar pannel, a vhf, mast head light, three cabin lights and a hand held gps I turn on twice a day. Every thing else is manual. I used to have a marine radar dectector I bought at a marine flea market, it broke, from lack of use I reckon. Ironically I have 2 radars, ais, and bla bla bla at work on the tug boat. When single handling I rely on gumption and common sense. Before gps I had a radio direction finder and a cheap noon sight sexton.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> NO, I have no engine and no gen. I have one solar pannel, a vhf, mast head light, three cabin lights and a hand held gps I turn on twice a day. Every thing else is manual. I used to have a marine radar dectector I bought at a marine flea market, it broke, from lack of use I reckon. Ironically I have 2 radars, ais, and bla bla bla at work on the tug boat. When single handling I rely on gumption and common sense. Before gps I had a radio direction finder and a cheap noon sight sexton.


With the sailing you do between Key West and Guanaja, I'm surprised you haven't sprung for AIS... It's the single biggest boon for the singlehanded offshore sailor today, IMHO, especially sailing a route you do with a pretty heavy concentration of cruise ship and merchant traffic being funneled through the Yucatan Channel...

Standard Horizon makes a very nice VHF with fully integrated AIS for a few hundred bucks... It's a very capable little unit. Of course it has to be integrated to a GPS, so you might have to go with a fixed mount GPS of some sort as well, but I'd still rate that as money very well spent, for the voyaging you do...


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

travlineasy said:


> Like Aaron, I don't advocate sleeping/napping while underway at night--it's just plain foolish. It's risky during the day, but at night it's insane.
> Gary


Exuse me Gary but in your mind i am one of the insane folks on this planet. If you don't mind me asking, how do you come to this conlusion and how many single handed transats have you got under our belt to come up with an unqualified statement like that ??

Regards

Michael

Ps. Five weeks ago I completed my 16th ( to you insane ) solo trip over the pond


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> With the sailing you do between Key West and Guanaja, I'm surprised you haven't sprung for AIS... It's the single biggest boon for the singlehanded offshore sailor today, IMHO, especially sailing a route you do with a pretty heavy concentration of cruise ship and merchant traffic being funneled through the Yucatan Channel...
> 
> Standard Horizon makes a very nice VHF with fully integrated AIS for a few hundred bucks... It's a very capable little unit. Of course it has to be integrated to a GPS, so you might have to go with a fixed mount GPS of some sort as well, but I'd still rate that as money very well spent, for the voyaging you do...


Ya, I probably will. I'm slow to adapt to technology. When I sail to Guanaja, I point a little to the east of south when I round the west end of Cuba, staying out of the Yucatan channel and it's currents and heavy traffic, and then due south to Guanaja and see maybe one ship heading to the Caymans. The tuff part of that trip is the straits and running down the north coast line of Cuba. I cross the straights at night and heave to 10 miles off the reef and sleep till around noon waking every hour....sail till 1600..cat nap till sun set.. repeat till i'm around the west end. Reaching out into the Caribbean is like falling into a cumfy bed at the end of a long work week, as soon as I round that corner and the sun comes up I pass out on a broad reach and wake up at sun set. When I nap at night I try and stay in the cockpit, something happens to me at 4 in the morning that no ammount of coffee can counter act. I nod off. I wake every time my head falls so it's like an hour and a half of 5 second sleeps. I bet if I wore a neck brace I would sleep sitting up and steering with my leg!


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I single hand sail nearly every trip, mostly in Chesapeake Bay. However, I have spent an enormous amount of time offshore in powerboats, large and small, distances to several hundred miles on a single trip, and spent four years in the U.S. Navy. So, I guess if you add up all my sea time, which is more than 55 years, a dozen pond crossings on war ships, I guess I have a little bit of experience.

However, I base my statement on sleep deprivation upon several first hand experiences. 

When I was a young man, 22 years old, I worked in the medical field as the chief cardio-pulmonary technician for two major teaching hospitals in Baltimore. I, like many younger men, figured I was invincible, didn't need to sleep, and could live on a couple hours sleep a night. At the end of 15 years I was down to 140 pounds, looked like a zombie, and realized that I was leading a pretty unhealthy lifestyle. One night, about 3 a.m., I was in the operating room, running the heart-lung machine, which bypasses the patient's heart and lungs so surgery can be performed on the non-beating heart. This was my third case that day, I had been awake 22 hours and only had two hours sleep prior to this stint. I thought I was doing just fine, the patient was fairly stable, and all the sudden I felt a sharp pain in my forehead. I had fallen asleep while adding blood to the oxygenator, fell forward, and my head slammed into the stainless fitting that held the pump housing in place. I had no idea I was falling asleep, and fortunately, the patient was not endangered during the few minutes I was in la-la land. My head was bandaged by one of the thoracic surgery residents, and when the case ended, the same resident stitched up my head just above my left eye. I still have the scar from 50 years ago.

One of the places in the University of Maryland Hospital I worked was the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. You would be amazed at the number of automobile accident victims we saw nearly every hour, many of which were the result of individuals that fell asleep behind the wheel. A significant number of these folks freely admitted they lived on just a few hours sleep a night, and that they were confident they were fully functional and alert, despite their lack of sleep. In reality, they were not capable of operating a motor vehicle for the 30 minutes it normally took them to commute to work.

Bottom line - while people sincerely believe they are fully functional, both mentally and physically, while catnapping, and that they are not placing themselves or others in any danger because they are in the vast expanses of the ocean, in reality this is never the case. If the boat is moving and the captain is asleep at the helm, then Houson, there is a problem.

Now, I anticipate that those that routinely do take those catnaps will argue that THEY never have a problem. If they feel that confident, that's just fine. As Clint Eastwood once said "Opinions vary."

Good luck,

Gary


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

travlineasy said:


> ...Bottom line - while people sincerely believe they are fully functional, both mentally and physically, while catnapping, and that they are not placing themselves or others in any danger because they are in the vast expanses of the ocean, in reality this is never the case. If the boat is moving and the captain is asleep at the helm, then Houson, there is a problem..:


There is where we disagree. I recognize that I am not fully functional when sleep deprived. So what? I would prefer to be fully functional, but that is not an option. I am capable of safely cruising a boat at less than optimal functioning.

The solution: you should have safe, efficient, redundant, routine practices while underway. If you sail your boat in such a way that you continually require your utmost skills and abilities after 4 or 5 days underway, you will probably be in trouble.

Driving a car is not a fair analogy to cruising a sailboat offshore or on coastal hops. Driving a car requires much greater continuous concentration or focus than sailing a boat in the ocean. In most places, if you nod off on the highway for 20 minutes, you will be in an accident of some kind. At sea, you have just gained some beneficial rest and nothing has happened. If you are scanning the horizon when you wake and you only sleep in 20 minute increments, it is highly unlikely you will strike another vessel. In addition, as many have commented, there is really not that much vessel traffic out there, beyond the major ports (contrary to the many posts on Sailnet by the folks who plan to immediately buy a boat and sail to Hawaii or England with no prior experience).

BTW, I respect the ability of physicians to function on less than adequate sleep. I understand the profession believes that is a useful and necessary skill acquired over time through practice.


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

Last time I looked, navy boats do very little single handing when crossing oceans and puddle hopping in the chessapeak is not wuite the same game as crossing oceans. So going by your point of view. Us mad single handers should not be out there. Because we are either to tired to manage the boat or mad because we get some proper kip in.
I have my boat tied up in the upper end of the chessapeak at the moment and there is not a place in that puddle I can not reach within 48 hours and that is a time i am quite happy to go without sleep and then step on the hards stuff for a drink before I hit the hay. 
I find it quite funny when I listen to the comments of folks sailing the ARC for the first time. They think about crossing the pond in the ARC gives them the safety in numbers effect only to find out that they don't have another boat in sight after 48 hours. Its a pretty big place out there and if you choose your route right, you are not going to see many other folks out there away from the shipping lanes. In fact on my last transat that ended just over a month ago on a west about I only saw one other sail once I was a day out of horta and that was entering the Delaware bay. One nuclear sub a bout 200 miles of the coast and a hand full of freighters when I crossed the shipping lanes and that was not due to me being assleap most of my crossing  
Don't knock it till you try it and have some idea of what you are talikng about.

Regards

Michael


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Guess I'll try to find some good-looking young gal with extensive sailing knowledge to crew for my trip south.  When I was in the Navy, helm watches were limited to 4 hours - mainly for safety reasons. Same was true for lookout watches - both day and night. 

Stay safe everyone,

Gary


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

Sorry travlineasy but it just rubs me up the wrong way when someone tells us single handing folk are mad or irresponsible. 
If you were to do a single handed ocean crossing and it scares you and did not want to do it again, then that is fair enough and I would respect your choice not to do another. But this broad brush paint job just does not float.

ATB

Michael


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Hasn't the real answer to the original question; what is the rule...; been answered and now we are into rationalizations that me make to justify our actions?
Some people are risk averse. Some people need nine hours of sleep a day. These people in all probability are not going to sail single handedly across oceans. 
If, however, the siren's song is too seductive for you to ignore and you must cross oceans single handedly and you don't want to violate any rules of the road, then all you have to do is drop your sails, deploy a sea anchor and hoist the appropriate day or night signals that you are a vessel not under command. Take your sleep, awaken and get under way. At best you would have lost, what 45 kts? If you are not out to set some passage records or in some kind of race, then what is the big deal? And as to risk, isn't it about the same as an airplane crashing into your house while sleeping?
Alternatively, you can train yourself in the art of poly-phasic sleep, along with all the other stuff you do to get ready for a single handed ocean crossing. Younger people are more adaptable with sleep processes. But that's not to say older people cannot also train themselves with effort into new sleep processes.
But whatever you do, be sure you are getting enough sleep so that you retain rational abilities and motor skills necessary to handle an emergency situation. 
I once observed that soldiers learn to sleep any where and anytime for they know not when they might sleep again. An earlier post mentioned this, and I think it applies here.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

ccriders said:


> and you don't want to violate any rules of the road, then all you have to do is drop your sails, deploy a sea anchor and hoist the appropriate day or night signals that you are a vessel not under command.


Sadly it doesn't work like that. The rule requires a proper lookout unless you are in a special designated anchorage. The sea anchor in some random spot of the ocean does not count.

From a practical point of view just about everything out their is so much bigger than you that if they hit you in the middle of the night they will probably not even know it.

The legal language revolves around "proper lookout" and if electronic assist and 15 minute visual sweeps count. 
Sea anchors are not part of the discussion.

Again from a practical point of view I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket on the high-seas for taking a nap. If however their was a collision and you lived, the court apportions responsibility between the two parties. Almost never does the court hold one party 100% responsible. If you were asleep vs awake and you admitted it or it could be proved it is highly likely your percentage of liability would be higher.
Read Farwell's rules of the nautical Road by Allen if you are interested. Over 700 of cases, interesting stuff.

Jessica Watson Collision Report Released | YachtPals.com
The above is a recent incidence of a solo sailor trying to catch a couple z's, she was lucky.

_The final report was released in June 2010. The report stated that both Watson and the Silver Yang's watchkeepers had failed to maintain an adequate lookout and that both had failed to properly employ the navigational aids. In addition, the report found that the watchkeeper on the Silver Yang had failed to offer assistance to Watson after the two vessels had collided.[23]_


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

ccriders said:


> If, however, the siren's song is too seductive for you to ignore and you must cross oceans single handedly and you don't want to violate any rules of the road, then all you have to do is drop your sails, deploy a sea anchor and hoist the appropriate day or night signals that you are a vessel not under command.


Those lights and shapes would be in violation of Colregs. NUC means the VESSEL is disabled; e.g., broken rudder, engine failure.

There is a very heated discussion on CF on this topic.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...r-command-nuc-lights-66740-12.html#post762903


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

At the end of the day, when I'm on watch in a commercial wheel house, and I hit a well lit , radar visible, and or ais-vhf, barley moving object, I'm at fault, period. If I Hit anything I'll be at fault, sh!t, if something hit's me I'll be at fault, I'll probably loose my job and the coast guard will pull my ticket till investigation. What is the yachty gonna do, say he/ she was asleep? If they are alive? If on the other hand I'm single handling my little sloop and some one hit's me, it's my fault for not being visible enough, If I need to sleep at night in a shipping lane you better belive I'll be lit up, sails illuminated, what ever. I'd have to be the kind of ******** who doesn't know they're an ******** to take it to court,( as opposed to the kind I am which is well aware and only on purpose) If I got hit for sleeping and lived, so be it, I'd admit my neglagence, If I hit someone who was well lit, I'd admit my neglagence. If two sail boats collide at 5 knot's they are both ass holes. It's up to me to avoid collisions, and I can catch some sleep and do that effectivly with some common sense, lights, and orange sh!t on deck. If you can't single hand a little sail boat across an ocean you have no buisness being in charge of the vessel, if you NEED a crew your'e not skilled enough to be the decider. The captain should be able to carry out all the duties by them selves and better than anyone on board, that's what the MASTER part of the tilte on the ticket is refering to and or meant to imply. If I ever get hit while sleeping at sea and live to tell about it I will appologize to guy for putting him in a situation where hitting me was even possible.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Rule 5 refers to vessels not people, and assumes they have enough crew to keep a proper watch. Singlehanders do the best they can to compensate for being "shorthanded" since for them the satisfactions are worth it. But they shouldn't (and I believe they don't) expect the ship Mate to keep a "better" watch just because they themselves can't keep a continuous watch by sight.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Capt.aaron said:


> If I ever get hit while sleeping at sea and live to tell about it I will appologize to guy for putting him in a situation where hitting me was even possible.


Your whole post was a breath of fresh air. At the end of the day we can't transfer responsibility to someone else.

From a legal point of view however I suspect your insurance company would prefer you didn't discuss it with the other party.

I applaud your sentiment however.
And of course if you are anchored we know you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

DavidPM & Jackdale,
Obviously one can get into deep legal arguments about this subject and being that we are not judges, cannot resolve here. I said to use a sea anchor so that the single hander will not run into something. Lights and shapes are the only means of communicating a vessel not under command, which it would not be if the single hander is not/cannot be on deck maintaining a watch. 
What other options do you suggest?


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

ccriders said:


> DavidPM & Jackdale,
> Obviously one can get into deep legal arguments about this subject and being that we are not judges, cannot resolve here. I said to use a sea anchor so that the single hander will not run into something. Lights and shapes are the only means of communicating a vessel not under command, which it would not be if the single hander is not/cannot be on deck maintaining a watch.
> What other options do you suggest?


CC - There are no lights or shapes to indicate that no watch is being mainatined on a vessel. It is not NUC.

You are legally still under way.



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


You are not "anchored" as in afixed to the bottom. If you were you, would show an all round white.

Further to inappropriate use of NUC lights and shapes:



> Seafarers are reminded that NUC signals
> should only be used by "vessels not under
> command". As defined in Rule 3(f) of the
> International Regulations for Preventing
> ...


http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mgn152.pdf

I would suggest maintaining a watch and not being a hazard to shipping.

Here is a judge's opinion for you.

Give it a careful read.

FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

I would strongly suggest not to drop a sea anchor if not absolutly nessesary as it will stop you getting out of the way quick if you have to. Better to heave to as then you can change things quick without cutting a sea anchor lose.

ATB

Michael


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

ccriders said:


> Lights and shapes are the only means of communicating a vessel not under command, which it would not be if the single hander is not/cannot be on deck maintaining a watch.
> What other options do you suggest?


In short in the eyes of the law you do not have a right to single-hand your boat. 
You do have a responsibility however to maintain a watch.

If you can't maintain that watch and/or are not able or willing to assume the responsibility for any damage you cause due to an improper watch it is your responsibility to make other arrangements.

It would be great from our point of view if the law had special rules for single-handers. It however does not.

Abby from the above link was sailing, she was stand-on, and was run down by a power boat with two people in the watch station. She was still found partly at fault by a judge. She was not on watch. It is as simple as that.

Another thought for you. Let's say you have 4 people with you. You hit a storm it's bad, lasts for three days. One guy gets seasick can't stand watch. The other three are exhausted due to brutal shifts. Frankly none of you are in any condition to stand a watch.
It don't matter, the rules are clear you either stand watch or accept your share of the responsibility for anything bad that happens while you break them.

The kicker is that if something bad happens the chances are almost 100% that at least some of the blame will fall on you regardless of what the other guy did.
That is the most important lesson I learned from the Farwell book.
Don't hit anyone or let anyone hit you because in the eyes of the law it almost always takes both parties both being less than perfect to cause a collision.
As far as I could tell by reading that book is than in the eyes of the law there is no such thing as an accident only failure of seamanship for both parties. They see their job as just to pick a percentage for each party.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

davidpm said:


> It would be great from our point of view if the law had special rules for single-handers. It however does not.


Seriously???

Can you offer an example of what might be such a Special Rule?

Perhaps it's just me, but if someone is overly concerned about what current Maritime Law has to say about singlehanded voyaging, to the extent that it might actually impact their decision whether or not to do so, well... they're probably not cut out for such voyaging, to begin with...

For most singlehanders, I think the far more relevant concern is insurance... IMHO, Rule #1 for a solo passagemaker should be "Don't Sail a Boat You Can't Afford to Lose"... (grin)


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

When I'm working on a commercial vessel I follow the letter of the law. And now, when navigating the u.s. waters recreationally, I almost do, as to not jepordize my carreer. I boat recreationally in foriegn waters often and the places I hang, there basically is no law enforcement on the water to speak of, no such thing as no wake zone, or a water nazi that gives marine tickets. Not really a prevalent force anyway's. When I'm single handling off shore, and sleeping, I'm breaking the law of watch keeping. I take measures to ensure I don't get run down and in 22 years I haven't even come close. At least not that I know of, maybe I was asleep... So.. not that I care if they make a law for us or not, because I don't, but...just for thought. what if there was a light configuration and day shape that say's. " hey, I'm a solo sailor and I'm tired, please don't hit me" or now that AIS is so easy and affordable, it would show you as a singlehandler? and request "to not be hit because I'm wicked tired and I just could'nt keep my eye's open but my boat is hove to and if you honk I'll probably wake up but please don't because I'm sleepy". I know in the wheel house of an offshore tug we would see that and say" wow, check this dude out, and go around his/ her ass. Just putting it out there as possible way to communicate the situation. Most of the pencil pushing geeks that put together the colregs are sandy landlubbers any way's, in the industry there is movement to be governed by mariners and re-write a lot of the B.S. in the colregs, not only in modern english but to better serve the industry. Just say'n. ( and no the coast scouts, I mean coast gaurd, are not considerd mariners amongst mariners) but that's a different discussion.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Wow - what a great thread. I am sure some of my comments will irritate or surprise some, but here goes:

I am of the belief, right or wrong, that many of the rules are written with lawyers, insurance companies, and commercial vessel in mind. For example, and correct me if I am wrong for I have no interest in looking it back up, but technically, if you are anchored, are you not required to keep a 24 hour anchor watch? Really? Now, how many of you fellows sit up all night and watch your anchor? If you do, you are not cruising, I will tell you that. You find a good anchor spot, you drop the hook, you light your boat up (I use an anchor light and the landscape lights and my LED stern light and anything else to be seen within reason) and you go to bed. You get up a few times at night maybe to check your hook or to make sure your neighbor is still there, and that's it. But, technically, aren't we all required to maintain an anchor watch too if ourside a desg anchorage? 

As far as single handing, the way I see it, if two boats are displaying the proper lighting, etc and hit each other, then neither was maintaining a proper watch and it is both faults. 50:50 if you hit eah other at sea. I am not talking coastal stuff or racing which is a whole other discussion. So in my opinion, the whole rule is moot from a legal standpoint. From a practical standpoint, if you single, you have to sleep. Get your sleep as best and as safe as you can. Do it in a way that minimizes your risk as best as possible for you and your vessel as the other vessel should do the same. If you get hit, well, you did your best and they did their best and you both ran out of luck. 

Now, I do think, like it or not, that commercial vessels shoiuld live to a whole other standard than yachties. Sorry... I do. I think they should stand anchor watches and stand all night watches at sea. They are getting paid for it and they are a commercial vessel. That is the price of doing business and businesses should incorporate the cost of crew into their equation. Also, their potential to damage is significatlyy greater than us shmucks with a plastic boat and and sail. So yeah, I do think they should stand by the rules.

I am not saying I do not believe in the principle of the rules. I undersand why they are written. Where practical, it makes sense. However, for some it is not practical. But the law and insurance companies will never try to differentiate between them. They need someone to blame.

I am not belittling the laws. Given my firm stance on safety, others wil find my comments surprising. But as much as I appreciate a firm set of rules for seamanship, so do I believe in the right of the individual and the freedom of the single hander. Hey, if you have the crew or can get the crew to do 3-8's or 3-4's, good for you. It is safer for you and the other vessels. But some cannot. And for them, I keep a watch on my boat and give them a nod on their way by. 

Also, when I make out of a large port, I often sail out many miles from the rhumb line then make my course. I am sure this is just make believe from me, but the way I see it, if I was a commercial captain, I would want to get to the next port as short a time as possible. So if I get off that line, I only have to worry about other vessels when close to port. That is my theory anyways... probably wrong but it makes me feel better!!

Brian

PS I rarely, RARELY see another boat at sea. In fact, when it happens, we are all grabbing the binocs like a movie star is walking by. Exceptions is close to ports and off the coast of San Diesgo which seemed to be a highway for commerical and military traffic.

PSS Is it just me, or is the deepest freaking sleep of your lives when at sea? Oh my ghosh, but about 12-18 hours out and I am in the deepest REM and dreams of my life. At the same time I am also more in-tune with every noise and creak and can tell by them when something is not right. Just me????? DOn't lie!! I'll tell you this: if they sold a maching that made like a sailboat at sea, I would buy it and live my life in bliss (at least until a woman's voice came on and said, "honey... your turn!")


----------



## Silvio (Nov 10, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> ...PSS Is it just me, or is the deepest freaking sleep of your lives when at sea? Oh my ghosh, but about 12-18 hours out and I am in the deepest REM and dreams of my life. At the same time I am also more in-tune with every noise and creak and can tell by them when something is not right. Just me????? DOn't lie!! I'll tell you this: if they sold a maching that made like a sailboat at sea, I would buy it and live my life in bliss (at least until a woman's voice came on and said, "honey... your turn!")


Me too. I sleep like the dead when I have my wife or one of our kids at the helm or when anchored in a good holding area.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

jackdale said:


> Here is a judge's opinion for you.
> 
> Give it a careful read.
> 
> FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS


Well, the judge suggests that if Granholm had gone below to sleep _during the day_, then he would not have been negligent:



> In the case at bar, Granholm's decision to go below during the nighttime was negligent. His own testimony reflects an awareness that this was so. I have previously quoted the relevant portion; Granholm said that "as a rule I made it a habit to take my resting periods during daytime and when the conditions were such that I could afford having some rest." The reasons are obvious. At night a sailboat, even displaying the proper lights, is not nearly as visible as she is in the daytime, when underway under sail. Granholm was sailing near a recognized transatlantic route for large vessels. *He should have adhered to his own practice and rested only during the daytime.* It may seem unfeeling to condemn single handed transatlantic sailors for sleeping at night. But they pursue this hazardous avocation voluntarily, and are not exempt from the requirements of prudent seamanship.


(Emphasis added.)


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> Now, I do think, like it or not, that commercial vessels shoiuld live to a whole other standard than yachties. Sorry... I do. I think they should stand anchor watches and stand all night watches at sea. They are getting paid for it and they are a commercial vessel. That is the price of doing business and businesses should incorporate the cost of crew into their equation. Also, their potential to damage is significatlyy greater than us shmucks with a plastic boat and and sail. So yeah, I do think they should stand by the rules.


Sorry, but I must strenuously disagree...

What rules should yachtsmen be excused from, simply because they choose to partake in a purely _RECREATIONAL_ endeavor on the world's oceans, _CHOOSING_ to sail short or singlehanded? Should private pilots likewise have similar courtesies granted to them, because their tiny Pipers or Cessnas are more subject to turbulence, thus making the delicate constitutions of their pilots more susceptible to airsickness? (grin)

I can only imagine the sort of scorn with which most professional mariners would greet such a plea for special status... Especially, in an age where they are being expected to pluck distressed yachties from their plastic toys with ever-increasing frequency... Not to mention, where some are demanding (as was seen here in the Loss of TRIUMPH thread) that merchant vessels participating in the AMVER program need to get their act together, and undergo far more rigorous training in order to properly do so...

Their bemusement would likely pale in comparison, however, to that of many of my all-time voyaging heroes - people like the Smeetons, Hiscocks, or Roths, who epitomized self-sufficiency and the acceptance of personal responsibility for their choices, embraced the risks of putting to sea on a small boat, and indeed would have been embarrassed to have such special consideration requested on their behalf...


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I don't think us solo dudes should have speacial rules. As a Merchant Marine I can tell you first hand we hate recreational boaters, we think they are all "no nuth'ns" But belive me as rec. boater you are not subject to scrutiny that we are nor are you getting paid several hundred dollars plus a day to be out there. As a rec. boater I know the mind set of the wheel house and I do everything I can to stay visible. If there was a light config. or day shape to tell me while on watch that the vessel I see is single handing. I would take that into consideration when I make my decsions as watch officer. It's just a communication technique. knowledege is power. I like looking out at lights and knowing, Oh, that guy has a mile of cable behind him, or that guy is fishing, or that guy is sailing, or that guy is alone. There is also a law of the sea as sailors that trumps COLREGS that demands respect amongst our selves, to look out for eachother, assist when we can. What's that saying " A HERO IS SOMEONE WHO DOES WHAT THEY CAN" Most of these commercial guy's are allright and ironically dream of retiring to a sailing or trawler yacht some day, and look enviously at the cruising boats wishing they were'nt at work. It's all about visibilty, and communicating what you are up to, that's all they want to know when they see you out there.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

jackdale said:


> FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS


Well now that was an interesting read. It seems that an overtaking, motor powered vessel, not maintaing an effective watch and failing to maneuver to avoid a collision is equally guilty as a sailboat that did not maintain an adequate watch and failed to maneuver to avoid a collision. That is like blaming the victim.
It is also interesting to note the different treatment radar receives vs the vhf radio. If you have a radar, you are not required to use it and maintain a watch as you are for a vhf radio. And the rationale was that they are expensive and wear out with use and so must be conserved until needed. Doesn't that same rationale apply to the vhf radio and almost everything else in this world? Doesn't the same rationale apply to navigation lights - i.e. only turn them on when some one is there to see them?
It is also interesting the assumptions the judge made. He even cited his own experience as basis for an assumption, which can be annecdotal at best and prejudicial for sure. 
The judges remarks seem to indicate that not maintianing a watch during the day is ok, but not at night. Do you think he really meant to say that?

For what it is worth, I once participated in a briefing of the Vice Chief of Naval Operations preparing him for a "Law of the Sea" convention, and I will assure you that single handed sailing was not one of the topics of discussion but that there was discussion about the legality of ships engaged in national defense to run without navaids (lights, radar, sonar, radio, etc.). Can you even imgine a carrier battle group steaming at 35-45 knots with out active navaids?

And, I'll bet that the Single Handed Sailing Society was not at the convention.

So, I still maintain my suggestion to rig your boat so that you do not run into something, and that you are visible day or night and so that it is apparent that you are not under way and let the chips fall where they may. 
It is also important to note that if you do not have an insured expensive boat you will never make it to the court room.

Just some random thoughts after reading the referenced case.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I like the idea of a special annuciator on AIS that calls out a single hander. However, it probably does tell the ocean police that you must be dis-regarding some of the regs, unless they are changed in the case where you make this electronic announcement.


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

That would be a great AIS message " Single handing...if ye hear me snore ye are to close" 

ATB
Michael


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

We recently passed a sailboat at 3AM between the Balearics and Sardinia. They had all Nav lights on, an ais transponder sending out his(her?) position. We tried and tried to contact them via VHS to resolve our collision course and never could get a response. So we just altered course and sailed right by them, 50 feet away in the opposite direction. It was no danger in our case, but if we had been doing what he was doing we would have collided.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

ccriders said:


> So, I still maintain my suggestion to rig your boat so that you do not run into something, and that you are visible day or night and so that it is apparent that *you are not under way* and let the chips fall where they may.


But you are underway. :hothead


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I like the idea of a special annuciator on AIS that calls out a single hander. However, it probably does tell the ocean police that you must be dis-regarding some of the regs, unless they are changed in the case where you make this electronic announcement.


That's the problem, Being alone isn't illegal, but not keeping a watch is against the rules, so if you put out the word that you are alone 500 miles off shore one can assume you sleep. Maybe things are just fine the way they are, stay visible and try and sleep in the day time. Are the sailing associations that encourage solo voyages encouraging people to go out and break the law. Seem's like the law does'nt even take notice untill someone get's hit and lives to complain about it.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> But you are underway. :hothead


So what angers you, that people sail solo and it say's you can't in a book? What if there was a paragraph added that stated solo sailors exhibiting a certain shape or light could heave to and dissmiss watch duties for a spell, would it then be ok?


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> So what angers you, that people sail solo and it say's you can't in a book? What if there was a paragraph added that stated solo sailors exhibiting a certain shape or light could heave to and dissmiss watch duties for a spell, would it then be ok?


What angers me is the nonsense that vessels with sea anchors or hove-to are somehow not underway. They are by definition underway.

I think that many those who seek that freedom of single-handing must also accept the added responsibility of doing so. The rules have not changed, there are no special lights or dayshapes.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> We recently passed a sailboat at 3AM between the Balearics and Sardinia. They had all Nav lights on, an ais transponder sending out his(her?) position. We tried and tried to contact them via VHS to resolve our collision course and never could get a response. So we just altered course and sailed right by them, 50 feet away in the opposite direction. It was no danger in our case, but if we had been doing what he was doing we would have collided.


That's a heavy traffic area and they should'nt be zipping along asleep at night. If they were hove to there wouldn't be a collision course because you would of been the only on makeing any sort of way. It takes some common sense to do this solo thing safely. Regardless of the rules. I take the stern of every boat I've ever seen at anchor, in the sea, weather I'm opperating a 100 foot tug pulling a 300 foot barge 200 feet behind me or sailing my little sloop. I've never called right of way, I call stay out of the way.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> What angers me is the nonsense that vessels with sea anchors or hove-to are somehow not underway. They are by definition underway.
> 
> I think that many those who seek that freedom of single-handing must also accept the added responsibility of doing so. The rules have not changed, there are no special lights or dayshapes.


I've certainly alway's accepted that responsability and it angers me when solo sailors don't as well. But what if there where lights or shapes, maybe there should be, There is obviously sailors and have alway's been sailors solo sailing.
Laws were made to be written. All it takes is someone to push it through.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

This has been one highly entertaining thread. I do not want to be one of the pontificators and it doesn’t bother me at all if you are “asleep at the wheel” (unless of course, you are out there while I’m sailing about.) But I do want to offer a few observations from actual ocean experience.

How do you other singlehanders get insurance? My experience is you need a three crew (qualified) minimum. My SSS brethren (yes, I’m a member) are forced to go without on the SHTP and my own carrier (BoatUS) says my policy is void during the period when I do the Longpac. Their coastal coverage only extends to some sixty miles “offshore”. 

The AIS unit that most of us have is a receiver. You need a transmitter before other ships can “see” you. The best a receiver can do is alert you of a developing crossing. I too have wired in a Piezio buzzer into my chartplotter (it will wake the dead - make sure you have a cut-off switch for daytime). The AIS receivers are only as good as the placement and quality of the receiving antenna. I use an active antenna switch on my mast head installation and still, it is only acquiring targets about 10-20 miles out. That translates to as little as 8 minutes warning of an impending collision. Fortunately, my Raymarine E80 sorts this out and warns only when the target’s projected course will go inside the guard circle. I know technology isn’t for everyone, but it works for me.

Looking at the tracks of global commercial shipping is a real eye-opener. I was surprised at the amount of traffic around Florida and down to the Yucatan. It also explains the close approaches I have encountered in both the Atlantic and Pacific. On the coast of California, I usually encounter at least one close approach an hour. Less than half are transmitting AIS. Sailing to Hawaii, we had a close approach about every other day. First there is the shipping going up and down the coast. Then there were two ships doing the great circle route from Panama to the Orient. As we got closer to Hawaii we had a Matson freighter doing the LA run. And we started to encounter fishermen in those big “factory” style ships. We also had close approaches with several fellow racers. I did an Atlantic crossing from the Canaries to Grenada. Pretty lonely trip. Most of our contacts were in and around the islands as shipping Doing the Gibraltar – Cape of Good Hope run are hugging the coast. Our most troubling close approach was of less than a quarter mile away and was with another yacht during one of our mid watches. They were either asleep or widely inattentive. They were Russian with a not very good command of English and had a hard time understanding that because they were on port tack, they did not have the right of way. Going down the Baja coast is like a freeway. Pretty much every ship going between the canal and the northern hemisphere will be hugging the coast. Add in a couple hundred sailboats and it gets real interesting. We had close approaches with someone several times a watch. During daytime, pretty easy, but at night… We had a close approach one night from another sailboat overtaking us with a crew either asleep or down below watching a movie. We also had a container ship who could not see us despite us having a tricolor, a radar reflector and us telling him our bearing using our AIS enabled chart plotter.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I personaly have never had insurance but I don't think my boat has ever been worth more than 5 grand. Asleep at the wheel infers you are making way while asleep, asleep 150 miles off the coast with daglo orange weather cloths and hove to not making way is dangerous if someone else is making way while asleep. The veiw from the wheel house of a big commercial vessel is enormous and we keep a 24 hour trained and licensed watch keeper. I see those little sailboats out there and I know my colleagues do to. We don't want to hit them any more than they want to be hit. It happens, but almost alway's because the solo sailor did'nt make himself visible enough. Light it up, brighten your appearence. If 90% of the traffic is hugging the coast, reach out to further off shore. If your hugging the coast, plan to pull in. Common sense will out perform any gadget ever invented. Insurance is for......well, I'll refrain from that comment as not to offend probably all of you.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> Laws were made to be written. All it takes is someone to push it through.


Perhaps we need a new category for single-handers, and a few others. We will call it Unwilling to Adhere to Colregs, abbreviated UTAC (pronounced you-tack). The light configuration will be black over black (remember black lights from the 60's.). I suggest that they would be below WIG's in the pecking order.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> I personaly have never had insurance but I don't think my boat has ever been worth more than 5 grand.


Do you carry public damage and public liability insurance for cover you when you might be found at fault? Very few collision cases result in 100% fault assessed against one vessel. You would stand to loose a lot more than your boat in any criminal or civil proceeding.

As an instructor I carry 2 million in liability. I occasionally add additional insurance when instructing on a privately owned vessel, rather than a charter or sailing school vessel. And I am not sure that 2 million is adequate.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Or maybe yachty's should stay near the yacht club where they are coverd and help is near and leave the big boy passages to the salts. You can have no balls in the rigging as a confirmation of your status. sailors have been single handling for milleniums before your holy book of rules.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> Do you carry public damage and public liability insurance for cover you when you might be found at fault? Very few collision cases result in 100% fault assessed against one vessel. You would stand to loose a lot more than your boat in any criminal or civil proceeding.
> 
> As an instructor I carry 2 million in liability. I occasionally add additional insurance when instructing on a privately owned vessel, rather than a charter or sailing school vessel. And I am not sure that 2 million is adequate.


I aint gonna hit anything around the bay, like an anchored boat, faster than I can fend off and even that has never happened since 1978 when I moved aboard with grandpa.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> We recently passed a sailboat at 3AM between the Balearics and Sardinia. They had all Nav lights on, an ais transponder sending out his(her?) position. We tried and tried to contact them via VHS to resolve our collision course and never could get a response. So we just altered course and sailed right by them, 50 feet away in the opposite direction. It was no danger in our case, but if we had been doing what he was doing we would have collided.


They may not have spoken the same language, but I presume you saw no one on deck. I guess, if two sleeping single handers meet, there is no available technology or technique to avoid the inevitable ruining of your day.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I do have insurance on my charter boat buisiness, but not on my little 28' engineless sloop.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

George - good posting.

This summer I brought a Vic Maui boat back to Vancouver. We (crew of 6, then 5 - another story) saw a a couple of cargo ships. They were not of much concern as they were a long way off. We did see a significant number of vessels engaged in fishing (mainly tuna) mid ocean. We contacted a couple and one contacted us. In a couple of cases we were unable to establish contact. Not only did we have to dodge the vessels, we had to dodge the buoys marking the nets.

We were also dodging debris, most small bits styrofoam, fishing floats, oil bottles, water bottles, etc.. We saw one piece of dock 1'X1'X15' and we had a piece of fishing net go under the boat. Both were in daylight. We had a radio net for the return, other boats saw overturned hulls; one 23-30 feet, one 50 feet.

Vigilance is the price of safety.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> ..... I am not aware of any limitation on coverage for sailing solo. Perhaps they will use that as a defense to deny coverage if I collide with someone while I am sleeping.
> 
> Another good reason to wake up every 15 - 20 minutes.


it's not uncommon for insurance endorsements to require compliance with laws and regs, which is where they might get you.


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

Well us single handers have a pretty good track record as far as not bumping into each other goes.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

jackdale said:


> We will call it Unwilling to Adhere to Colregs, abbreviated UTAC (pronounced you-tack). The light configuration will be black over black (remember black lights from the 60's.). ..


Cool, is anyone selling these?

Sponsors, where are you when we need you?


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> I do have insurance on my charter boat buisiness, but not on my little 28' engineless sloop.


I hope that your charter boat business is a limited business, that would not be subject to a liability suit associated with an incident with the sloop. I understand that the US is a fairly litigious society.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Ferretchaser said:


> Well us single handers have a pretty good track record as far as not bumping into each other goes.


It is the other boats /objects you should worry about.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> Or maybe yachty's should stay near the yacht club where they are coverd and help is near and leave the big boy passages to the salts. You can have no balls in the rigging as a confirmation of your status. sailors have been single handling for milleniums before your holy book of rules.


Aaron - I think you know this; but I have about 10,000 miles of blue water experience (3 times Hawaii to PNW and once Newport, RI to St. Barths via Bermuda).

This summer was the only time I had to get outside help; I am eternily grateful to AMVER, CG Honolulu and the Navarino for the medical evacuation from Turicum.

My balls are not in the rigging, they are firmly attached to me. Pulling along side an 1100 foot container ship mid ocean takes some cojones.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

jackdale said:


> But you are underway. :hothead


Jackdale,
No need to yell. I hear you just fine. There is "underway" in legalese and there is "underway" in a practical sense. With a sea anchor and with close hauling you may be "underway" legally, but pretty much not "underway" in a practical sense - so as to run into something. 
I know, in court there is only one interpretation. But most of us will never see the inside of the courtroom and even if we were to and you slept during the day like your judge recommends confusion would still prevail. 
Going back to the original question; "Is sleeping OK?" "Yes, if you follow all the COLREGS." is the simplest, most correct answer. But how does that provide a functional answer for the guy wanting to do his first single handed multiday excursion? 
That is all I was trying to do. Configure yourself so you are not moving, make yourself visible and do what you need to do. Not sleeping will make you more dangerous than you would be if not moving and clearly visible. 
(where's the peace sign smilie?)


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> I hope that your charter boat business is a limited business, that would not be subject to a liability suit associated with an incident with the sloop. I understand that the US is a fairly litigious society.


I would have to have my head so far up my ass to hit another boat I could see what I had for breakfast. It's not even in the realm of possability's. In close quarters I'm moviing so slow I could fend off with a finger, out of the harbour I don't come withinn 1000's of yards of other boat's. On a dive charter of a few hours no one is napping. You obviously have never done a solo sailing passage because it's not covered in colregs on how to do it. Maybe one day the law's and underwritters will get together and offer coverage and an option for a day signal communicating your status and you can try it. You have to be self sufficiant and resourcefull, a skilled navigator, decision maker and able to handle anything the universe throw's ya, and it can be scary if you are used to having six people and an insurance company making sure if you make a mistake your covered, but rewarding in so many way's.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

BTW - I should mention that as an instructor I am required to be able to single-hand and I have done so. The single-handed test includes docking and departing, MOB under sail (upwind and down wind), MOB under power, anchoring, and raising, lowering and reefing sails. As an instructor evaluator, I get to assess instructor candidates abilities to do so. 

As for sleeping while single-handed, I draw the line.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> Aaron - I think you know this; but I have about 10,000 miles of blue water experience (3 times Hawaii to PNW and once Newport, RI to St. Barths via Bermuda).
> 
> This summer was the only time I had to get outside help; I am eternily grateful to AMVER, CG Honolulu and the Navarino for the medical evacuation from Turicum.
> 
> My balls are not in the rigging, they are firmly attached to me. Pulling along side an 1100 foot container ship mid ocean takes some cojones.


ok ok , I get it, I had 26,000 blue water miles by the Time I was 19 and stopped counting 20 years ago. I know you are a world class sailor, but us solo guy's need to defend our right to do it regardless of that blasted colregs book for not giving us an option to sleep. All we need is a pargraph, saying hove to in certain situation we can rest. underway but not making way with a strobe or something, what ever. ccriders idea is good. It's kind of lying about your staus, but I only lie about really important stuff, and staying alive is in that catagory.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> BTW - I should mention that as an instructor I am required to be able to single-hand and I have done so. The single-handed test includes docking and departing, MOB under sail (upwind and down wind), MOB under power, anchoring, and raising, lowering and reefing sails. As an instructor evaluator, I get to assess instructor candidates abilities to do so.
> 
> As for sleeping while single-handed, I draw the line.


That's cool. My line is not staying up for more than 24 without a caculated rest, I plan my passages to accomidate this, and have done so and will continue to do so till I can't. Me being hove to and napping at noon in the middle of the ocean poses no threat to any body but my self. save the dude making way while asleep, the chances are so remote it's not worth discussing.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> ok ok , I get it, I had 26,000 blue water miles by the Time I was 19 and stopped counting 20 years ago. I know you are a world class sailor, but us solo guy's need to defend our right to do it regardless of that blasted colregs book for not giving us an option to sleep. All we need is a pargraph, saying hove to in certain situation we can rest. underway but not making way with a strobe or something, what ever. ccriders idea is good. It's kind of lying about your staus, but I only lie about really important stuff, and staying alive is in that catagory.


Sorry, but I think the use of a strobe for anything less than an emergency/distress situation is a very poor practice, and if memory serves, is expressly prohibited by Colregs for anything less... What would your reaction be to seeing a strobe from the wheelhouse of your tug? Your first thought would be a distress situation, no?

If you're hove-to and simply want to make yourself as visible as possible, spreader lights are the best supplement to your nav lights, IMHO...


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Aaron and cc

Here is a link to the IMO Colregs site. IMO | COLREG

Here is a link to USCG IMO page - USCG: IMO Homepage

Go for it.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

I have singlehanded across the Pacific 9 times, and have very rarely seen another boat out there. I have singlehanded from BC to New Zealand, then on to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji, and seen only two other vessels in open ocean the whole way. You have almost better odds of being hit by an asteroid, than colliding with another vessel in the mid South Pacific. Life on shore is infinitely more dangerous, than sleeping a full night underway at sea, especially for those who drive a lot, or pedestrians in a big city. AIS has drastically reduced the risk, even further.
Moitesier once posted in Yachting magazine, a picture of a sisteship to his 40 ft Joshua, 5mm plate, which had been T-Boned amidships by a 35,000 ton freighter. You could see the imprint of the ship's bow in the hull, but the boat was not leaking a drop of water. I later heard she sailed to Tahiti, repair was too expensive there, so she sailed on to New Zealand, before any attempt at repairs was done. 
One of my 36 footers survived a collision with a freighter in Gibralter, with minimal damage, and nothing serious.A good steel hull will likely survive most collisions with ships, or any other floating debris. I have often T-boned long booms made of three ft diameter logs, at hull speed, with zero risk of damage. It's the easiest way to tie up to them.

Sleep deprivation is far more dangerous. Many single handers I have met sleep up to 12 hours in a stretch, and dont worry about it.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I think the use of a strobe for anything less than an emergency/distress situation is a very poor practice, and if memory serves, is expressly prohibited by Colregs for anything less... What would your reaction be to seeing a strobe from the wheelhouse of your tug? Your first thought would be a distress situation, no?


Yep - Rules 36 and 37



> Rule 36 - Signals to Attract Attention
> 
> If necessary to attract the attention of another vessel, any vessel may make light or sound signals that cannot be mistaken for any signal authorized elsewhere in these Rules, or may direct the beam of her searchlight in the direction of the danger, in such a way as not to embarrass any vessel. Any light to attract the attention of another vessel shall be such that it cannot be mistaken for any aid to navigation. *For the purpose of this Rule the use of high intensity intermittent or revolving lights, such as strobe lights, shall be avoided.*


US Inland Rule 37 allows for strobe to be used as distress.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I think the use of a strobe for anything less than an emergency/distress situation is a very poor practice, and if memory serves, is expressly prohibited by Colregs for anything less... What would your reaction be to seeing a strobe from the wheelhouse of your tug? Your first thought would be a distress situation, no?
> 
> If you're hove-to and simply want to make yourself as visible as possible, spreader lights are the best supplement to your nav lights, IMHO...


Ya, well spreader is what I do, I was just trying to give an example of what colregs might find acceptable, maybe five green over whites with a pink in the middle, I, as I said before, don't really care if they do something or not. I stay visible, I stay safe, and I remain un hit.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

jackdale said:


> Aaron and cc
> 
> Here is a link to the IMO Colregs site. IMO | COLREG
> 
> ...


That's cool. But in just 30 seconds I come to rule 5 which would imply that radar equipped ships should be using their radar to aid in their watch keeping since they have such a hard time seeing small sailboats and small sailboats are part of the environment in which they operate.
So that adds one more thing to the list of failures on the part of the steamer in case you referenced. By my count, it is 5-2 for the sailboat.
Where does the argument end? At the end of time. When will the next single hander set out? Probably tomorrow.
What's he going to do when its time to sleep? Sleep. How does he handle that need? As I recommended or some other arangement which COLREGS does not address.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Lol Jack, I too, am one of those “yachties” with over 10,000 NM in the log book. Interesting question, why do we “yachties” maintain log books and professional watch officers don’t? I maintain mine so I can prove my bonifides to insurance companies and race committees and such. I guess the “pros” don’t have to do that. Kind of gives you pause…

Sadly, dealing with insurance is a fact of life for this “yachtie”. Perhaps I don’t run in the right circles but pretty much everyone I know who has a boat worth north of $100k has insurance. Maybe I need to hang out more with the likes of Larry or Phillipe Kahn more, but I suspect that they insure their million dollar toys too. Hey, if you can walk away from your boat and responsibilities in an accident, by all means go bare. But I for one, maintain insurance. 

Back when I was younger, I could go without sleep for long periods. After I hit 40 not so much. Heck, I’m embarrassed to say this, but I’ve actually fallen asleep while helming and that was on a boat with no autohelm or self steering! The good news is I rarely singlehand anymore, because unlike some folks, fellow sailors actually want to ship with me. I am happy to share the experience of off shore sailing with my fellow mariners.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> Lol Jack, I too, am one of those "yachties" with over 10,000 NM in the log book. Interesting question, why do we "yachties" maintain log books and professional watch officers don't? I maintain mine so I can prove my bonifides to insurance companies and race committees and such. I guess the "pros" don't have to do that. Kind of gives you pause&#8230;
> 
> Sadly, dealing with insurance is a fact of life for this "yachtie". Perhaps I don't run in the right circles but pretty much everyone I know who has a boat worth north of $100k has insurance. Maybe I need to hang out more with the likes of Larry or Phillipe Kahn more, but I suspect that they insure their million dollar toys too. Hey, if you can walk away from your boat and responsibilities in an accident, by all means go bare. But I for one, maintain insurance.
> 
> Back when I was younger, I could go without sleep for long periods. After I hit 40 not so much. Heck, I'm embarrassed to say this, but I've actually fallen asleep while helming and that was on a boat with no autohelm or self steering! The good news is I rarely singlehand anymore, because unlike some folks, fellow sailors actually want to ship with me. I am happy to share the experience of off shore sailing with my fellow mariners.


Well it's because us "pro's" count our time in day's and are issued sea service letters by our employer that are sent to the coast guard for our up grades and renewals. I have several thousand day's of commercial service, one day counting as a day and a half for us or 12 hours as opposed to the usual 8.I keep a log on my little sailboat and if I wanted to I could go back and count the miles. I keep a log on the dive boat and I count the engine hours and bla bla bla. we don't single hand because no one want's to sail with us Goerge, we do it because we like our own company for a spell. My 150,000 dollar dive boat has insurance, my Inherited 28' foot sloop has my skill of keeping it afloat and out of harms way as insurance. Thank goodness they make 100,000 dollar gadget boats and have a book of regulations for you yachtsman to refer to. The ocean is, as you know, a big and wonderfull place, and with the invention of all these gadgets and oppulant boats, you country club boy's can now to get out to sea and enjoy each others company in the comfortable glow of a computer screen and digital decimal device to tell which way the wind is blow'n, where you are and how to get home. " Last one to the pool bar is spoiled caviar" smashing indeed.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> .....you country club boy's can now to get out to sea and enjoy each others company in the comfortable glow of a computer screen and digital decimal device to tell which way the wind is blow'n, where you are and how to get home.


Be careful Capt. It takes all kinds. I know plenty of yacht club types that are among the most accomplished blue water sailors in the world and I know some motor-less, electronic-less sailors that are little more than homeless asocial neanderthals, with or without a master license.

Let's assume not all meet the stereotypes.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Be careful Capt. It takes all kinds. I know plenty of yacht club types that are among the most accomplished blue water sailors in the world and I know some motor-less, electronic-less sailors that are little more than homeless asocial neanderthals, with or without a master license.
> 
> Let's assume not all meet the stereotypes.


I know, I know, Thurston, I mean Goerge has a way of living up to the sterotype. Of course the oppulance of the yacht and the expensive gear in a lot of the cases is key to their accomplishment's no? And I know some yacht clubbers who are not much more than neanderthals in a fleece vest and a Ted Copple hair cut. I have freinds on both sides of the tracks and move between the worlds comfortably.


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

I think one of the reasons I single hand, is to get away from folk like Jackdale, waving the rule book and their instructor booklet about and getting on my nerve. Aaron I am with you on this one all the way. Some folk will just never get it and it is good that they don't or otherwise it would be pretty cowded out there so lets keep it a secret shal we. 

ATB

Michael


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Ferret - I would be more that pleased if you stayed away from me. Much appreciated.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Originally Posted by davidpm View Post

It would be great from our point of view if the law had special rules for single-handers. It however does not.



JonEisberg said:


> Seriously???
> 
> Can you offer an example of what might be such a Special Rule?
> 
> (grin)


Sure the rule would state:
Any sailor who puts up a jolly roger flag is automatically the stand on boat. While the JR is flying they may drink what they want, sleep with whom they want or alone if necessary whenever they want.
If two boats both flying the JR collide the the government shall buy a new boat twice a good for any survivors.

So as you can see I was completely serious.

While we are at it we need to draft legislation for socialized Harley maintenance.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Ferretchaser said:


> I think one of the reasons I single hand, is to get away from folk like Jackdale, waving the rule book and their instructor booklet about and getting on my nerve. Aaron I am with you on this one all the way. Some folk will just never get it and it is good that they don't or otherwise it would be pretty cowded out there so lets keep it a secret shal we.
> 
> ATB
> 
> Michael


I think in colreg #107-A:d paragraph 3 which will direct you to page 47 column 7 part B it clearly states that one should not " wave the COLREG book in combination with instructors of instructors manual "{about} unless in distress and or nuc.
I got in this very argument with the boy's down at the CHART ROOM the other sunday after the anual" round and round the blinking bouy race" (more of gentlemens race really) and we came to the conclusion that yes, no indeed.uke


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I've got another one for you. Lets put single handing on hold for a while. Let's say you have two people doing a big crossing. They get hit with a big storm for 3 days both are completely wrung out. They are in the middle of nowhere but expect to get near a shipping channel in 24 hours.
Should they both sack out for 8 hours so they can get on a normal watch rotation when it is needed.
Or should they continue the watch rotation and both be way less than 100% when in the channel?
Which is more dangerous?
I'm pretty sure the law is clear enough but as to which is more dangerous it is arguable that two people beyond their limits is worse than one rested person.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I sailed across the Yucatan channel in a huge norther with a buddy and it was all we could do to spot eachother hour for hour for 24 in a row. I wouldn't of crossed alone, I'd of sailed around the south side of Cuba and hove to till it passed, napping for sure.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

David - my preferred watch system is a Modified Swedish. 6,6,5,4,3 (starting at 0600). I use it as a matter of course. The crew gets a great rest. I might start my having the most bagged out crew member get some sleep then phase that system in.

BTW - there really are no shipping channels / lanes in the middle of nowhere. The big boats take the shortest route, barring weather. You can expect to run into traffic just about anywhere. I went through a tuna fishing fleet this summer about 800 miles north of Hawaii . That got my attention.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

6 6 5 4 3, what is that?, the amount of people on each watch of your micro managed crossing, or the hours each of the FIVE people on board! what? And how is that fair for the guy who does the 6 on and what? sounds like you've taken something as simple as raising a sail and catching a breeze across an ocean and turned it into the most difficult thing possible with dash of difficult to make it even more confusing for your " students".
I'm glad Garndpa taught me the Keep It Simple Stupid method.


----------



## tbctx (Aug 6, 2012)

I suspect 6 6 5 4 3 is the number of hours for a watch for two people rotating back and forth.


----------



## LoboPops (Jul 28, 2012)

According to the Coast Guard Accident Statistics for last year
Deprecated Browser Error , there were 514 accidents contributed to Improper lookout with 31 deaths and 391 injuries in reportable accidents which is more in line with the SAR statistics I am used to.

Going through crossfire at sea, fighting fuel/oil fires/collision damage at sea, not to mention hurricanes/typhoons are some of my quals and don't compare to some of my counterparts. I have had sailors that I am proud to have their back and they had mine. That's what sailing is about!


----------



## LoboPops (Jul 28, 2012)

The link was deprecated. The address is Deprecated Browser Error and if that doesn't work go to Deprecated Browser Error and go to statistics for 2011. The PDF is available for download.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

tbctx said:


> I suspect 6 6 5 4 3 is the number of hours for a watch for two people rotating back and forth.


0600-1200, 1200-1800, 1800-2300, 2300-0300, 0300-0600.

Sorry - that was rather cryptic. I use it with large crews as well. There is a 48 hour cycle.

This summer we had 6 (later 5 - other story) crew and had 3/2 on each watch. With no autopilot, it was necessary to change the helm at least every hour..

The six hours during the day is quite nice, it also allows each crew member to get a great sleep. I usually sleep when I am off in the 6 hours in morning. In the 6 hour afternoon, I got cleaned up, read, did some instruction with the on duty watch (I was instructing an offshore course).

The worst watch is 0300 - 0600 which is why it is so short.


----------



## LoboPops (Jul 28, 2012)

Darn it. Trying[URL="http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.aspx[/URL]


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

The pdf link from above.

http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/workflow_staging/Publications/557.PDF

Page 7 for the statistics. Improper lookout is #2, 0perator inattention is #1.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> 6 6 5 4 3, what is that?, the amount of people on each watch of your micro managed crossing, or the hours each of the FIVE people on board! what? And how is that fair for the guy who does the 6 on and what? sounds like you've taken something as simple as raising a sail and catching a breeze across an ocean and turned it into the most difficult thing possible with dash of difficult to make it even more confusing for your " students".
> I'm glad Garndpa taught me the Keep It Simple Stupid method.


Sorry Aaron

The standard Swedish Watch as I understand is 4 5-hour watch in the 24 hour day, followed by 1 4-hour watch. I learned this on my first passage.

I would have thought you would have studied watch systems for your masters ticket. We teach various watch systems our courses.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Probably time for a watch system thread. 

Can a moderator create one and move this discussion, please?


----------



## LoboPops (Jul 28, 2012)

Thanks for good link.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> Sorry Aaron
> 
> The standard Swedish Watch as I understand is 4 5-hour watch in the 24 hour day, followed by 1 4-hour watch. I learned this on my first passage.
> 
> I would have thought you would have studied watch systems for your masters ticket. We teach various watch systems our courses.


We use a 6 and 6 or 12 and 12 on the commercial side and 4 and 8 ( english) in the tall ship, school ship. we study things that matter like stability and plotting in masters classes, not swedish watch systems. I don't think figuring out how to break up watch is something that needs to be "studied" it alway's works it's self out based on the crew and the passage. How many of those statistic accidents of improper watch were off shore involving seasoned solo sailors sigle handling in the open ocean? I'm betting they were all near shore recreational boaters zooming along not paying attention.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> How many of those statistic accidents of improper watch were off shore involving seasoned solo sailors sigle handling in the open ocean? I'm betting they were all near shore recreational boaters zooming along not paying attention.


The English system (3 watches) works well when you have the accommodations for three watches. As we hot bunk, we need to use a two watch system.

Sailboats themselves involve very few accidents and deaths. Those with formal instruction also are in a small minority.

I have read these reports for the past couple of years. I wish Canada hasd a similar reporting system.

Thanks for the posting LoboPops.

BTW - we also teach navigation.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> The English system (3 watches) works well when you have the accommodations for three watches. As we hot bunk, we need to use a two watch system.
> 
> Sailboats themselves involve very few accidents and deaths. Those with formal instruction also are in a small minority.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you do and I'm sure your students come away with a wealth of knowledge.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

davidpm said:


> Originally Posted by davidpm View Post
> 
> It would be great from our point of view if the law had special rules for single-handers. It however does not.
> [
> ...


Well, glad to hear it - sometimes around here, it's a little tough to tell (grin)

Someone else actually IS arguing that different rules should apply to yachties, after all...


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

Jackdale did a darn fine job navigating his butt srtaight onto my ignore list. Well done that man.

ATB

Michael


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, glad to hear it - sometimes around here, it's a little tough to tell (grin)
> 
> Someone else actually IS arguing that different rules should apply to yachties, after all...


I'm certainly not arguing for different rules for yachties, however a rule added for single handlers to display there situation is a valid and interesting thought, one that only popped up in this discussion. I live by one rule out there, don't get hit. By a yacht or a tanker. and if I'm on a tanker, don't hit a yacht. It's pretty easy to not get hit and pretty simple to not hit something. stay visible when you can't keep your eye's open and look for visible stuff when you can.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Back to "Is Sleeping OK?"

Two things needed to be considered. 

1) Is it desirable?

2) Is it feasible?

Is It Desirable

A well rested alert crew is essential. A single handed sailor must be as alert as any other sailor, so yes it is desirable. If there is a collision, it may prove undesirable as the sleeping single-hander will likely be held, at least in part, at fault.

Is It Feasible?

I can think of three ways in which a single-handed sailor can get some sleep: 
1) Maintain the course using an wind-vane, autopilot or some other method.
2) Use a sea anchor or drogue to stop or slow the vessels progress.
3) Heave-to

Maintain the course.

An autopilot can either keep you on a compass course or on a wind angle. The wind vane will keep the same wind angle. A shift in wind angle will cause an autopilot to either follow the wind or result in poor sail shape. A wind vane will follow the wind shift. Either way you are giving up control of the vessel.

Sea anchor or drogue

These will either keep you bow or stern into the wind or waves. They can be deployed with some difficulty, but they can be a struggle to retrieve. Deploying and retrieving whenever you wish to sleep could be problematic. In either case you will slow down, taking longer to complete you passage.

Heaving-to

While you may be able to took off all headway (very hard with a fin keel boat), you will still be making significant leeway. If you heave to while going downwind you will, at least be going in the right direction. If you heave to going upwind, you will be headed the opposite direction, lengthening the time for your passage as you make up for lost ground. Remember to heave to from a port tack onto a starboard tack which might make you stand-n to port tack sailing vessels.

So can it be done? - yes, it might be difficult.

Should it be done? - in my mind, no. If you really want to do it, please do it far from me. Just make sure you have the appropriate lights.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

wannabsailor said:


> I've been watching solo crossings/sailing on you-tube. What's the rule on sleeping while sailing in the middle of nowhere?


Take it from me. Bring along your 5 week old and you won't have to worry about sleeping on watch....

Now, back to trying to get the little guy to sleep....

MedSailor


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Some dudes just are'nt cut out for it Jack. that's O.K. What are you worried about, my hove to vessel at noon is going to collide with your over stuffed yacht class? so I should stay out of the PNW as not to get too close to you because what again, those of us that solo are what?


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

jackdale said:


> Aaron - I think you know this; but I have about 10,000 miles of blue water experience (3 times Hawaii to PNW and once Newport, RI to St. Barths via Bermuda).
> 
> This summer was the only time I had to get outside help; I am eternily grateful to AMVER, CG Honolulu and the Navarino for the medical evacuation from Turicum.
> 
> My balls are not in the rigging, they are firmly attached to me. Pulling along side an 1100 foot container ship mid ocean takes some cojones.


10000 Nm is that all, I thought you were an old salt and I started to listen to you. Now I realize most of yours is Book tought, I have well over 30,000 Nm and more than half are single handed. It just goes to show some talk the talk others, well...


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

SimonV said:


> 10000 Nm is that all, I thought you were an old salt and I started to listen to you. Now I realize most of yours is Book tought, I have well over 30,000 Nm and more than half are single handed. It just goes to show some talk the talk others, well...


10,000 blue water; 36,000 total.

Almost all of it while being paid.

I actually wrote some of the books.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg View Post
> > Well, glad to hear it - sometimes around here, it's a little tough to tell (grin)
> >
> > Someone else actually IS arguing that different rules should apply to yachties, after all...
> ...


No worries, Aaron - I was referring to a different poster...


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> 10,000 blue water; 36,000 total.
> 
> Almost all of it while being paid.
> 
> I actually wrote some of the books.


WO, that makes my 12,000 miles a year seem like a lot. all getting paid too,


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> WO, that makes my 12,000 miles a year seem like a lot. all getting paid too,


You win.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> No worries, Aaron - I was referring to a different poster...


OH..... I'm just saying...what if? Two big ball's with a pink light in the middle, for single handlers,.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> You win.


I aint trying to win, i just want it to be ok with every one that we single hand our little sailboats on the sea . I've been called crazy, stupid, moronic, idiotic, and i don't think I am. i think i'm taking a calculated risk and applying hard won skill.
actually i don't care if it's ok with any body.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> I aint trying to win, i just want it to be ok with every one that we single hand our little sailboats on the sea . I've been called crazy, stupid, moronic, idiotic, and i don't think I am. i think i'm taking a calculated risk and applying hard won skill.
> actually i don't care if it's ok with any body.


Aaron

I also like single handing. I often have to show instructor candidates how to single hand, so I have to keep that skill up to snuff. The best way to learn something is to have to teach it to someone else.

I do occasionally for fun. I like to get out by myself occasionally as well; I just do not get to do that much.

I have called you none of that.

I have also calculated the risk. I will single hand when I am awake. Would I single hand back from Hawaii; after last summer the answer is no.

The OP asked a question. I give a more cogent opinion an hour ago.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jackdale said:


> Aaron
> 
> I also like single handing. I often have to show instructor candidates how to single hand, so I have to keep that skill up to snuff. The best way to learn something is to have to teach it to someone else.
> 
> ...


No No indeed you did not accuse me of being a moron. And I am known to be a little :chaser crazy in certain circles, But when we, and I'll go ahead and speak for us, are told that " No, sleeping is not O.K., COLREGS specifically states........" we hear " You're a moron, the book does'nt say you can do that " so we argue our point for 4 and 1/2 day's or untill we go back to sea frustrated. As I said. I follow the law to a T , while opperating dangerous liquid cargo vessels, I'm on one now. I've been single handling the same little sloop off shore since I was a teenager, and the single handlers of yesterday we're my child hood heros,..Christ, I got Tanya Aidies autograph when she was in Key West a few years ago. I'm sure you can run your boat by your self Jack, and if in your oppinion we should'nt be doing solo crossings, I applaud your right to voice that oppinion. I'll be doing it 'till I'm too old to remember which boat is mine.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Boy, did this thread strike a nerve with some. I'm of the opinion that you can't fault someone from taking a risk with their own life. It's their life. I'm also of the opinion that following the rules is a good idea. Not because the rules always makes sense, but because I sometimes need to know what to expect from someone else to make a good decision on what to do.

Therefore, there is no settling this debate. It gets even more difficult, if risking your life causes others to be at risk. Typically dismissed by arguing how unlikely that is. 

Its like seat belt laws. Risk killing yourself, if you like, but requiring an ambulance or being superior on the triage list at the hospital can impact others lives. Or helmet laws, which have the same argument. 

Although, here is the slight parallel here to the helmet laws. If a state doesn't have one, its amazing that almost no one wears one. That tells me that even those that would wear one, don't because they wouldn't look cool. I'm hearing a similar argument for single handed sailing. Tougher, cooler, saltier, evidenced by calling those that advocate a good watch system as sissy yachties. Those that suggest single handed sleeping isn't as safe as maintaining a proper watch or complying with the rules, are simply telling the truth. Those that don't care are welcome to it in my book, as long as they don't take anyone else with them.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I never said sissy. I only call yachties on their pomp when they're pompus. Some of my best freinds are rich salty dudes with fancy boats. I often sit watches on their yachts in the comfortable air conditioned cockpit , enjoying the space age glow of computer screens and smart helms that turn themselves on que to a wait point on the intergrated chart plotter, skyping with my wife on the upper corner of the screen while she is watching our blipping progress on the lower corner of her's. It's neat. I can't help if single handling under 30 foot engineless sloops across open stretches of water with a sexton and a thermos look's kind cool and salty to some, it kind of is.


----------



## Capt. Gary Randall (Jun 1, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Boy, did this thread strike a nerve with some. I'm of the opinion that you can't fault someone from taking a risk with their own life. It's their life. I'm also of the opinion that following the rules is a good idea. Not because the rules always makes sense, but because I sometimes need to know what to expect from someone else to make a good decision on what to do.
> 
> Therefore, there is no settling this debate. It gets even more difficult, if risking your life causes others to be at risk. Typically dismissed by arguing how unlikely that is.
> 
> ...


The state of Florida used to have motorcycle helmet laws.I myself through experience desire to wear a helmet. I believe that freedom of choice is very important,( unless it affects someone else.) That makes this a very good analogy. How difficult can it be to have someone along to stand a watch. I have been faced with this many times. I often take my five-year-old daughter with me when I do a delivery, or just sailing for recreational reasons. I would not dream of single handling if it was just me and her. I always bring someone along either experienced or not.I will admit that years ago I used a single hand, but experience and close calls as changed my thinking, when it comes to sleeping at the helm or otherwise. Captg


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Okay, last post on this issue.
COLREGS creates a lose-lose situation for single handers yet there are some who will sail single handedly. Within context of the rules one should be able to use reasonable judgement to manage his passage in the safest manner possible and not be penalized when someone else actively violates the rules and runs him down. Court decisions like the one cited by Jackdale are an abomination and should be thrown out.

Jackdale,
There are autopilot systems that can be integrated with a windvane to allow the choice of following either a magnetic course or the variations in wind direction. The problem with this choice is you are underway making way and can actively cause damage.

There are sea anchor systems that deploy off the stern of the boat and are reputed to be easily retrieved and are said to quieten the motion of the boat. It significantly reduces your making way so that you will not actively run into something. The benefit of this option is it gives you respite and allows you to practice and test you storm systems but has the disadvantage of taking longer to get underway making way. 

Heaving-to doesn't really stop the boat but lets you get underway making way quickly.

None of this discussion relates to how fast you make a passage, or how long it takes to get to your destination, only to completing your single handed passage in the safest manner possible. I think Capt. Aaron has been trying to tell you this. He is not going to run into you and he is going to let you know, if you are keeping watch while underway making way, where he is. Your decision, whether or not to run into him.
If you are in a long distance shingle handed race and know what you are doing, you are going to sleep when you can for you know not when you will be able to sleep again, taking the risk as it comes.
I think the grief you are getting from some is the pendantic, dualistic manner in which you argue. Laws cannot be written to cover every conceivable situation. I'm sure you must develop in your students the ability to use skill and good judgement in every aspect of their passage. The laws of man and nature create a dynamic that requires reason, knowledge, skill and judgement to successfully complete a passage. And sometimes luck.
I hope you don't think I'm a crazy marauding single hander who is out to run you down in the middle of the night. In fact, I don't make long single handed passages because I can't even stay awake long enough to get out of the bay.
The only bona fides I can swap with you are not hours underway making way.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Is it okay to sleep while I'm armed?


----------



## johnnyquest37 (Feb 16, 2012)

If someone is going to solo sail any long distance, that person has to sleep at some point, which likely is a violation of the COLREGs. But that mean Matt Rutherford's recently completed solo, non-stop sail around the Americas was illegal. What Joshua Slocum did was foolhardy, and all the solo round-the-world races illadvised. People solo sail across great distances and God bless them for their courage and for demonstrating that it can be done. 

As far as lights/signals for solo sailors catching up on needed rest, what about displaying the signals for a vessel not under command? A vessel not under command goes to the top of the pecking order. A solo sailor asleep could be considered an "exceptional circumstance" as found in the definition of a vessel not under command. Might be hard to rig a sound signal to go off every two minutes in reduced visability, but the lights (two all around red) and signs (two balls aligned vertically) should be easy enough.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Here we go again. maybe the balls could be pink?


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

johnnyquest37 said:


> As far as lights/signals for solo sailors catching up on needed rest, what about displaying the signals for a vessel not under command? A vessel not under command goes to the top of the pecking order. A solo sailor asleep could be considered an "exceptional circumstance" as found in the definition of a vessel not under command. Might be hard to rig a sound signal to go off every two minutes in reduced visability, but the lights (two all around white) and signs (two balls aligned vertically) should be easy enough.


Sleeping is not NUC.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/92288-sleeping-ok-7.html#post925628


----------



## johnnyquest37 (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm on your side Capt.aaron.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Thank you, and I jest. Jack and I have beat the day shape to death, but Not under command is a good signal to display and should be written to the colregs.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> Thank you, and I jest. Jack and I have beat the day shape to death, but Not under command is a good signal to display and should be written to the colregs.


And until it is written in, it is not legitimate.



> A vessel claiming not-under-command status must (1) find itself in exceptional circumstances, and (2) thereby be unable to maneuver as would ordinarily be required by the Rules. The following are examples of conditions that could result in not-under-command status:
> 
> Vessel with anchor down but not holding
> Vessel riding on anchor chains
> ...


http://navruleshandbook.com/Rule3.html

So drop your anchor in 10,000 feet of water.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

One day it may be, one day.....Hey If my anchors is down and not holding! That's it, drop a little anchor and display the nuc shapes, it won't be holding because it can't reach! Oh what a relief we've finally come to an agreement!!


----------



## Ferretchaser (Jan 14, 2011)

Capt. Gary Randall said:


> How difficult can it be to have someone along to stand a watch.


If I had to take someone along I would quit sailing. The whole point is to be alone out there and have MY peace and quiet. I don't want some snotty nose rule book waver on my boat or anyone else for that matter when I am under way. Fine at the dock or on a day sail, but not when I am going from A to B ..then I choose to be alone.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Ferretchaser said:


> If I had to take someone along I would quit sailing. The whole point is to be alone out there and have MY peace and quiet. I don't want some snotty nose rule book waver on my boat or anyone else for that matter when I am under way. Fine at the dock or on a day sail, but not when I am going from A to B ..then I choose to be alone.


I have this other single handling buddy that does delivery's with me, we are a pair. After 16 hours I'll yell down. " HEY A$$ hole, it's your watch!" 
" What ever" he'll say and down I go for 12 hours and I'll hear " Hey dip sh!t
it's your turn" " what ever" I'll say. we'll have a first conversation about the voyage at the bar in Columbia like it was 2 different voyages and neither of us was with the other .


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

jackdale said:


> 0600-1200, 1200-1800, 1800-2300, 2300-0300, 0300-0600.
> 
> Sorry - that was rather cryptic. I use it with large crews as well. There is a 48 hour cycle.
> 
> This summer we had 6 (later 5 - other story)


OK, Jack, that's at least the second time in this thread you mentioned the "6 (later 5)" crew. How about sharing that story? If you're worried about hijacking the thread (arguably a bit late for that), please start another, and link to it in THIS thread.



> The worst watch is 0300 - 0600 which is why it is so short.


Interesting system, and makes sense on the face of it. I know those wee hours are the worst. Once fell asleep around 0330 on ambush patrol, but that's also another story.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

I managed to scatter the story all over SN.

Here are some links to the story - I had to conduct mid ocean medevac on the trip.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/pacific-northwest-alaska/91327-medical-evacuation-maui-return.html

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...d/47351-big-freakin-sails-242.html#post924615

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...d/47351-big-freakin-sails-242.html#post925249


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

What was the medical emergency?


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

jameswilson29 said:


> What was the medical emergency?


Th trip was on my crew member's bucket list. He had some prostate issues, but his urologist cleared him for trip and provided him with some catheters. The early motion sickness resulted in some dehydration which made things worse and he need to use the catheters. We hove-to to stabilize the boat. The situation got worse so, at his request, I contacted CG Honolulu via sat phone. After a consult with their Flight Surgeon a rendezvous was arranged with a 335 meter container ship bound for Los Angeles. We met 39 10N 150 W and made the transfer.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I must strenuously disagree...
> 
> What rules should yachtsmen be excused from, simply because they choose to partake in a purely _RECREATIONAL_ endeavor on the world's oceans, _CHOOSING_ to sail short or singlehanded? Should private pilots likewise have similar courtesies granted to them, because their tiny Pipers or Cessnas are more subject to turbulence, thus making the delicate constitutions of their pilots more susceptible to airsickness? (grin)
> 
> ...


I understnad your comments, Jon, however, I still believe that is wrong.

You said:


JonEisberg said:


> Sorry, but I must strenuously disagree...
> 
> What rules should yachtsmen be excused from, simply because they choose to partake in a purely _RECREATIONAL_ endeavor on the world's oceans, _CHOOSING_ to sail short or singlehanded?


First of all, this isn't _*recreational*_ for me or the majority of the sailors that go to sea. You can call it recreation if you want for how you do it, maybe. THis is my life and this is how I live. THis vessel is my home, and the sea my yard. SHould I have lived in a home on land, would your interpretation be different? I live on the sea, full time, with my family. It is no more recreational for me or the many other F/T cruisers and LA's than a house is to land dwellers. Please save the word "recreational" for the Sea Ray folks who come down on the weekends or those who don't take this seriously. I certainly do and so do the singlehanders/couples of the world that cruise. I also take safety very seriously.

Second, unless conscription has come back into the world and they forgot to tell me, every man and child on the sea is there by choice. Some get paid for it. Others dont. None of us has any more right to be at sea than the other. I sure don't believe that a commercial vessel has any more right, or a large company just because they are trying to make money off of it or it is the cheapest way for a large company to move goods. SO to be clear, everyone out there is CHOOSING to do this... be they a company, a private vessel's family, or a professional mariner on a super tanker.

As far as those who CHOOSE to do it alone, they are doing the best they can with what they have and are really a risk to no one but themselves or others who singlehand and do not stand a f/t watch. So, do we deny them access to the oceans beacuse they have no friends, or don't have have the money to hire a captain and crew to go with them, or wish solitude?? If they CHOOSE not to keep a watch, in a reasonable fashion, then they know the risks they impose on themselves. However, the ONLY way I see two vessels, within reason, hitting each other is if they both were shirking their watch duties. How else would you explain it, Jon? In such a case, they must both live with the consequences. However, I fault neither where they are both doing the best to their vessels abilities at that time.

THird, do I believe that commercial vessels should live up to the fullest extent of the rules and obey them, even where I believe that some "yachties" (using your word), do not? Yes. Yes, I do. As a commercial vessel, your ability to inflict significant damage to property, damage to the environment, and death is exponentially greater than that of a 18000 lb sailboat under sail or motor. You are being paid and the company has a responsibility to its passengers, vendors (cargo), and the environment as a whole which we as "yachties" simply cannot relate to. Examples? The Concordia? Exxon Valdez? The Titanic? THe sea is filled with ships whose crews/captains have done something stupid and caused loss of life, property, and the environment. Worst case scenario, I stike a cargo vessel, I die and his paint is scratched. My 45 gallons of diesel into the sea would be a joke. A cargo vessel striking another cargo vessel or tanker... that is a large loss of life, property, and a massive environmental disaster. So... do I believe they should live to a much higher standard? Yeah, I do. Sorry. Apparently, since you can't just hop on a oil tanker and sail her across the sea without a lot of licensing (yet you can drive a 2 million dollar sea ray and never even been on the water before), there must be some truth to my reasoning.



JonEisberg said:


> Should private pilots likewise have similar courtesies granted to them, because their tiny Pipers or Cessnas are more subject to turbulence, thus making the delicate constitutions of their pilots more susceptible to airsickness? (grin)


I have no idea. I am not a pilot. I don't understand your analogy at all and how that compares to singlehanders on sailboats and commercial vessels?



JonEisberg said:


> I can only imagine the sort of scorn with which most professional mariners would greet such a plea for special status... Especially, in an age where they are being expected to pluck distressed yachties from their plastic toys with ever-increasing frequency...


Why would they scorn us? Their ability to damage or kill others is exponentially higher than ours... so much so it is hardly worth comparring. I consider myself a professional in what I do. I would think you do to. This is not about special status, this is about doing what is at their ability to do with what their vessel has on board. We are not commercial vessels. We are very small, private yachts and of zero risk to them. _And again you make this anaology to a toy. _ This is my home. It is not a toy or a child's play thing.

As far as plucking us out of the sea, do you honestly believe that has anything to do with the number of people keeping watch on the boat? Come on. THe reason they respond to more distress calls is because of the advent of the EPIRB or similar devices that can actually save lives via reporting emergencies. Do they actually scorn a fellow sailor who will die without their help? DO they really get mad because they had to divert their course to save a life(s)? I sure wouldn't. I would be happy to help. THe role being reversed, and a merchant ship was going down Jon, would you divert to help them? Would you be happy to do it? I would. That is a part of the common bond we all have with the sea and helping out another human being is part of just being human. If they have a problem with helping save someone's life, assuming it would not endanger their own, then their problems go a lot deeper than how many people are on watch on the private vessel.



JonEisberg said:


> Their bemusement would likely pale in comparison, however, to that of many of my all-time voyaging heroes - people like the Smeetons, Hiscocks, or Roths, who epitomized self-sufficiency and the acceptance of personal responsibility for their choices, embraced the risks of putting to sea on a small boat, and indeed would have been embarrassed to have such special consideration requested on their behalf...


If they went to sea under the current COLREGs, they were likely breaking the law... especially as a couple or singlehanders. That is my issue. If you go out on your boat Jon by yourself (I assume you have been out of the slip by yourself, right?), and you have to take a crap, or get a drink, take a leak, or fix lunch - then when you leave that helm you are technically in voilation of the COLREGS. You are NOT keeping a proper watch. THe large commercial vessel can call up someone to take the helm and likely has others on the bridge. They should. They better! The typical cruiser does not have that type of crew. So your COLREGS have now put them into a point of violation when they are doing the best they can with what they have. Or would we stop all crusiers and cruising now too because of a set of laws that were really written with the commercial vessel (and crew) in mind?

I most certainly accept personal responsibility as do most of the singlehanders. Like I said, the only way that two vessels collide is if both vessels were failing to keep a proper watch. In fact, I believe you are very wrong on another point to... I suspect most of the famous singlehanded sailors of old would be embarrased to think that a sailors's right to go to sea by himself in his boat was taken away  If I were them, I would probably say, "Thank God I got to do it when I did." I bet the sailors of old would have never thought a day would come when a man's right to sail the oceans singlehanded was being compromised because others feel it is unsafe... the same others that are probably, at one time or another, breaking the exact same law.

Brian


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I have solved the whole problem.
As you can see from my avatar I have highly trained service dog.
When I sleep she stands watch and is trained to alert me with the following signals.
One bark for possible ships on a collision course.
Two barks for land
Three barks for wind picking up so canvas needs to be adjusted.
Four barks for pirates or coastguard.

So far this has worked well for several thousand sea miles.
It is also legal as colregs do not specify that the watch keeper has to be human.

As you can see she can steer as necessary and to get a better view she monitors the fore and sided decks.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

davidpm said:


> I have solved the whole problem.
> As you can see from my avatar I have highly trained service dog.
> When I sleep she stands watch and is trained to alert me with the following signals.
> One bark for possible ships on a collision course.
> ...


Jackdale:
I hope this gets a chuckle from you.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

davidpm said:


> Four barks for *pirates or coastguard*.


I LOVE that these two have the same signal. 

MedSailor


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

ccriders said:


> Jackdale:
> I hope this gets a chuckle from you.


Only if he sails a barque or a barquentine.

If he sails a cat rig, no way.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I've been enjoying this discourse so far. I don't have much to add because I'm generally with Minnie and think this problem is largely unsolvable, but it is still fun to discuss!

My point that I'd like to bring up is that the US Coast Guard issues permits for races (in the USA). Aren't they being somewhat complicit in "allowing" violations of the COLREGS by permitting a race like the Singlehanded Transpac where they know that keeping a watch will not be possible? 

It would be unreasonable to believe that the Coast Guard doesn't know that singlehanders will sleep while underway and yet they choose to permit singlehanded only races along with the crewed ones. Interesting no?


MedSailor

P.S. Jackdale, thanks for the link to the case involving the collision between the sailboat and freighter. I don't think I've ever read a judges opinion on a case before and it was VERY informative to read his rational for his decisions in attributing blame. It was also interesting to hear his deliberations on the issue of requiring the use of RADAR if fitted. I'd heard many people say that you are "required" to use RADAR if you have it aboard but I'd never seen anything real on the issue until now.


----------



## dugout (Nov 3, 2007)

The USCG enjoys ambiguity and the flexibility it offers.
Admiralty law spends most of the time in the grey, far from the extremes of black and white.
To the point let’s take apart rule 5:

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

Define “proper”??? Is it conditional? Why is the word used here?

Define “appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions” Is this conditional? What is the purpose of the additional verbiage?

For those who wish to stand on a rule, end all, one might choose one with more stability. Rule 5 is certainly written “conditionally”. I’m sure the standards are different between the southern approach to Ambrose and 300 miles east of Bermuda, right?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

MedSailor said:


> I've been enjoying this discourse so far. I don't have much to add because I'm generally with Minnie and think this problem is largely unsolvable, but it is still fun to discuss!
> 
> My point that I'd like to bring up is that the US Coast Guard issues permits for races (in the USA). Aren't they being somewhat complicit in "allowing" violations of the COLREGS by permitting a race like the Singlehanded Transpac where they know that keeping a watch will not be possible?
> 
> ...


I would like to add something:

I think JackDale, Jon, Aaron, ferret, minne, MS CC, etc... have made great contributions here. You want to know what is nice? THat we, all as experienced sailors, can sit down and have a fun discussion about this. We will not agree, of course. So what? I hate it when another very experienced sailor (like Ferret) puts another on ignore (like Jackdale) because we cannot reason through it.

Hey, we are all on the same side here. We just have dissagreements. Hopefully each of us can understand the others viewpoint (not necessarly agree with it) and sit down for a beer one day together. Lets not put a dissagreement between us.

Sincerely,

Brian

PS I will make everyone here a deal: I know of a boat off of Key West that is abandoned about every two weeks. There is a line hanging off the boat. At the end of the line is a six pack of beer. As long as no one tells a particular poster here, every two weeks we can drink beer that has been abandoned. I think that is fair enough for all of us to maintain civility (at least until he finds out).


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

MedSailor said:


> I LOVE that these two have the same signal.
> 
> MedSailor


I'm glad you noticed. That was on purpose.
Depending on what country you are sailing near it's all the same.


----------



## Capt. Gary Randall (Jun 1, 2012)

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12284&stc=1&d=1348633852

NUC


----------



## flandria (Jul 31, 2012)

I have mused about that question myself, never having done anything singlehanded for any length of time. Yes, you can rely on various audio-warnings, but I am not the only one that has ever been so exhausted to sleep through anything. This is why I consider those singlehanded round-the-world races that go storming down the southern lattitudes rather irresponsible... but, hey, I am not obliged to join them.


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

jackdale said:


> I managed to scatter the story all over SN.
> (snip)


Thanks Jack!


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

MedSailor said:


> (snippage)
> P.S. Jackdale, thanks for the link to the case involving the collision between the sailboat and freighter. I don't think I've ever read a judges opinion on a case before and it was VERY informative to read his rational for his decisions in attributing blame. It was also interesting to hear his deliberations on the issue of requiring the use of RADAR if fitted. I'd heard many people say that you are "required" to use RADAR if you have it aboard but I'd never seen anything real on the issue until now.


What's REALLY interesting is that the Rules DO seem to REQUIRE it's use:


> Rule 7 - Risk of Collision
> 
> (a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.
> 
> (b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.


USCG Navigation Rules Online

By any reasonable definition, "Operational" meand in normal working order, not whether or not the equipment is turned on. That would be "Operating", not "Operational."

Cpt. Aaron, I would assume the boats you work on have radar, is it routinely operating under way, or only at night or weather dependent? Just curious.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Brewgyver said:


> What's REALLY interesting is that the Rules DO seem to REQUIRE it's use:
> 
> USCG Navigation Rules Online
> 
> By any reasonable definition, "Operational" meand in normal working order, not whether or not the equipment is turned on. That would be "Operating", not "Operational."


What you've cited is THE LAW, the problem is that laws are open to interpretation, enter the role of the judge and case law. This is where Lawyers get the big bucks, because even though THE LAW is usually availble for us to read, the case law interpretations of it are what actually matter. Here is what the judge wrote about the fact that the container ship EXPRESS did not have her radar in use when it ran down the sailboat CAMERA:

Skip to the end for the good bits (emphasis added by me):
From the link here posed by Jackdale (it's a long read but VERY informative)
Link to case:FindACase™ | GRANHOLM v. THE VESSEL TFL EXPRESS

Medsailor

_Plaintiff also contends that the EXPRESS should be held in fault for failure to post the lookout on the bow rather than on the wings of the bridge; and for failure to have the radar in full operation at all times. I am not persuaded by either of these contentions.

Rule 5 requires the maintenance of "a proper lookout"; his positioning on the vessel is not specifically addressed. There is authority in the earlier cases for the proposition that a lookout should be posted in the bow, "especially if the visibility is poor," United States v. The Adrastus, 190 F.2d 883, 886 (2d Cir. 1951). But the rule is not hard and fast.The Second Circuit has approved the posting of a lookout in the wheel house, at least in respect of tugs, Moran Towing & Transportation Co. Inc. v. The City of New York, 620 F.2d 356, 357 n.1 (1980), having accepted testimony "that the lookout's station in the wheel house provided the best view and allowed the lookout to communicate easily with the mate." In the case at bar, defendants' expert witness Warren Harday, who has sailed as master on container ships such as the EXPRESS, testified that in clear visibility it is the practice on such vessels to post the lookout on the wings of the bridge rather than on the bow. The bow is obscured from the bridge by containers stowed on deck. In consequence the watch officer on the bridge cannot observe the lookout on the bow to ensure his attentiveness, or that he has not been injured by sudden swells. A lookout stationed on the bridge wing may be more closely supervised. He is also able to report immediately to the watch officer. Captain Jacobsen gave comparable testimony. Plaintiff offered no contrary expert evidence. While I recognize that in some circumstances evidence of a practice is nothing more than evidence of a negligent practice, I conclude in this case that a container ship with her bridge located aft and the bow obscured by containers, proceeding in uncongested waters on a clear night, does not violate Rule 5 by posting a lookout on the bridge wings rather than on the bow.

I also reject plaintiff's contention that the EXPRESS must be condemned for failing to have her radar switched on during the evening in question.To reiterate: the EXPRESS was sailing in the open ocean on a clear night. Plaintiff cites no case requiring use of radar in such circumstances. My own research discloses none. The Fourth Circuit reached a contrary conclusion in British Transport Commission v. United States, supra. The district judge in that case rejected a contention that failure to use radar on a clear night constituted fault because it would have revealed the other vessel's existence.The district judge wrote:

"But [the mate] was not looking for anything to starboard; he had no reason to go to the radar to search in any direction. His failure to see the Duke [the other vessel] was not negligence, for it was not the result of neglect of an obligation. No obscurity obligated him to use his radar, and there was nothing else to put him on notice of any need or it."

The Fourth Circuit quoted this language with approval. 230 F.2d at 142.

In Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, 274 F.2d 469, 474 (2d Cir. 1960), Judge Medina stated generally: "If a vessel carries properly functioning radar equipment and she is in or approaching an area of known poor visibility, there is an affirmative duty to use the radar." British Transport Commission v. United States is one of the cases cited for that proposition in Afran Transport. It seems fair to assume that the Second Circuit would not condemn a vessel for failing to use her radar in uncongested waters and clear visibility. Certainly the Second Circuit has never done so. Plaintiff relies upon Rule 7(b), which specifies that "[p]roper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational," *fn6" but this rule, enacted as part of a revision of the rules preventing collisions in 1977, does not in my view change the result. Propriety does not require use of the radar in circumstances such as these. Indeed, it may be imprudent to run the radar at all times. I may judicially notice, Fed. Rule of Evid. 201(b), that the service lives of radar sets (like all appliances) are finite.Indiscriminate use may cause the radar to fail when it is most needed.

*In short, I conclude that absent circumstances indicating that radar may give information useful for safe navigation and not otherwise available, there is no obligation to keep the radar fully activated.* Keeping the radar on standby while underway is, of course, a prudent procedure.

While I reject plaintiff's claims that the EXPRESS should be held in fault for positioning of the lookout and failure to use radar, the EXPRESS must nonetheless be condemned for failure to maintain a proper and attentive lookout.

Fault on the Part of the CAMERA_


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I read the entire transcript and figured the judge was either paid off, or had his head stuck clearly up his a$$. I spent a couple years working in a courtroom as a reporter for a local radio station and can assure you that not all judges make rulings in accordance with the written law(s). 

Good Luck,

Gary


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

JoeDiver said:


> Is it okay to sleep while I'm armed?


It depends upon what kind of anchor you're sleeping with.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Regarding the GRANHOLM case that Jack linked to, the the strategy some here prefer to employ, I would disagree with this assessment:



> In the case at bar, Granholm's decision to go below during the nighttime was negligent.His own testimony reflects an awareness that this was so. I have previously quoted the relevant portion; Granholm said that "as a rule I made it a habit to take my resting periods during daytime and when the conditions were such that I could afford having some rest." The reasons are obvious. At night a sailboat, even displaying the proper lights, is not nearly as visible as she is in the daytime, when underway under sail. Granholm was sailing near a recognized transatlantic route for large vessels. He should have adhered to his own practice and rested only during the daytime. It may seem unfeeling to condemn single handed transatlantic sailors for sleeping at night. But they pursue this hazardous avocation voluntarily, and are not exempt from the requirements of prudent seamanship.


Different approaches work for different individuals, of course... But the routine of stopping or heaving-to during daylight hours to rest (setting aside a circumstance involving total exhaustion or sickness, of course) really seems counterproductive, to me... Daylight is obviously the safest time to be making miles. Not only might it offer the best chance of seeing and being seen by other traffic, or avoiding debris - but it is also when one is best attuned with the boat, and is most likely to notice the sort of little things going on with the rig, or on deck, that might lead to a problem or gear failure on down the road...

In my experience, the effort sometimes required to stay awake through an entire night becomes far more exhausting, than breaking the night up with a routine of catnaps (which are generally more productive physiologically during the nighttime, anyway)... I think you're far better off continuing to make miles, minimizing the potential for exposure to weather by completing the passage as quickly as possible... One simply has to accept the risk involved in sailing offshore at night, and the realization that something like a collision with debris might be just as likely whether one is standing watch in the cockpit, or snatching some sleep below...

Also, re visibilty, it's not necessarily a given that daylight is always superior... Depending upon the conditions, nighttime can often offer equal or better ability to spot other vessels at a distance... Cruise ships in particular, or even large commercial fishing vessels, the loom of their deck lights can often be first detected long before they appear over the horizon, or would become visible in daylight...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> I understnad your comments, Jon, however, I still believe that is wrong.


Fair enough, looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree...



Cruisingdad said:


> First of all, this isn't _*recreational*_ for me or the majority of the sailors that go to sea. You can call it recreation if you want for how you do it, maybe. THis is my life and this is how I live. THis vessel is my home, and the sea my yard. SHould I have lived in a home on land, would your interpretation be different? I live on the sea, full time, with my family. It is no more recreational for me or the many other F/T cruisers and LA's than a house is to land dwellers. Please save the word "recreational" for the Sea Ray folks who come down on the weekends or those who don't take this seriously. I certainly do and so do the singlehanders/couples of the world that cruise. I also take safety very seriously.


Well, you may be the exception to the general rule, but in my observation most people - with the possible exception of delivery crews - who are making offshore passages on private yachts, are primarily doing so for _PLEASURE_, and mostly at times and places of their own choosing, and in season favorable and most comfortable for doing so... I've cruised New England in the wintertime, for example, and never saw another sail between NJ and Maine, and return. However, there was still no shortage of professional mariners and commercial fishermen plying those waters at that time of the year. To suggest that yachtsmen and cruisers who crowd those same waters only in the summertime be placed in the same category as regards to their motivation for being out there, or that both groups are exercising a comparable form of "choice", seems a bit of a stretch, to me...



Cruisingdad said:


> Second, unless conscription has come back into the world and they forgot to tell me, every man and child on the sea is there by choice. Some get paid for it. Others dont. * None of us has any more right to be at sea than the other.* I sure don't believe that a commercial vessel has any more right, or a large company just because they are trying to make money off of it or it is the cheapest way for a large company to move goods. SO to be clear, everyone out there is CHOOSING to do this... be they a company, a private vessel's family, or a professional mariner on a super tanker.


I don't disagree at all, especially re the portion I bolded... That's why I can't agree with the argument that yachtsmen should be entitled to some form of special status, or exemption from COLREGS, and believe that the same rules should apply to all...



Cruisingdad said:


> As far as those who CHOOSE to do it alone, they are doing the best they can with what they have and are really a risk to no one but themselves or others who singlehand and do not stand a f/t watch. So, do we deny them access to the oceans beacuse they have no friends, or don't have have the money to hire a captain and crew to go with them, or wish solitude?? ...


Again, I think it's more than just a bit of hyperbole to suggest anyone is being _"denied access to the oceans"_, here... And if you choose to sail the oceans alone or shorthanded, accept your limitations, take responsibility for the risk you - and you alone - have chosen to undertake...



Cruisingdad said:


> THird, do I believe that commercial vessels should live up to the fullest extent of the rules and obey them, even where I believe that some "yachties" (using your word), do not? Yes.


Hmmm, I haven't seen anyone arguing here that they should not...



Cruisingdad said:


> If they went to sea under the current COLREGs, they were likely breaking the law... especially as a couple or singlehanders. That is my issue. If you go out on your boat Jon by yourself (I assume you have been out of the slip by yourself, right?)


Well, since you are asking - yes, I actually have...

My girlfriend often joins me when she can after I've reached an intended destination or cruising ground, but otherwise all of the voyaging I've done on my own boat has been singlehanded... Thus far, my little tub has somehow found her way as far south and west as here...










...and as far north and east as here...










Tack on nearly 500 deliveries under both power and sail since 1976, probably 2/3 of them solo, and I reckon the number of singlehanded miles I've put behind me would at least be right up there with those of anyone else posting to this thread... So, yes - I have managed to leave a dock or two by myself, and believe I have a reasonably fair idea what singlehanded sailing involves...

I'm mystified that some in this thread appear to think I'm somehow arguing against the notion of singlehanded voyaging... Nothing could be further from the truth, probably my fault for not expressing myself more clearly... To your points, I'm simply arguing that I don't believe a separate set of COLREGS rules should apply to those who _CHOOSE_ to go to sea shorthanded...



Cruisingdad said:


> In fact, I believe you are very wrong on another point to... I suspect most of the famous singlehanded sailors of old would be embarrased to think that a sailors's right to go to sea by himself in his boat was taken away  If I were them, I would probably say, "Thank God I got to do it when I did." I bet the sailors of old would have never thought a day would come when a man's right to sail the oceans singlehanded was being compromised because others feel it is unsafe... the same others that are probably, at one time or another, breaking the exact same law.
> 
> Brian


We'll never know, of course, but I would reassert my opinion that sailors such as Moitessier or Mike Plant would laugh at such a special pleading made on their behalf... Talking about _"a sailors's right to go to sea by himself in his boat ... (being) taken away"_ seems nothing short of a hysterical overreaction to a discussion of COLREGS in regards to singlehanders...

There are very few things in today's world _EASIER_ for an individual to do, than to take off on a small boat upon an ocean, and set sail for wherever he might desire... Whenever I depart Barnegat or Manasquan Inlet, there is no checkpoint I must pass through, no person or authority requesting I produce credentials or declare my destination, or offer proof of my plan to comply with COLREGS... The procedure is far simpler and less onerous, even, than that involved boarding an airplane, or renting a car... There is NOTHING, or NO ONE, to stop you from doing so - even for a solo voyage publicized well in advance, such as Matt Rutherford's... The ONLY person really preventing a sailor from doing so, _is that sailor himself_, intimidated by his own self-doubts or hesitancy...

As I stated earlier, for most sailors contemplating solo voyaging, the constraints of their insurance is far more likely to determine their choices, than the sort of academic discussion we've been having here re COLREGS... That's the primary reason, of course, why most singlehanders are out there on modest boats like mine, sailing for the most part self-insured...

The legendary singlehanders that largely comprise my list of personal heroes were among the most free-spirited, individualistic rogues the sailing world has ever known... Seriously, can anyone imagine a guy like Robin Knox-Johnston hesitating to set out on a solo passage, due to concern that he might be in technical violation of a COLREGS rule, or what some freakin' judge might conceivably rule in some imaginary, hypothetical courtroom? YGBSM...

While this thread has been interesting in a purely academic sense, ultimately it has little to do with the realities of solo or shorthanded passagemaking. IMHO, anyone overly obsessing with interpretations of "the rules" is looking for an excuse NOT to sail solo, and likely doesn't possess the array of qualities and skills it takes to do so safey, successfully, or enjoyably, anyway... Hell, part of the thrill and satisfaction derived from undertaking the challenge of singlehanding has to to with the somewhat "illicit" nature of the endeavor, for me... I liken it, for example, to the decision taken by an American to sail to Cuba... Sure, it's technically "forbidden", but for those willing to throw caution to the winds, and "Just DO It", the rewards can be immeasurable... Life is too short - if one waits until the Rule Makers give the thumbs up to do so, the opportunity to sail to a port like this one may never occur... Or, by the time it does, and it becomes permissible for "everyone" to do it, the experience will be little different from heading for the Bahamas, and being surrounded by other kroozers planning pot lucks on the morning VHF net, and running their on-deck Honda generators at sunset... (grin)










Even sweeter, perhaps, is to sail away from a place like Baracoa without clearing out of a country you're not supposed to be in to begin with, violating COLREGS for 25 minutes now and then during one of the most spectacular full moon nights I've ever experienced at sea, dropping the hook the following afternoon off Hog Cay, near Duncan Town in the Jumentos... Don't ask me how I _might_ know this, however... (grin)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

You have written a great response, Jon. It actually shocked me that you singlehand and support it. You are right, in reading your threads, I thought the opposite was true.

But in essence, that is my issue. You admitted that you single and that you are fine with others singling. Your heroes single. But in doing so, you broke the 'law'/rules. You did not break it on accident. You willingly, knowingly, and intentionally broke it and knew you would. Your heroes did (or would have) too. Your position states that we should all be treated equal, all of us have the same rules, that you support the COLREGS as they stand, yet you also support breaking the law/rules, or that you support others doing it. If you are going to break a law, willingly and intentionally, then what is the point of it in the first place? You are in a paradoxical position.

I do not believe sailing vessels should be exempt from all the COLREGS. Quite the opposite. I believe in a set of rules that we all follow. However, I do have an issue when the rules are set up in a way that technically cover all vessels, yet knowingly force some to break the law. 

If you are going to put in a rule that covers all vessels, make the rule such that all vessels can legally and responsibly follow it to the letter. Do not exclude the right of man to go to sea simply because he is not taking a large crew. Who are you, or any society, or any state, or any organization to decide who can and cannot go to sea? THey do not own it and can lay no claim to it. That has never been the way of the sea. Instead, realize that the practicallity of a couple of your rules exclude (in reality) many vessels because it simply is not feasible. This exclusion includes single handers, sailing couples, and possibly three-somes in my opinion. Realize that what is possible on a large commercial vessel is not feasible in a small sailing vessel. A large commercial vessel can lay waste to dozens of miles of shoreside. It can kill not only its own crew, but thousands of others. It can cause millions of dollars in loss of property. It can house dozens of crew and be stocked to go thousands of miles without stopping. A small vessel simply cannot do this. My little 45 gallons of diesel would hardly even be noticed. I am no liability to anyone but my own crew. I couldn't put a couple of dozen crew on my vessels if I wanted to. It simply is not logical to compare the two vessels. Yet, they demand I keep a 24 hour watch and follow all the same rules as they do... and you agree? 

My point is that you change the law so that everyone can follow it based upon certain guidlines. It's not like the COLREGS have never been changed. THey have been altered many times. SHould the laws of a super tanker be more stringent than the laws of a 16 foot sailboat attempting to circumnavigate? Absolutely. Reality demands that it is. I am not looking for special treatment - I am looking for fairness and the realization that their rules, as written, exclude the rights of many sailors unless they break the law - which you have done as have many before you for thousands of years.

You used Cuba as an example. Funny... I almost did the same thing. However, my use was different. You see, the US Government does not say we cannot go to Cuba. It says we cannot spend any money or engage in any trade. But since there is no way you can cruise in Cuba without spending money or engaging in trade, they have legally found a way to keep us from going to Cuba.

Same with the COLREGS. They did not say you cannot singlehand. They did not say how many crew you had to have aboard. But they did state that you must maintain a 24 hour watch - knowing man must sleep. In essence, they have found a way to exclude singelhanders from going to sea (and probably cruising couples too).

Assuming that was not their intent, then they need to alter the rules in a way that takes into account the feasibility of the vessel and its crew and makes realistic rules that we can all follow. What is written now is not feasible for all vessels and crews unless the right of man is taken away.

Fun discussion!

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

By the way, Jon, great pic there! Which one of the boats was yours? (snicker). Just kidding, of course!!!

Brian


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Brewgyver said:


> What's REALLY interesting is that the Rules DO seem to REQUIRE it's use:
> 
> USCG Navigation Rules Online
> 
> ...


I just got back from a 36 hour run and had to switch to another boat because my regular boat's radar was down and we could'nt opperate with out it. In the harbour we do. but not at sea.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Cruisingdad said:


> I would like to add something:
> 
> I think JackDale, Jon, Aaron, ferret, minne, MS CC, etc... have made great contributions here. You want to know what is nice? THat we, all as experienced sailors, can sit down and have a fun discussion about this. We will not agree, of course. So what? I hate it when another very experienced sailor (like Ferret) puts another on ignore (like Jackdale) because we cannot reason through it.
> 
> ...


HEY HEY HEY, don't ya'll be tuch'n my luke warm beer now. The boat's unlocked there will be some hot rum in there some where, help your self. You want beer why don't you wait till I get home an I'll buy a few rounds at the bar.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> If you are going to put in a rule that covers all vessels, make the rule such that all vessels can legally and responsibly follow it to the letter.
> 
> My point is that you change the law so that everyone can follow it based upon certain guidlines.
> 
> Brian


OK, I lied about "last post". 
And there you have it, plain and simple. Thanks Brian.
You can't argue to follow all laws while single handing without recognizing you are in a lose-lose situation. 
The more I think about our judges flawed decision in the Express vs Granholm case the more I think he erred big time. 
First, Express, was a motor driven vessel.
Second, Express was the overtaking vessel.
Third, Express collided with a sailing vessel.
Fourth, Express did not maintain an effective watch.
Fifth, Express failed to use its radar and maintain a radar watch.
Those are all facts as determined by the judge.
The only failure determined as a fact by the judge about Granholm was the failure to maintain an effective watch.
Logic: Granholm's failure did not cause the collision. Expresses mulitple failures caused a collision. 
In anticipation of buts....
There is no finding that Granholm was capable of avoiding a collision even if he was on watch. In fact testimony indicates there was no wind and as a sailing vessel he would have been unable to make such a movement.
And, that the Express continued on its way after the collision extablishes that he needed his radar to safely and effectively navigate in the area where he was sailing. 
So what we need is to, as Brian suggests, fix COLREGS. 
How do you do that?


----------



## jimjazzdad (Jul 15, 2008)

COLREGS is part of the body of international marine law - not so easy to change. Petition the IMO? (International Maritime Organization)


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

I've always taken 'stand on vessel' to mean the vessel with right of way and 'give way vessel' the vessel that should yield. Most definitions of the terms agree with that but one (wikipedia) refers to 'the vessel that is *directed* to stand on (or give way) '. Directed by who ?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> But in essence, that is my issue. You admitted that you single and that you are fine with others singling. Your heroes single. But in doing so, you broke the 'law'/rules. You did not break it on accident. You willingly, knowingly, and intentionally broke it and knew you would. Your heroes did (or would have) too. Your position states that we should all be treated equal, all of us have the same rules, that you support the COLREGS as they stand, yet you also support breaking the law/rules, or that you support others doing it. If you are going to break a law, willingly and intentionally, then what is the point of it in the first place? You are in a paradoxical position.


No, let me make something clear... By admitting that I singlehand myself, does not in itself constitute an "endorsement" that others should do so. No more than I would "support" the notion, for example, that other drivers should exceed the speed limit. And, by admitting I routinely drive over the speed limit in many places, "willingly and intentionally, I don't see how that negates the value of speed limits, in general... (grin) All I'm saying, is that people are free to make their own judgements on singlehanding, as long as they understand the risks, and will accept responsibility for whatever consequences that might ensue...



Cruisingdad said:


> If you are going to put in a rule that covers all vessels, make the rule such that all vessels can legally and responsibly follow it to the letter. Do not exclude the right of man to go to sea simply because he is not taking a large crew. Who are you, or any society, or any state, or any organization to decide who can and cannot go to sea? THey do not own it and can lay no claim to it. That has never been the way of the sea. Instead, realize that the practicallity of a couple of your rules exclude (in reality) many vessels because it simply is not feasible. This exclusion includes single handers, sailing couples, and possibly three-somes in my opinion.


Sorry, but we're never gonna agree on this, I simply refuse to accept the notion that anyone's "right to go to sea" is being "excluded" by the relevant rules on watchstanding... Can you cite any examples of sailors being restrained from setting off single or shorthanded? What authority attempted to prevent the running of the Singlehanded Transpac this summer, or Matt Rutherford from setting out upon his well publicized voyage around the Americas directly in front of the US Naval Academy, for example?

Seems to me that the situation as it stands today, is akin to a sort of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy... That strikes me as a pretty reasonable compromise, in reality...



Cruisingdad said:


> I am not looking for special treatment - I am looking for fairness and the realization that their rules, as written, exclude the rights of many sailors unless they break the law - which you have done as have many before you for thousands of years.
> ...
> 
> Same with the COLREGS. They did not say you cannot singlehand. They did not say how many crew you had to have aboard. But they did state that you must maintain a 24 hour watch - knowing man must sleep. In essence, they have found a way to exclude singelhanders from going to sea (and probably cruising couples too).
> ...


What sort of rule change would you propose? That solo or shorthanded crews should only be required to stand a watch when "convenient"? Or, for only 16 hours in any given 24 hour period, to permit them 8 hours of rest daily?

Watchstanding is one of the most fundamental tenets of proper Seamanship, there are very few things of more importance... I just don't see how an equitable rule can be written that's fair to all, and yet excuses or relieves a solo sailor of such a responsibility... No one is ever forced to sail alone or with minimal crew, people do so by choice, and if they chose to do so, they simply need to resign themselves that they will be in a technical violation of COLREGS... So what? Again, if one is sufficiently frightened by the mere prospect of being in violation of a rule that will likely NEVER be "enforced" in any meaningful way, one is simply not cut out for solo voyaging to begin with, and should perhaps pursue a more placid, lower-risk endeavor...

Seems to me what your are arguing for, is for the rules re watchkeeping to be modified to permit some sort of legal recourse, in the event that circumstances might put you in court someday, or permit the application of a lawsuit, or to be eligible to file an insurance claim... In the event a solo sailor winds up on the beach while sleeping below, does anyone here really believe the rules should be written in such a way that completely absolves him from any responsibility, or a determination of some form of negligence? I don't think so...

If anyone has any suggestions as to how such rules can be re-written to "accommodate" vessels upon which a proper watch will not be maintained at all times, I'd love to hear it... Otherwise, I believe solo sailors will simply have to accept the risks involved in singlehanded voyaging...

Which is as it should be, IMHO...


----------



## skygazer (Sep 3, 2011)

Just in - *INTERNATIONAL NEWS UPDATE*: Self employed pirates world wide are banding together to lobby for a *rule change *for singlehanders to show lights, signals, and electronic markers* indicating that they are all alone*, and *especially indicating when they are asleep*. Some may wish to join in on supporting this new rule to improve safety for all singlehanders, and shipping in general.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Ye verily brother Eisberg. 

Something that springs to mind is that in all my old cruising books the galley was nearly always situated to port, that way one could be above the stove when cooking and on a starboard tack. So even when cooking dinner those irresponsible old salts were failing to comply with their watchkeeping responsibilities. 

Heaven help us if somehow or other the single hander is to be consigned to history by a bunch of , as JE says, virtually unenforceable rules. Harsh reality is that it is pretty much assured that any harm that will come to anyone out on the high seas as a result of a single hander not keeping an effective watch will be to the single hander themselves.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Fair enough, looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree...
> 
> Well, you may be the exception to the general rule, but in my observation most people - with the possible exception of delivery crews - who are making offshore passages on private yachts, are primarily doing so for _PLEASURE_, and mostly at times and places of their own choosing, and in season favorable and most comfortable for doing so... I've cruised New England in the wintertime, for example, and never saw another sail between NJ and Maine, and return. However, there was still no shortage of professional mariners and commercial fishermen plying those waters at that time of the year. To suggest that yachtsmen and cruisers who crowd those same waters only in the summertime be placed in the same category as regards to their motivation for being out there, or that both groups are exercising a comparable form of "choice", seems a bit of a stretch, to me...
> 
> ...


I wish I could tell I like it is like that,.. like it is . What? did you major in sailing and take a writing class as a second major. That was the most elequent (sp?) dissertaion (sp?) on sailnig solo I've ever read Jon. Well done you salty S.O.B..... And where on earth is the photo taken with all the tree's?


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

While I'm generally with Jon and agree that one rule should apply to all, I think Cruisingdad has a very valid point here.



Cruisingdad said:


> Realize that what is possible on a large commercial vessel is not feasible in a small sailing vessel. A large commercial vessel can lay waste to dozens of miles of shoreside. It can kill not only its own crew, but thousands of others. It can cause millions of dollars in loss of property. It can house dozens of crew and be stocked to go thousands of miles without stopping. A small vessel simply cannot do this. My little 45 gallons of diesel would hardly even be noticed. I am no liability to anyone but my own crew. I couldn't put a couple of dozen crew on my vessels if I wanted to. It simply is not logical to compare the two vessels.
> 
> Brian


I would argue though that there currently ARE two different standards, one for large commercial vessels and one for small pleasure boats. The difference is not in the COLREGS but in the requirement of a captain's licence.

While not foolproof (see also captain Joseph Hazelwood), the requirements to become a captain are fairly stringent and appropriately restrictive (except, obviously in the case of Capn' Aaron!) and require both study and sea-time. The licensure is also graded by tonnage, which is directly proportional to the damage one might be able to inflict. No such provisions exist for the sailor on a small vessel (hey they even let ME do it!!). I think that this is a reasonable standard and doesn't require different COLREGS for different vessels.

MedSailor

PS Jon, I really liked your post and attempted to add to your rep power. Sailnet tells me I can't do so because I've recently added to your rep power. I find this curious because I vaguely recall us having some disagreements on the past (but I can't remember about what). I guess I must have respected "something" that you said once.  A well made argument for the single-hander and your speeding/speed-limit analogy is an interesting argument.


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

Capt.aaron said:


> I just got back from a 36 hour run and had to switch to another boat because my regular boat's radar was down and we could'nt opperate with out it. In the harbour we do. but not at sea.


Aaron, thanks, was wondering.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> If anyone has any suggestions as to how such rules can be re-written to "accommodate" vessels upon which a proper watch will not be maintained at all times, I'd love to hear it... Otherwise, I believe solo sailors will simply have to accept the risks involved in singlehanded voyaging...
> 
> Which is as it should be, IMHO...


"Rule 5(a). A sailing vessel with a displacement under 50,000 pounds and a top speed of less than fifteen nautical miles per hour being operated solely by one individual shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements for a proper lookout under this rule from sunset to sunrise provided the individual visually scans the entire horizon no less frequently than once every twenty minutes and remains in a traditional watch position on the foredeck or in the cockpit of the vessel."


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Why restrict it to sailing vessels? Seagoing rowboats or "offshore kayaks" as well?

Something doesn't seem right to me about this.

You're doing ten knots, asleep. I'm doing ten, awake, we're closing at 20, or a mile every 3 minutes. I have three crew rotating watches, you have one. I fail to see you even though I was looking out visually. You looked out 19.9 minutes ago, when we were almost 7 miles apart.

I'm 100% at fault for my bad lookout, while you are "deemed to have complied with the requirements" of Rule 5?

Unfair.


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Why restrict to sailing vessels? 

Good point. Sailing vessels do have a history of solo voyages and are far more numerous and safer than rowboats or kayaks in the ocean. Do we really want to make life easier for kayakers and rowers? O.K. we'll include them anyway to make you happy.

Your scenario:

At 7 miles at night, I should be able to see a commercial ship and it may see me if we are both displaying the required lights, unless visibility is obscured. If I wake up and see lights, I am not falling back asleep again until that situation is resolved. I am also not going to sleep in the fog or pouring rain when visibility is decreased. Let us add a requirement that the solo sailor must display a masthead steaming light and an additional white light directed along the entire height of the mainsail to qualify under this exception. Let us also limit the exception to nighttime solo sailing without fog or substantial precipitation. That way you have no excuse for not seeing the sailboat and you cannot mistake it for a vessel under power because the sail is lit up.

I was trying to include the newer planing ocean racing boats with the displacement and speed numbers suggested. Perhaps we should lower the speed down to the traditional displacement sailboat. My boat once hit 8.5 knots sliding down a wave. The theoretical top speed is around 7 knots. Let's say 8 knot top speed. That should cover most medium and smaller-sized sailboats.

O.K., now I can't collide with you while I am asleep and you are clearly at fault for running down a poor, helpless sailboat, upholding the maritime tradition of solo sailing, while trying to catch a few winks...


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

jameswilson29 said:


> Why restrict to sailing vessels?
> 
> Good point. Sailing vessels do have a history of solo voyages and are far more numerous and safer than rowboats or kayaks in the ocean. Do we really want to make life easier for kayakers and rowers? O.K. we'll include them anyway to make you happy.
> 
> ...


ya


----------



## Capt. Gary Randall (Jun 1, 2012)

love the pic"s


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jameswilson29 said:


> > Originally Posted by JonEisberg
> >
> > If anyone has any suggestions as to how such rules can be re-written to "accommodate" vessels upon which a proper watch will not be maintained at all times, I'd love to hear it... Otherwise, I believe solo sailors will simply have to accept the risks involved in singlehanded voyaging...
> >
> ...


Well, that's a very good set of guidelines for a singlehanded sailor, but good luck getting such an exemption ever written into COLREGS... I seriously doubt the Singlehanded Sailor's lobbying group has sufficient clout to do so...(grin)

Not to mention, good luck finding an insurance underwriter to issue coverage for such a float plan... You might find someone to do it, but I'll bet it would cost you. bigtime...

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced there is absolutely no way to "modify" COLREGS rules on watchstanding to endorse the realities of singlehanded sailing... I'm telling you guys, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell..." is the _ONLY_ way to treat this whole deal... (grin)


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

jameswilson29 said:


> (snippage)At 7 miles at night, I should be able to see a commercial ship and it may see me if we are both displaying the required lights, unless visibility is obscured. QUOTE]
> 
> While I would think that most likely the commercial ship would be visible to the sailor at 7 miles, it might not work both ways at that distance. Even the ship's lights are only required to be visible for 6 miles, and a vessel less than 20 meters the requriements are 3 miles, or less. Hence, lights found on smaller vessels are not nearly as bright.
> 
> ...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> And where on earth is the photo taken with all the tree's?


That's in the gorge headed up the Rio Dulce...

Technically, I suppose Lago Izabal was about the furthest south and west I made it that winter...










I hung at Mario's Marina for about 10 days, definitely a Hotel California kind of place... Most of those kroozers are _NEVER_ leaving there... (grin)


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

Jon, GREAT photos! Can you tell me what that "don't) sign on the dock is?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Brewgyver said:


> Jon, GREAT photos! Can you tell me what that "don't) sign on the dock is?


That would have been a "No Handguns Allowed" ...

Security is a real issue in the Rio, I was there just a few months before the murder of an American cruiser, anchored just across the river... No way I'd anchor there, Mario's had 2 security guys with rifles patrolling the docks and grounds all night long...

I'm glad I visited the Rio when I did, I won't be taking my boat back to that corner of the Caribbean again...


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

That's what I thought it was, thanks. I wouldn't either, with or without!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Earlier in this thread, I referred to Dr. Claudio Stampi, the guru on achieving maximum performance on minimal amounts of sleep...

Here's a link to an article from OUTSIDE that details his work with sailors, an offers a general overview of his research:

Dr. Claudio Stampi | Endurance | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> That would have been a "No Handguns Allowed" ...


(snippage)

So, then an AR or shotgun slung over the shoulder OK?


----------



## wannabsailor (Jul 9, 2012)

I'd like to thank everyone who responded. I was hoping to get maybe 5 or 10 replies. I had a few other questions but I think I'll wait a little bit.
So if I understand what everyone was saying it is that it is legal to sail single-handed across the Atlantic... you just can't sleep while doing it. 
I kind of like Capt. Aaron's logic, and it's too bad we couldn't put a strobe light on top of the mast, after all how many of us have seen an airliner at 50,000 feet in the night sky? But perhaps a rotating becon would be a good idea?
Again, thanks to all. Play safe.
Jimmy


----------



## Brewgyver (Dec 31, 2011)

A rotating beacon, at a distance or in lower visibility conditions, is still just a flashing light, and flashing lights have other meanings.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Brewgyver said:


> A rotating beacon, at a distance or in lower visibility conditions, is still just a flashing light, and flashing lights have other meanings.


That is correct. Such lights are to be avoided.



> Rule 36 - Signals to Attract Attention
> 
> If necessary to attract the attention of another vessel, any vessel may make light or sound signals that cannot be mistaken for any signal authorized elsewhere in these Rules, or may direct the beam of her searchlight in the direction of the danger, in such a way as not to embarrass any vessel. Any light to attract the attention of another vessel shall be such that it cannot be mistaken for any aid to navigation. *For the purpose of this Rule the use of high intensity intermittent or revolving lights, such as strobe lights, shall be avoided.*


----------



## waynebow (Mar 28, 2007)

what about heaving to, and then sleeping


----------



## xymotic (Mar 4, 2005)

Capt.aaron said:


> I sleep as soon as the sun has been up for a few minuets untill noon and just hope they see me. it's been working for over 20 years, no gadgets. I take a nap from 4 till sunset and stay up through the dark hours. This keeps me from being sleep deprived.


I'm naturally a night owl, I can't believe I never thought of this solution. Sleep during the day... brilliant!!!


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

For coastal cruising, where you need to stay up for close to 24 hours, if you prepare by getting all the sleep possible before-hand and timing the passage right so that you are freshest during the night hours, you can pretty easily stay alert for 24 hours. There is just too much traffic possible anywhere near shore to catnap. Things like tugs with barges in tow, fishing vessels, and tankers can ruin your day. They move FAST!


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

Those seem like good reasons to head out farther than simply the shortest course along the coast. The farther out you are, the fewer chances to hit fish nets, small local boats, tugs, etc. You also minimize the chances of running aground should your boat go off course after you fall asleep.


----------



## Leon-T (Apr 30, 2001)

jameswilson29 said:


> I found Andrew Evan's "Thoughts, Tips, Techiniques & Tactics for Singlehanded Sailing" to be a great resource, with chapters on sleeping, eating, single-handed spinnaker handling, etc:Singlehanded Tips Book
> 
> It inspired me to set up and fly a symmetrical spinnaker singlehanded.


Just finished reading through most of this thread. Wow. What a wealth of information.

I just wanted to second James' recommendation of this book. It's a great read.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

During my trp to the sunny shores of Marathon Key, Florida I ventured offshore to bypass the Georga segment of the ICW. I went out at the southern end of Paris Island, Captain Melissia was by my side, and when we were about 12 miles offshore, we set a course for Saint Augustine, Florida. Unfortunately, the wind gods didn't want us to sail that course, consequently, we ended up about 35 miles offshore and sailing southwesterly toward the Bahamas.

During the entire overnight segment of the trip, we never encountered a single commercial vessel. We did see one other boat, which was about 10 to 12 miles southeast of us, but that was the only boat we saw throughout the entire night. This was one of those nights where you could have just lowered the sails and slept for a couple hours without any worries. Of course, being a worry-wart, I wouldn't have been able to sleep a wink, despite the conditions.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

waynebow said:


> what about heaving to, and then sleeping


I guess primarily because the ship that runs you down doesn't really discriminate between moving or standing obstructions, it's just a matter timing. And as others are likely to say, heaved to does not mean you're not under way.

The other thing I don't get is why there is a desire to stop the boat while you're sleeping. The more distance you can cover the less time you have to spend out there and the less times you'll be needing sleep. And stopping the boat does not lessen your chances of being run down. If it's safe enough to sleep, it's safe enough to keep moving.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Omatako said:


> The other thing I don't get is why there is a desire to stop the boat while you're sleeping. The more distance you can cover the less time you have to spend out there and the less times you'll be needing sleep. And stopping the boat does not lessen your chances of being run down. If it's safe enough to sleep, it's safe enough to keep moving.


Exactly...

I'd make a similar argument against concentrating your sleeping during daylight, as opposed to at night...

Daytime conditions are when you are best apt to be sailing the boat to its fullest potential, and maximum performance... Carrying a spinnaker, for instance - even on a crewed boat, one might be less inclined to do so at night...

Sail for speed during the day, then throttle back and get your rest at night, when your body and mind are gonna benefit from it most, anyway... And, frankly, I think the watches on most ship's bridges are somewhat more alert at night in general, and might naturally tend to relax, or let their guard down a bit, during daylight...


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Thoroughly agree ... this idea of heaving to has whiskers on it. 

I don't do much single handing anymore so the issue does not so much concern me but it seems to me that time and place is all important. To go below for a kip when coastal near shipping channels and/or ports seems reckless in the extreme. Out at sea not so much.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I have slept under way a lot, but I don't sleep deep. I'm alway's waking at every little noise. I imagine hitting some debris at full speep, or getting up to tend a flapping sail. When I heave to in broad daylight, I pass out with little worry, no sails to trim etc.. I am much more alert at night due to my deep morning sleep and nap from 4 to sun set.


----------

