2 Stern Lights....?

[markpierce]

So, someone wants to be seen? Just don't display confusing lights.

If I wanted to be seen beyond the navigational lights, I'd turn on the spreader lights or some interior lights.

 

[Wxx3]

Jeez, okay: The CG is wrong...?
Who do I turn to, the Supreme Court? The Maker himself.?
I will print the answer to my question and carry aboard just in case of a conflict.
In the meantime, I prefer safety first, in bad viz, show more lights, more stern lights: What can it be
mistaken for?
Not running lights as there is no red and green in the picture, not anchor lights as the vessel is moving. Voila..A well lit up stern with name and hailing port clearly visible and a 360 white above it: Stern Lights, no doubt..
All good, at least until proven wrong, or proven dangerous. So far, Neither.

With your experience of using your boat as a work boat, I would think that you would realize that what someone in the USCG wrote on FB would not save your hide for one second.
The Colregs are quite explicit and have been quoted here already.

As for PSN, while I don't always agree with him, I've never found him to be wrong.

Lastly, probably most importantly, why come on TF, ask a question and then argue with the responses?

 

[Wxx3]

Wrong, can be confused with vessels of other rule priorities.

See, this is one of those times, I don't necessarily agree.

It could be worse than just confusing the type of vessel. On a dark, dark night, if I'm expecting to see a stern light, but see additional lights, my brain could think you are much farther away than you are, etc.

In this case , extra is not better, it's simply confusing.

 

[markpierce]

Radar helps.

 

[rslifkin]

If you've got a flagpole on the transom, you could always use that to elevate the stern light for better visibility. Or put it on the back end of the flybridge deck if applicable. It should be lower than the masthead light, but I don't think anything says it has to be on the transom or gives a specific height for the stern light.

However, I agree with Tozz that the rules state 1 or the other, not both. Yeah, it probably won't be confused in most cases, but if someone hits you at night, you're going to share some extra fault for having incorrect lights.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Rule 23a(iv) is clear. A power vessel under 50 meters shall exhibit "a sternlight". Singular.

Two can be confused with a power vessel over 50 meters exhibiting two masthead lights.

23d(i) is also clear. A power vessel less than 12 meters may "in lieu of" lights prescribed in paragraph A exhibit an all around white light.

Just follow the rules. We have enough problems dealing with people that don't even understand who is stand on vs give way in a simple crossing situation.

I understand and agree with your point of not exhibiting confusing lights. But with properly installed lights masthead and stern can't be confused. Their designed arc of visibility prevent that. Viability of the side light(s) tell you if the white light you are observing is a stern light or a masthead light.

 

[rslifkin]

Viability of the side light(s) tell you if the white light you are observing is a stern light or a masthead light.

Not always. On a boat less than 20 meters, masthead lights are visible for 3nm, stern and side lights for 2nm (can be 2nm for masthead, 1nm for side lights 12 meters and under). So it's entirely possible to be in a situation where you can see a masthead light but not the side lights. And being that the masthead is brighter than the stern light, you could potentially think you're seeing a masthead light far off (too far to see side lights) when it's really a stern light somewhat closer.

Keep in mind, under 50 meters, dual masthead lights aren't required, but they are allowed. So stern and 360* white truly cannot be distinguished from a dual masthead setup provided there's enough distance involved. So the lights lose their intended purpose of knowing if the boat is coming towards you or heading away (of course, single 360* white or single masthead + stern also has this problem).

Personally, the only reason I don't run the dual masthead setup to avoid that confusion is a lack of suitable place to mount a second masthead light (and by the rules, my current one is barely high enough, so to do the dual setup properly, I'd have to increase my air draft). Although I rarely run at night, so it's not a huge concern for me, especially considering my lights meet the rule requirements as-is.

 

[Portage_Bay]

rslifkin, your point about range of visibility is valid. My point about arc of visibility is equally valid. Both being based on the

The difference being we are not operating large vessels with turning radius and stopping distance measured in miles. In other words, with exception of crossing the bow of a deep draft commercial ship with it's long range lights we aren't likely to be making our collision avoidance decisions miles out.

 

[rslifkin]

rslifkin, your point about range of visibility is valid. My point about arc of visibility is equally valid. Both being based on the

The difference being we are not operating large vessels with turning radius and stopping distance measured in miles. In other words, with exception of crossing the bow of a deep draft commercial ship with it's long range lights we aren't likely to be making our collision avoidance decisions miles out.

Why wouldn't you make the decision as soon as you have enough info to do it, provided adequate space is available? I'd much rather make a small course adjustment to miss someone by a half mile than having to make a big adjustment to miss them by a smaller amount because I waited until we got close.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Agreed, early and substantial. As the old capts I trained under used to say "Show 'em your bow!" When as a greenhorn I tried to pass too close. However as a mostly retired professional now messing about on busy protected waters in my own boat I often don't have miles of sea room.

 

[boatruptcy]

Lastly, probably most importantly, why come on TF, ask a question and then argue with the responses?

He didn't come on to argue, he gave the answer directly from the coast guard, sorry you guys don't like it. I'll stand by my statement before, if a transom light and an all around light CAUSES you to have an accident, you have absolutely no business anywhere near a helm.

 

[koliver]

I have not been confronted with that combination, in thousands of Safety Checks over the years. Though I do suspect the CG response to the OP's question to be confusing "both together are still OK" for "Either will be OK".

I interpret the COLREGS as setting out the minimum requirements, not as telling you what you can't equip your boat with. This applies here to an extra stern light, and on a different thread, to extra whistle (horn) power.

 

[Dougcole]

I was running my transom light and a masthead light blocked out in the back, per the regs. Had a go-fast outboard come up behind me fast in the ICW, and hooked a turn at the last chance. He missed us, but it was close. My transom light was probably a bit obscured by the wake, or he was not looking out very well. Due to the design of my boat, the transom light is not very high and at 8kts, there is a wake back there.

I replaced the partial mast head light with an all-around LED (bright) and kept the transom light. If I snipped the wires on the transom light, I would be in full compliance.

If anyone confuses two white lights about 16' apart while running 40kts in a go-fast, maybe they should back off on the power.

I want to be SEEN from aft. If I do not meet the letter of the reg, I'll take that chance over getting a big CC over the transom and in the salon.

This. Exactly this. At least here in Florida the huge majority of people on the water don't know even the most basic rules of the road and many of those that do don't follow them. The only ones who do follow basic rules of seamanship are the professional captains, maybe 5% of the boats. And they are experienced enough/smart enough to not run over someone from behind because they see two lights where they expected to see one. So you do what is safest, what works for the lowest common denominator of idiot out there.


If that means getting a ticket, well it's the price you pay sometimes.

 

[twistedtree]

I think Richard said it most succinctly. You are not increasing safety, you are increasing confusion.


Boat lighting is very specific and conveys critical info about your boat, and what you are doing. The lights you are supposed to display are clearly spelled out, and it is further stated that you CANNOT display other lights that will obscure or confuse the required lighting. I think your impromptu additional light does exactly that - confuse your required lighting.


If I spotted a boat with two white light, I would be confused because it is undefined. So I would set about trying to figure out the possibilities for what it is.


Until proven otherwise I would have to assume be that I'm seeing two steaming lights, i.e a boat coming towards me. I have to assume this since it's the most dangerous scenario. Perhaps I'm just not seeing any side lights yet? Or maybe a side light it out? But I have to assume the worst which is that it's a boat coming towards me.


It also could be the back of a tow ahead of me. That's less dangerous, but I don't know.


And it also could be someone who forgot to turn their anchor light off.


No matter what, it's confusing.


The last thing I would assume is that it's someone who has made up their own new lighting scheme, and that I'm supposed to also know what it means, because I don't. It means nothing other than "something is wrong".


Through all this, my attention has been needless consumed by what is actually someone who has INTENTIONALLY left their anchor light on, thinking it conveys something that I'm supposed to understand.


So the whole situation has decreased safety, not increased, simply because it has confused other boats around you.


As for the statement from your CG facebook friend, it wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last time that some large entity answered a question wrong, so I would take it with a grain of salt.


To me one of the keys to staying safe is to always be looking for discrepancies in your perception of what's going on around you. When you find a discrepancy, you need to resolve it because one of your perceptions is wrong, and perhaps dangerously so. Accidents happen when you think you are seeing one thing and you are actually seeing something different. Making up a new lighting scheme is just distracting and confusing, and needlessly so.

 

[Ski in NC]

So it is safer for me to have a go fast run up over my transom? As nearly happened?

 

[boatruptcy]

So it is safer for me to have a go fast run up over my transom? As nearly happened?

Yes, you should take that collision and like it! We can not apply any common sense here or make an inference into the regs., and by no means should we listen to a response from the agency responsible for enforcing those regs., rather we should continue to come up with the most far-fetched, what if, hair brained scenarios that will never happen in reality.

 

[rslifkin]

So it is safer for me to have a go fast run up over my transom? As nearly happened?

I'd avoid that by applying some common sense to stern light location. The rules don't say it has to be mounted to the transom. So why not move it from the transom to the back edge of your flybridge where it would be more visible?

Or, for smaller boats with hard to see stern lights, just disable it and use a 360* white light as allowed by the rules.

 

[LN-RTP]

. As for the statement from your CG facebook friend, it wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last time that some large entity answered a question wrong, so I would take it with a grain of salt.

Not my friend, but an Officer hosting a USCG chapter, or group, on FB.
I also take it with a grain of salt, until it is confirmed by several other USCG officers, or a reading from their legal department. So far, only 1 person has okayed it. (2 stern lights)

Through all this, my attention has been needless consumed by what is actually someone who has INTENTIONALLY left their anchor light on, thinking it conveys something that I'm supposed to understand.

That would be confusing, somebody sailing around with their anchor light on.
In a backwards way, that is what my boat would look like: The all white 360 masthead light is wired to my my red/green nav lights. Perfectly good for a boat under 12 meters. It ALSO has an original stern light, from before the new LED 360 mast was mounted,. (Previous Owner)
I cut the wires to the stern light and installed a water proof toggle On/Off switch under deck for redundancy, in case the 360 failed, to use as one, OR the other.
That got me thinking, how about both on at the same time..?
I came aboard here and asked opinions, most responses was: Don’t do it, so I dropped idea, switch is Off.

On the USCG page/group they established for charter boats, which I follow, they posted something about required lights recently. Remembering my situation with the dormant stern light in the Off position most of the time, I asked the USCG Officer the same question: He responded it was OK. Huh..., ok then.
I made a posting on this thread yesterday repeating what he said and all hell breaks loose.

Whoever suggested to increase other lighting on the boat are of course correct: Turn on cabin lights, courtesy lights etc, anything that can not be confused with a Navigation Light. With no aft cabin on my boat however, any additional light visible in the cockpit could also blind the helmsman. (Got a red/white dome light, but any red light could be a cause for confusion again and the white dome light would screw up night vision.)

Looked at the CFRs today for fresh amendments to the light(s) chapter, but no cigar.

In the meantime, the switch will stay in the OFF position until I get the additional information from the USCG.
Not a big deal as I do less and less night journeys, kind of retired and it cuts into my beer time, but the other day I took on an after sunset charter and followed a boat up the River with only the 360 white light, found it hard to judge distance, angle and speed. Almost wished he had a stern light in addition, or instead of the 360..
That is my story and I am sticking to it..

 

[Portage_Bay]

The rules give us the latitude to exhibit lights that can't be confused with the proper nav lights.

An easy to understand example are the yellow deck lights many tugs have. The real working tow boats. Damned hard to confuse those with nav lights.

Turn on anything that doesn't look like a nav light and doesn't interfere with the nav lights.

I've got bright spreader lights that really light up the upper and aft decks. If a speeding idiot were running up my backside I could flip those on.

Or if I wanted additional lights on all the time maybe some rope lights along the upper deck railing aft off the steering station.

 

[LN-RTP]

The rules give us the latitude to exhibit lights that can't be confused with the proper nav lights.

An easy to understand example are the yellow deck lights many tugs have. The real working tow boats. Damned hard to confuse those with nav lights.

Turn on anything that doesn't look like a nav light and doesn't interfere with the nav lights.

I've got bright spreader lights that really light up the upper and aft decks. If a speeding idiot were running up my backside I could flip those on.

Or if I wanted additional lights on all the time maybe some rope lights along the upper deck railing aft off the steering station.

Good idea, maybe a an LED rope light at the base of my swim platform, that would illuminate the light colored hull and name/hailing port without looking like a stern/navigation light.
Or under the rub rail..

 

[Northern Spy]

The improper use of the term "masthead light" may be confusing.

A masthead light by definition has only 225° of arc. Often called a steaming light.

An all-round white light is just that. Whether it is on the head of a mast, or not. Often called a 360° light or anchor light.

Northern Spy has a masthead light. And the stern light is really not as far aft as it should or could be. But it does have vertical separation.

I will likely rewire my nav lights when I take my mast down this spring and pull apart the pilothouse ceiling, to update to a more modern configuration with brighter lamps and lights.

But I rarely run at night or in low visibility.

 

[LN-RTP]

. Lastly, probably most importantly, why come on TF, ask a question and then argue with the responses?

Never argued the responses, yesterday I was debating the posters who said they were right and the USCG wrong.

 

[wwestman]

This reminds of the charter boats (credit card captains) who turn on ALL the nav lights since they don't know which ones are supposed to be on. I generally give them a wide berth just in case their lack of knowledge extends to other things, such as boat handling.

 

[CaptTom]

Is it that hard to apply some common sense here?

I thought we were discussing what would be legal, not common sense.

Personally, I think the rules the way they are make pretty good sense. True, there are a lot of rules which seem like they were designed for large, commercial shipping. Sometimes the rules seem silly to recreational boaters who don't understand the context in which they were written. Certainly there are things I'd do differently if it were up to me.

But it's not up to me. Nor anyone else on here.

I like this forum because it tends toward the more professional boater, or at least those who try to act more professional.

It's OK to discuss things we don't like about the laws, but to suggest they be ignored in favor of anyone's personal opinion of "common sense" doesn't seem to fit my image of the membership here.

 

[boatruptcy]

I thought we were discussing what would be legal, not common sense.

Personally, I think the rules the way they are make pretty good sense. True, there are a lot of rules which seem like they were designed for large, commercial shipping. Sometimes the rules seem silly to recreational boaters who don't understand the context in which they were written. Certainly there are things I'd do differently if it were up to me.

But it's not up to me. Nor anyone else on here.

I like this forum because it tends toward the more professional boater, or at least those who try to act more professional.

It's OK to discuss things we don't like about the laws, but to suggest they be ignored in favor of anyone's personal opinion of "common sense" doesn't seem to fit my image of the membership here.

Common sense in the interpretation of the rules when there are some Gray areas such as this.

 

[psneeld]

What gray area?

 

[boatruptcy]

Gray area is the place where reality meets your textbook and the application of regs. and understanding their intention. Interpreting, inference and other critical skills that most of us have and use. I don't expect you to know what I'm talking about, good thing you can regurgitate from a code book, we're all better off for it I'm sure.

 

[Giggitoni]

Gray area is the place where reality meets your textbook and the application of regs. and understanding their intention. Interpreting, inference and other critical skills that most of us have and use. I don't expect you to know what I'm talking about, good thing you can regurgitate from a code book, we're all better off for it I'm sure.

You’re driving your car across town and come to a four-way intersection with four stop signs. No other cars are present at the intersection. Is it ok to coast through the intersection without stopping? Is that a gray area?

 

[psneeld]

Gray area is the place where reality meets your textbook and the application of regs. and understanding their intention. Interpreting, inference and other critical skills that most of us have and use. I don't expect you to know what I'm talking about, good thing you can regurgitate from a code book, we're all better off for it I'm sure.

You are correct....I couldn't possibly understand interpreting, inference, or other critical skills

Understanding a book of rules and following them is mind boggling...especially one with pictures.

Believe it or not... I get that reality and following the rules for us little guys seems to be a light year apart. But that still doesn't change the rules and you belittling me again shows just how small YOU are.

 

[kchace]

Sorry, but you and I can say or think what we want, but when push comes to shove, the only thing that would really matter is whats in the rulebook. (Navrules)

Ken