From Farwells:
Rule 3 The term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is there- fore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
Three points can be taken from Rule 3(f). First, the definition of a vessel not under command (NUC) is not limited to power-driven vessels (as is the term “vessel constrained by her drat”). Second, he vessel must be “unable” to maneuver. Mere inconvenience or difficulty is insufficient, as is the too-common practice of vessels claiming the status while merely shut down and drifting." Third, the cause of the vessel’s inability to maneuver must be due to an “exceptional” circumstance. This should not be confused with the “special” circumstances in Rule 2. The NUC rule typically applies to vessels that have suffered steering or propulsion casualties that render the vessel unable to maintain steerageway. It may also include a vessel with an anchor down, but dragging, or a sailing vessel becalmed and without an alternative means of propulsion. Not- withstanding the well-known mnemonic, “Red over red, the captain’s dead,” an inadequate crew generally does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance that renders the vessel not under command. The focus is on the ability of the vessel to maneuver, not the condition of her master and crew. Only vessels that are under way can be “not under command”; a vessel that is actually at anchor or aground cannot qualify.“” Note, however, that a vessel NUC extinguishes her sidelight and stern light when not making way. It is not necessary that the vessel be completely disabled to qualify as not under command. Mariners must also keep in mind that conditions rendering the vessel NUC will almost certainly prompt a marine casualty report to the U.S.Coast Guard captain of the port or similar authority."
Okay. Sailing vessel - If there is no wind, is it able, or is it unable to maneuver as required by the rules? If it is unable we are half way to meeting the Rule 3 definition.
Assuming we are not under Rules 9 and 10, We’d need to consider what is exceptional. I can not control the wind, I can not make more wind on my own, so if the one thing designed to make my boat go in a desired direction stops working, I would consider that exceptional - leaving me unable to maneuver. therefore, NUC.
But to your credit, of the two COLREGS specific AI’s I’ve trained and refined, one of them does almost agree with you, citing that a lack of wind is a common and foreseeable condition, but the sailing vessel would still be required to maneuver IAW the rules. I guess arguing, that it’s not exceptional, and you should have a way to maneuver if the wind stops, as prudent seamanship would dictate.
Chat GPT 4.0's assessment
A becalmed sailing vessel is not considered to be under an “exceptional circumstance” and therefore does not qualify as a “vessel not under command” (NUC) under the COLREGS.
According to the definition of a vessel not under command (NUC) in Rule 3(f) of the COLREGS, a vessel is only considered NUC if it is “unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel” due to some exceptional circumstance.
A sailing vessel that is becalmed is not suffering from an exceptional circumstance—rather, it is experiencing a common and foreseeable condition inherent to its mode of propulsion (lack of wind). As such, a becalmed sailing vessel must still comply with the Rules of the Road, particularly those concerning right-of-way, maneuvering, and keeping clear of other vessels.
If the vessel has auxiliary propulsion (such as an engine), it is expected to use it to maneuver. If no auxiliary power is available, it remains subject to the same obligations as any other sailing vessel.
Claude 3.7 Sonnet's take
Yes, a sailing vessel being becalmed would certainly qualify as an “exceptional circumstance” under the Rules of the Road.
When a sailing vessel is becalmed (has no wind to propel it), it loses its ability to maneuver as required by the rules. Since the vessel cannot generate propulsion through its sails and has no control over its movement, it meets the definition of a “vessel not under command” according to Rule 3(f).
The definition in Rule 3(f) states: “The term ‘vessel not under command’ means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.”
A becalmed sailing vessel fits this definition perfectly - the lack of wind is an exceptional circumstance beyond the vessel’s control that prevents it from maneuvering as required. This is distinct from a vessel that’s simply restricted in ability to maneuver, as the sailing vessel isn’t engaged in a particular operation that limits its maneuverability - it has lost maneuverability entirely due to environmental conditions.
If the sailing vessel has an engine but chooses not to use it, then it would not qualify as not under command - the exceptional circumstance must render the vessel unable to maneuver, not unwilling.
I mean, as per the rules, if you’re not showing the proper lights and shapes per your condition, you are partially at fault. It’s not a force field, and no one is exonerated for following the rules into a collision as per Rule 2, But you will be found partially at fault. Personally, if I was floating and couldn’t do a damn thing about it, it would do everything in my power to warn approaching vessels of my condition.
I could not agree with you more, this exam is some serious BS, and I regularly have to protest a lot of questions.