Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 152, issued by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency states:
- Seafarers are reminded that NUC signals should only be used by “vessels not under command”. As defined in Rule 3(f) of the COLREGS. A “vessel not under command” is unable to manoeuvre in accordance with the Rules through some exceptional circumstance and is unable to keep out of the way of other vessels. Unfortunately, there appears to be an increasing use of NUC signals by vessels in circumstances which cannot be reasonably defined as exceptional. For example, vessels have been reported using NUC signals while drifting off ports and terminals awaiting orders.
- In some cases, vessels erroneously or falsely display NUC signals when their main engines or ancillary machinery are shut down for reasons other than breakdown or necessary maintenance. Such vessels must adhere to their collision avoidance responsibilities as power driven vessels underway (Rule 18 of the COLREGS).
- A vessel which is underway and stopped (unless, of course a vessel not under command") must not use the NUC signal but show the appropriate lights and shapes as prescribed in Rules 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the COLREGS and must take action to avoid collision as required.
4 Likes
The rules do require this however, and it is often a test question.
If you are stopped and underway, and a vessel is approaching from starboard, or if a vessel is approaching from anywhere forward of the beam that has priority over you under 18, you are a give way vessel as per rules 16 and 8, unless you are in fog. For the folks on the bottom of the totem pole in Rule 18, there is no requirement to be making way.
2 Likes
I am sitting with a dead engine, no wind, no current, going absolutely nowhere. If I have my running lights on, a vessel crossing from my starboard sees my green light and assumes they are stand-on. Eventually they realize I am not moving and not about to start moving and maybe miss me, maybe not.
This makes no sense to me, I can’t move, I can’t COMMAND the boat to do anything. I would think NUC lights would make a lot more sense.
They do. You are unable to maneuver as required by the rules due to an exceptional circumstance. I really don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand.
Why is your engine down is the important question
1 Like
If yachtsailor just shut his operational engine down by choice he is a vessel underway - making no way and is fully bound by the rules. If his engine broke down and he is unable to maneuver in accordance with the rules he is NUC
4 Likes
Yeah, the important part of the rule is the “exceptional circumstance”.
As in it won’t work anymore, not that I could start it but don’t feel like it.
Here is a case I would like to see some opinions on.
Yachtsailor is out for a ride on the bay when he suddenly remembered it is time to change the spark plugs on his engine. Thinking there is no time like the present, he shuts down his perfectly fine engine and starts changing the plugs
Is he NUC?
Correct-
Yes.
If a ship stops outside port to do maintenance while waiting on orders and can’t maneuver due the exceptional circumstance she qualified for NUC. There isn’t a difference just because someone makes a poor choice.
2 Likes
This whole thing started with a case where the fishing boat Sjøbris drifting in the North Sea got rammed by another fishing boat. The crew was resting with the engine stopped.
The Sjøbris was an 82’ wooden vessel, fitted with a 200 bhp Hjelseth Semi-Diesel engine:
To fire up this engine from cold took some time, as the glo-head had to be heated to a red hot. After being stopped for a few hours this was not done in a few minutes:
Source: Motorer: Semi-diesel
Would that qualify as being “not under command”?
PS> In this case they did NOT show NUC signal.
Seeing as no one else knows how cold their engine is, I would say they needed to display the shapes/lights.
In the United States assigning partial blame can be a State not a federal issue. Many are “Contributory Negligence “ states. Court can assign liability to both parties proportional to their blame. It depends on jurisdiction were incident took place.
From the example appears Norway uses the same method . If so 80/20 probably a fair ruling.
This is a Rule 5 violation, and I would say the situation in general would be against prudent seamanship, and also a rule 2 violation.
From everything I have read, a sailing vessel with a secured engine, that has become becalmed, is Not under command. A sailing vessel with an engine running, but out of gear, is a power driven vessel/would not be NUC. I would say not having an engine that could be started would classify as a exceptional circumstance. It is also exceptionally dumb, in my professional opinion.
Similarly, if for some reason I was practicing backing and filling to the point where I ran out of start air, I would also be not under command, given I can not start my otherwise perfectly functional engine. Drifting off Onsan waiting for an anchorage or berth, is not an exceptional circumstance.
3 Likes
I am not a lawyer, just a nerd who has read Farwell’s several times, but I believe it depends on the scale and jurisdiction of where the case is heard. Because it’s a COLREGS is at the IMO level, I think case law from other countries is applied. Obviously if it’s two Boston whalers running into each other at the sandbar, that would be a state issue, but in the case of ships with flags, they would be at a higher level.
Farwell’s is a fascinating read, but mostly out of the scope of what I need to study rules for, and I think reading it makes anyone a better mariner, or at least feel bad that they are breaking the law constantly.
2 Likes
Alas, I disagree … again.
I return to why this thread started in the first place, when the case cited was a fishing boat stopped at night showing only a white light and being found to have been partly responsible for being hit by another fishing boat by not showing NUC lights, or at least there was some element of blame in only showing a single white light.
I disagreed. Nobody has the right to ram a stationary, single white light. Furthermore, nobody has the right to ram a stopped vessel no matter how burdened that vessel is under the rules. That’s my entire thesis and, in the case above, it’s entirely justified by a single white light being the sole rules requirement for numerous circumstances, notwithstanding the requirement under Rule 2 ‘ordinary practice of seamen’.
The debate raged on about all the things the stopped or anchored vessel should have done in other cases with examples cited as if responsibility is equally shared.
I don’t know who’s asking your rules test question, but I’d suggest they ask better ones.
The entirety of your case depends on the relative bearing on which the approaching vessel closes on the stopped vessel. If from astern (and a single white light showing) the stopped vessel has absolute rights. But if from ahead the crossing rule 15 or head on rule 14 things change. Reading those rules you find that both vessels must be moving, “When two power driven vessels are meeting” or “when two power driven vessels are crossing” imply clearly that both are meeting (moving) head on or crossing each other.
Additionally, one action offered by the rules in general to avoid a collision is stopping Rule 8 or reducing speed Rule 19. Stopping stops collisions.
I simply cannot believe that sensible mariners on this site would advocate standing on towards a vessel stopped for whatever reason muttering, ‘get out of my way you imbecile, don’t you know the rules?’
The answer is simple: go around a stopped vessel.
Everyone who thinks that stopped vessels must move please continue ramming everything that doesn’t comply with your rules.
No. Wrong.
It’s a sailing vessel that has stopped. I have never shown NUC when becalmed. The vessel is not suffering an exceptional circumstance. It’s entirely routine and clearly visible to every seaman.
The engine is utterly irrelevant as it cannot be assumed by any other vessel that a becalmed sailing vessel will start an engine and motor out of some other vessel’s way.
2 Likes
That sure as shit doesn’t mean you were right.
True, but if you have it you are required, by the rules, to do so.
Whether or not the approaching vessel has the right to hit or ram you is irrelevant. The rules are designed such that there is no situation in which one vessel is entirely to blame. Rule 2 says you gotta fuckin move if you get to a point of extremis.
Jughead really is a great handle for you.
1 Like
We had a real life case here where an outboard powered sailboat was becalmed in the channel just north of the Bay Bridges at night. There was no wind the engine was dead. No NUC lights were on because the boat didn’t have them and the skipper had no clue anyway nor were any radio calls made. A northbound tanker tried to miss them and didn’t quite, the sailboat scraped down the side of the tanker with little damage, the ship got stuck on the Sandy Point shoal, and the skipper and his wife jumped overboard and swam all the way across the Bay to the eastern side instead of swimming to Sandy Point beach which was much closer.
He and his insurance got about a $350,000 bill for the tugboats that pulled the tanker loose and a hull inspection. In this case it seems the confined to the channel rule beat out NUC, no doubt helped by lack of radio calls or lights. Given prior warning the tanker could have swung a bit east in much deeper water.