Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The New Inland Navigation Rules

Last year about this time, the USCG changed the US Inland Navigation Rules and their Annexes. These are the rules that apply inside most point-to-point lines across coastal bays or inlets leading to the ocean—notable exceptions are all of Puget Sound, AK, and HI waters. There has been little notice of these changes despite a couple details of interest to sailors. Knowing these details could save you up to one hundred dollars; not knowing them could cost you a couple hundred dollars. The official discussion of the changes is an interesting insight into the rules themselves.

The goal of the changes was to bring the wording and format more in line with that of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, known as the COLREGS, or in many places simply the International Rules. Another goal was to address recommendations made by the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC), which we are proud to say one of our past Starpath instructors, Pamela Hom, was a member of for several years.

The changes were intended to “harmonize domestic and international law by reducing and alleviating equipment requirements on vessels, addressing technological advancements, such as wing-in-ground craft (WIG), and increasing public awareness of the US Inland Navigation Rules.”

They also changed the title of the USCG publication previously called NAVIGATION RULES, INTERNATIONAL — INLAND to now read, with a new subtitle as shown below:

The new subtitle reflects the handbook nature of the new publication in that several documents often needed by professional mariners are now in this one book. The book’s cover design is unchanged but for the new title. The inclusion of the edition date in the title might portend an easier way to tell when new editions become available, but that is just a guess. Previously, it was difficult to tell if you had the latest edition.

Following the recommendations of NAVSAC and other professionals, the proposed changes where published, and the public invited to make comments.  Apparently only ten public responses were received, addressing 49 specific points. They were described as mostly favorable, with most addressing the key issue of nomenclature, ie use of “section” versus “part” versus “subpart” versus specific CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) article reference. This aspect has definitely been improved, but anyone looking at this book for the first time would have to wonder what it looked like before improvement.

In a sense with the new handbook content and ubiquitous reference to CFR article numbers, ie 33 CFR §83.25(d)(i), the book itself looks more complex now than it was. But not to worry about that; there are only 18 half pages of content we need to know to be safe in most encounters, namely the Steering and Sailing Rules—though needless to say, proper identification of lights and sounds could also be crucial at other times. Flash cards or special pubs can help with that.

WIG Craft

First the easy part, which does not affect sailors unless they are testing for a USCG license. WIG craft rules are now all the same for Inland and International waters. WIG rules used to apply only to International Waters, so this must be looking ahead to seeing more of these “vessels” here. These strange boats that can fly are more popular in Asia and Europe than in the US.

Rule 1(g) on Carrying a Copy of the Rules

Next there was a proposed change that they did not make, but the official discussion of the decision brings up several interesting points. The USCG considered, and then rejected, a NAVSAC proposal to require vessels down to 16 ft overall length to carry a copy of the Rules on board. At present only (self-propelled) vessels of 39 ft or longer are required to carry “a copy of the Rules for ready reference” on Inland waters. The argument for smaller motorboats and sailboats to carry the rules was the obvious one that they also must obey the Rules; the argument against it that prevailed was “lack of quantifiable benefits to justify a high regulatory burden on recreational vessels.” They stated that 6.5 million vessels were within this (39 ft to 16 ft) category and they listed the GPO Nav Rules book price at $23, and then they multiplied the two to get what was described as “unnecessarily costly” boater expense of 150 million dollars. (With the actual street price of $10, the actual cost to boaters would be more like one six-pack of beer in the lifetime of each of these boats.)

They went on to point out that the skippers of only 14% of boating accidents (in this vessel category) that led to a death had ever taken any navigation training, and only 9% of those were sanctioned courses, and noted that fatal accident statistics have gone down as sanctioned training has gone up over the years. Thus they argued that more navigation training is more important than requiring Rules carriage.

This is obviously true, but I must add that the Nav Rules were not designed to prevent fatal accidents, but to prevent collisions, and I state again our premise that the Navigation Rules is the most important book in navigation.  They also failed to point out that every collision (between vessels of any size) involves the violation of at least one of the Rules by both vessels involved­—in other words, it is statistically impossible to have a collision if you obey all the Rules, regardless of what the other guy does.  But you have to know the rules on what to do when he does not obey the Rules.

I agree that it does not make practical sense to extend the carriage Rule to smaller vessels. Furthermore, it does not matter; the Rules must be obeyed by all vessels, regardless of having a copy on board, and in fact regardless of even having read them. I would hope that somewhere in the state boat registration process there is at least a statement saying you must know and obey the Rules. This would be interesting to track down.

The requirement for larger vessels (>39ft) on Inland Waters to carry the Rules at least gives mariners a chance to look up relevant rules after the fact as a means of ongoing education. There will always be encounters, lights, or sounds that we wish we knew better at the time. Why there is no similar rule in the COLREGS is beyond US law or USCG control.  The international consensus must be that International Rule 1(a) that you must obey the Rules is enough to go with. There are IMO regulations that all commercial vessels must carry a copy of the Rules, but that is independent of the Rules themselves.

With all that said, if you did not know about this Rule, do not feel too bad. It was always the law, but it was buried in Annex V, §88.05. Now with the new changes it is up front in Inland Rule 1(g).
To me the most interesting part of the discussion of the carriage requirement included the phrase “electronic copy,” but only as an afterthought, in an awkward sentence structure, without any implied price to that option, which would have befuddled their cost analysis. In short, a “copy of the rules for ready reference” could indeed be an electronic copy, and the USCG offers a free ebook copy online (pdf) that would run quite well in smart phones or tablets. Furthermore, in another part of the USCG website we find this direct statement:

“Electronic copies of the Navigation Rules are acceptable, however, only if they are currently corrected to the latest Notice to Mariners and can be made available for ready reference.  The unwritten rule of thumb: ‘readily’ means that you are able to avail yourself of a Rule(s) within 2 minutes of the need to do so.”

[Note that the "unwritten rule" seems now to be quite well written.]

"Two minutes" is a cake walk with a well designed ebook version (ie Starpath Pocket NavRules) and even trivial with the USCG pdf version that you can mail to yourself and open in your phone. Click the attachment and choose open in iBooks (a free app from Apple), which will save it there.  Practice once or twice looking up a rule, and you are always legal.

Rule 8(a) — Action to Avoid Collision

This rule is the fundamental description of how to maneuver to avoid a collision. It was always intended to be the same in both Inland and International rules, and it remains so, but there was uncertainty in the wording of the Inland Rules. Now the wording is the same in both International and Inland rules to read (italics and underline added):

Rule 8(a). Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with Rules 4-19 and shall if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

They added the precedence statement (shown here underlined) to the inland rule.  Also interesting, though not part of the rule itself, this USCG document also effectively defined “in accordance with” by adding this sentence to their description of the rule change: “It is our intent that Rule 8(a) should be taken with full knowledge and compliance with Rules 4–19” (italics added).

Rule 33 — Equipment for Sound Signals

In the previous version for Inland Rule 33(a), it was required to carry a whistle and a bell for vessels ≥ 12m (39 ft), but the International Rules required the bell only for vessels ≥ 20m (65 ft). The new inland rule now matches the International rule, so you do not need a bell on board till 65 ft or longer—so off to the swap meets with these, or make dinner bells at home. A brass bell that meets USCG requirements can easily cost $100.

This rule change affects several of the USCG’s trickier license exam questions, so keep in mind an older data set of these questions may now have the wrong answer.  The new dataset of Rules questions online have these answers changed.
Rule 35 - Sound Signals in Restricted Visibility

Rule 35(g) and 35(h) in both International and Inland rules calls for ringing a bell when anchored or aground in restricted visibility. The rules do not specify vessel lengths. In the old inland rule you had to ring a bell for 12 to 20m, now you don’t, because you don’t have to have a bell at all. Now you are forgiven for all the times you were anchored in the fog and did not ring your bell!

Rule 25 - (Lights on) Sailing Vessels Underway and Vessels Under Oars

Here we have another seemingly very simple Inland Rule change that has notable implications to sailors of smaller boats, or dinghy rowers running back and forth to larger boats. It is also notable in that it goes contrary to the harmonizing goal of the changes in that it willfully makes a US Inland Rule different from the corresponding International Rule that was previously the same.

The new US Inland Rule reads (with underline and italics added):

Rule 25 (d) (i).  A sailing vessel of less than 7 meter in length shall, if practicable, exhibit the lights prescribed in Rule 25(a) or (b), but if she does not, she shall exhibit an all around white light or have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision.

The lights of 25(a) referred to are sidelights and a sternlight; the lights of 25(b) are a tricolor on the masthead.  They have added the all-round white light option to the Inland Rule, otherwise the two rules would be identical.

Now inland-waters boats, under sail or being rowed, that are less than 23 ft (7 m) long can run with a steady, all-round white light. If you choose that option, it definitely means only the all-round white light; no other lights allowed. It also of course means no engine or outboard running, just actual sailing or rowing.

So what are the implications of this change? There are certainly a large number of boats in this category that could end up sailing or rowing (ie a dinghy) at night. We still have the previous options of full sidelights and a sternlight, or no lights at all with just a bright flashlight at hand to warn approaching vessels. But now we have a third (Inland) option of a fixed, all-round white light.

For many sailboats (again <23ft) you can now sail at night running your anchor light from the masthead—but turn off your sidelights off if you have them. The anchor light was used by some sailboats in the past, but it was not legal then (sidelights and a masthead light looks like a power-driven vessel). Those who knew that may have thought it was better seen than legal, but just like the other common sailboat lighting error of running deck lights and tri-color (also illegal) these lights can get fined.

I know of a case from many years ago where a fine for running both tricolor and deck lights was $50. Modern exposure is higher: “A civil penalty of up to $500 may be imposed by the Coast Guard for failure to comply with equipment requirements...” from a USCG Special Notices to Mariners.
Frankly, it is unlikely to be fined for just wrong lights, but in the event of a collision at night, illegal lights guarantees you a large part of the liability, regardless of who was at fault.

Tech developments that may have impacted this decision are bright LED lights, which even the smallest boat can run for long periods on a small battery.  This new rule also now makes the kayaker with a white light on his hat legal as well, which in the past it was not. Granted, you will look like a sternlight, but in principle that would not be a problem. Anyone approaching a sternlight should go around it.

At this point we can add that one of the USCG’s stated motivations of the changes (“more public awareness”) has just been achieved—you have read an article on the US Inland Rules! To know where they apply, check 33 CFR Part 80, in the back of the new Navigation Rules Handbook.


See a preview of our Starpath Pocket Navigation Rules Handbook for a very convenient presentation of the new rules and all related documents.... or better still, open it in your phone and bookmark it.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Direction of the Winds Aloft from Mare’s Tails — Time to Practice What we Preach

Mackerel sky and mare’s tails make tall ships set low sails.  That is a well known evaluation of a rather extended cloud sequence. It does not apply to the sighting of either cloud type on its own—as we show here very clearly, though not the topic at hand.

In other words that is a very specialized seat of the pants forecast tool that must be interpreted carefully and only as part of an ongoing sequence of cloud changes.

On the other hand, mare’s tails or fall streaks (cirrus uncinus ) do often tell us something else that can indeed be more universally valuable. They can tell us the direction of the winds aloft, meaning up at some 18,000 ft. We care about this direction as these are the winds that pull the surface weather systems across the globe. Thus if the winds aloft are from the SW, then we expect storms to approach from the SW, and with that information and the Buys-Ballot law we can watch the surface winds shift and from these two pieces of information know where the storm will pass relative to us.

The main reference for looking into the details of that analysis (sometimes called the cross winds rule) please see Modern Marine Weather. The section is shipboard forecasting without radio contact or any other form of official forecasts… all on your own.

This wind direction can also be used as a rough steering guide without a compass available or other natural aids, many of which are actually better than this one.  For that approach see Emergency Navigation. These winds are more valuable than surface winds as they might persist in direction for several days in a row, even while surface winds are going around the clock.

We have devoted much discussion of this over the years, but yesterday had a dynamic example hit suddenly with all info needed to evaluate it, the key one being an iPhone!  Namely on a walk through Discovery Park in Seattle, which from the high plain it is, offers a broad view of the sky, much as one might get offshore. Also with a shadow clearly in place we can compute the directions we need… not to mention we were on a path that could be identified on Google Earth, so we get as good as we might on land of the cloud directions. 

Needless to say, on a boat at sea you would do things relative to the steering compass. But the goal of this write up is to show how you might practice this on land when you get the chance.  The key point to keep in mind is these cloud patterns are transient.  The dramatic sky full of fall streaks we saw were pretty much all gone but an isolated patch in a matter of 20 minutes or so.

Going back to our first old saying, this would be “clear sky and mare’s tails, makes tall ships do whatever they were doing.”  No info here on changing weather… which in fact did not change at all.

And we see here the key issue of this evaluation of wind direction. We have to work with a linear perspective into some form of a vanishing point on the horizon which we assume is the wind direction. Just looking at one patch of clouds in one direction might not do the job.

This is the idea, but we are looking at clouds (turn this picture over). What I really needed and did not think of it, was the panorama option of the iPhone camera. That would be the ideal way to do this. We have here just a few snap shots and a movie that helps some.

So here are some pictures followed by the what was learned… and ways to improve it…. and i have to admit at this point that i hope it works out to be right!  I do not know the answer at this stage.  In any event it will be a good exercise, as it will show limits on the methods.  The principle is a sound one, so any big discrepancy will have to be sorted out.

We start with a few pictures of the sky.

Single picture taken, and shadow noted as a recorded reference.
The view above is misleading as it looks like the clouds are crossing the shadow line and trail at a steeper angle than one gets from seeing the full perspective. The shadow line is about 10º to the left (north) of the path line down by the tree on the right. The best bet at this point would be put a vertical stick in the ground and get its shadow.  Compiled here is just what was thought of at the moment. A planned measurement would be better—but we have to essentially plan for the unexpected as these are transient views. The panorama pic is the best thing to remember when a case presents itself.  Below we see shadow was 107 T and path near tree 114 T. So we see here the tricky part in interpreting a single view photo.

Below is a movie that helps some, but what we really need here is the panorama option that almost all phones have now.

It is frankly difficult to tell from what we have here, but my noted conclusion was the winds aloft direction was about 30º to the left of the path, the direction of which we can determine several ways.

Now we need two things, the direction of the shadow or path, and what was indeed the true direction of the winds aloft at this moment. We can get the direction of the sun from a neat free app called Astrolabe. I think there is an Andorid version as well.  There are many options for this.

Not sure this was the precise time of the sighting or the precise location, as we were moving around a bit, but not at all off enough to make any difference to any numbers. Az is what is normally called Zn, the azimuth of the sun. Alt is normally called Hc, the calculated (angular) height of the sun above the horizon.
Here we see the bearing to the sun was 287, so the shadow pointed toward 107 T.  We can also get this information from www.starpath.com/usno using time and location.

So from my records of the vanishing point being some 20º left of the shadow, we get winds aloft flowing toward 087, but this has to be clearly some ± 20º at least.  (My actual records had 30 left of the path, and later adjusted it to left of the shadow, thinking that would be a more accurate reference, but it turned out we could find the path direction easily. See later satellite image of the park.)

Now for wind direction we need to look at the 500 mb maps. This observation was at 1900 PDT = +7= 26z = 02z July 3.  Below are the 00z and 12z winds.

We do not have a clean example here, as the main flow was north of us. But we do see that the trend from 00z to 12z was toward more westerly, that is toward 090, and there is a trend to strengthen, that is, the contour lines (these are isohypses not isobars on this type of map—that is, contours that mark the same altitude of the 500 mb surface) are more parallel and closer over the Puget Sound. As a rule we do need pretty firm winds aloft to see these nice fall streaks.

So that is the exercise. In this case we are within 30º accuracy for sure (numerically closer, but that must be large part luck),  which is more than needed to make the weather forecasting judgements of which way the storms are approaching.  More generally we are just trying to distinguish between: from the SW, from the W, or from the NW, and this exercise told us from the West.  In rare cases, the winds aloft can distort enough to be more northerly or southerly, but not often. For example, had we done this at about 150W, we would have seen very different results, and learned that we had an unusual case of the storms coming up from the S-SW... that would be what is called around here the Pineapple Express, which has brought the very worst storms to the NW over the years.

Below is the Google Earth image of the location to show how you can use that as well to check for reference directions without relying on celestial navigation.

The pictures were taken just beyond the left end of the red line. The circle marks the tree referred to.

Add questions or comments below if you like to follow up on this example or your own.

Just thought of something else—illustrating the live nature of this write up.  There are phenomenal cloud images online.  Do a Google images search for cirrius uncinus for example and find tons... after a few seconds I found the following. There are certainly better examples, but we learn a lot from just these three.

These are not strictly the same clouds we were looking at above, or rather their relation to the winds aloft was slightly different, but the principle is the same, and we get the same info, namely direction of the winds aloft that are (most likely) marking the storm track.  Without a reference line or point, however, we do not know what it was. But this would be the kind of picture that would make the analysis more precise when practicing on land.

Notice that if you draw a line directly to the vanishing point, it will appear that the ones off to the side are crossing at a steep angle, so we do need to be careful about single picture or single view interpretation of the direction.

The main thing to learn from this is, I pointed the camera in the wrong direction. I was aligning with the reference line, which left the vanishing point off to the side. It seems it would be best to point the camera or center the panorama on the vanishing point, and let the reference line or point on the horizon fall where it may.  We would get better data.... or just turn on the compass app on the phone and hope it was right (not guaranteed.... need to check how to calibrate it, usually fast and easy, and hold it very level during the measurement.... maybe include a few landmarks as well to double check).

Again, this issue does not come up at sea, which is why this is a good trick to know. At sea you spot the vanishing point, take a known correct bearing to it relative to steering compass, and you are done.  In some cases, you might even be able to turn toward it and check the bearing uncertainly by swinging the heading around about the main direction.

And even more confidence is gained by doing it a bit later. The present pattern will likely go away and then maybe later come back.  Check it again and you learn more.