Solar Anchor Light?

[frede]

So does this mean using the Mast Light and the Stern Light would qualify as legal anchor lights?

[Tomfoolery]

There's language addressing that. Technically, it sounds like a "no".

It was the next paragraph in the Annex I document:

(ii) If it is impracticable to comply with paragraph (b)(i) of this section by
exhibiting only one all-round light, two all-round lights shall be used
suitably positioned or screened so that they appear, as far as practicable, as
one light at a distance of one mile.

My last boat had the Perko dual-bulb, dual-sector light at the top of the mast, with the forward facing 225 degree part being the masthead (steaming) light, and the rearward facing 135 degree part added in so the whole unit worked as an all-round white anchor light. A single switch turned both of them on, and there's even language somewhere (ABYC I think) requiring that.



Ahhh - found it:

16.6.5 All craft on which navigation lights are provided
shall incorporate a provision for displaying an anchor
light. When a vessel uses electric lights, one operation,
such as one switch or one position of a switch, shall
display the complete navigation light configuration as
required for the vessel while underway. Another switch or
switch position shall display the anchor light only. (emphasis added)

I'm not clear on how much force of law there is to the ABYC document, and I believe the manufacturers aren't actually responsible (but the master or captain is) for messing up the lighting at installation, like side lights recessed into the bow on each side, but not aimed from straight ahead to 22.5 deg. abaft the beam (per COLREGS), which I've read in lighting articles, but I use all the documents as, at the very least, industry best practice, and hope for the best.

[Ixneigh]

One of the hanging white led lights is legal. That's all that is required. Any other lights you add as long as it's NOT red, green, or yellow, should be fine. They should not be brighter then the white light. They should not be flashing or blinking. Especially for blue lights where they could be confused for official law enforcement. The exception is a white or yellow strobe marking a hazard such as an adrift vessel or floating hazard. Deck floods or hull illumination are used on many types of vessels especially cruise ships.
Ix

[mrron_tx]

And from 33 CFR:

Rule 30 - Anchored Vessels and Vessels Aground

(a) A vessel at anchor shall exhibit where it can best be seen:

(i) in the fore part, an all-round white light or one ball;
(ii) at or near the stern and at a lower level than the light prescribed in Rule 30(a)(i), an all-round white light.

(b) A vessel of less than 50 meters in length may exhibit an all-round white light where it can best be seen instead of the lights prescribed in Rule 30(a).

(c) A vessel at anchor may, and a vessel of 100 meters and more in length shall, also use the available working or equivalent lights to illuminate her decks.

So small boats don't have to have two anchor lights, though they may have two, and small boats don't have to use deck working lights in addition to anchor lights, but they may. So I would think there's nothing in the rules to prevent having spreader lights on, as they're for deck illumination. And hanging a loose anchor light from the backstay in addition to one at the top of the mast is also acceptable for small boats.

Or so it looks to me, but I'm neither a maritime attorney, nor do I play one on television.

LOL Just put all the answers/ comments in a paper bag, shake it up real good...reach in and choose one I guess. Besides looking really cool at night , My reason is simple , On the ICW there are anchorages that also serve the local fisherman,crabbers etc , that tend to be running fast and hard to get their goods to market ..... and they start early in the morning....I just don't want a Carolina skiff....or any thing else to crash through My while I'm sleeping..... I might get a little pizzed about it Ron.

[yukonbob]

I remember a story not too long ago (might have been on here somewhere) where an out of control boat blew through and anchorage in the middle of the day. All insurance claims except one were denied because only one boat was displaying the required black ball. If the insurance companies can find a way out of paying they’ll find a way.

[Tomfoolery]

LOL Just put all the answers/ comments in a paper bag, shake it up real good...reach in and choose one I guess. Besides looking really cool at night , My reason is simple , On the ICW there are anchorages that also serve the local fisherman,crabbers etc , that tend to be running fast and hard to get their goods to market ..... and they start early in the morning....I just don't want a Carolina skiff....or any thing else to crash through My while I'm sleeping..... I might get a little pizzed about it Ron.

It looks to me that you have deck lighting on your spreaders, which appears to conform to the COLREGs. From where I sit, at least.

[yukonbob]

Nothing wrong with downward facing flood lighting to illuminate your deck.

[Highlander]

I just luv my blue led spreader lights
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab1/ ... 119623.jpg

J

[kadet]

I remember a story not too long ago (might have been on here somewhere) where an out of control boat blew through and anchorage in the middle of the day. All insurance claims except one were denied because only one boat was displaying the required black ball. If the insurance companies can find a way out of paying they’ll find a way.

Crap rule 30 actually a ball is not a requirement and the lights etc only apply to vessels larger than 7 meters. And the legal rule is there must be contributing negligence from failing to display the light or ball. It is not a get out jail card for the insurance company. I would happily litigate those claims and pocket the legal costs from the insurance company as they don't have a leg to stand on.

[yukonbob]

Didn't read the rule that only ships under 7m are allowed at anchor I really don't remember the details of the incident nor did I provide them and we all know what assumptions do; And yes negligence would have to be proven if criminal charges were being sought. Specific exclusions are written into you insurance which is a contract and if you fail to provide due diligence to preform your portion of the contract they have full rights to deny a claim. You accept the conditions and terms when you buy and sign your insurance papers. Failing to operate (in this case your boat) to the rules, laws or guidelines accepted or provided in the country where you operate may render your contract void by clauses in the contract. Very standard stuff here.

[Ixneigh]

No wonder they can make money practically every boat has some little thing breaking some laws. How many folks here hoist a black cone when motor sailing? If some yahoo runs into me because he's drunk, are they going to deny my claim because I didn't hoist it when I ran the motor to get the beast to come about??
Ix

[yukonbob]

Depends, if you're in a marked anchorage technically you don't need to display anything. Also depends on how much the claim is for and how annal the adjuster is about his job. I imagine in the above mentioned case there were multiple claims which could have been huge settlements from multiple claimants; rules also become more stringent for commercial vessels and are enforced more heavily. If you were parked in the middle of the highway with your lights off and someone hit you...who's at fault? Same scenario but yore in a designated rest area,; Its just more complicated on the water.

[sailboatmike]

The insurance company would need to prove that if you were required to display an "At Anchor" shape, then you not displaying one had a direct influence on the accident happening.

Its normal for insurance companies to to try and bluff by denying claims that are perfectly valid for technicality reasons after all they are in business to make money and if they keep paying out they dont make $$$$$$.

Its a bit like denying a claim when someone runs into you car whilst its parked, but your car had a slightly bald tyre so it wasn't roadworthy, therefore it wasnt legal, however as your car was legally parked and the bald tyre had no influence on the accident they would be more than hard pushed to not pay out, as they would have to prove that the bald tyre had some causal influence to the accident happening

Insurance companies will revert to any lengths to stall or try and wiggle out of claims that being said many insurance assessors I have met for boat insurance companies are really nice people and love boats so try and do their best for you, its when your insured with none boating insurance companies that you have major issues as they send out assessors that are more attuned to looking at houses or cars and dont understand how to interpret the rules of the water which are more fluid than those of the road

[yukonbob]

The insurance company would need to prove that if you were required to display an "At Anchor" shape, then you not displaying one had a direct influence on the accident happening.

For the most part COLREGS read 'Must' and "shall' not 'could' or 'can'. There are a few exceptions where alternative methods for different craft are available but does not effectively change or diminish the requirement.

Its a bit like denying a claim when someone runs into you car whilst its parked, but your car had a slightly bald tyre so it wasn't roadworthy, therefore it wasnt legal, however as your car was legally parked and the bald tyre had no influence on the accident they would be more than hard pushed to not pay out, as they would have to prove that the bald tyre had some causal influence to the accident happening

More like a headlight or brake light out or failing to signal/indicate a turn than a worn tire.

[sailboatmike]

If the car is parked does it matter if the brake light or the turn indicator isnt working??

The whole point is that they need to prove that you not showing the correct shape when at anchor was causal to the accident and it wasnt a designated anchorage, code regs also say that they need to take whatever reasonable action to avoid a collision, if these boats were anchored obviously they didnt contribute to the collision, so the boat that was moving needed to take evasive actions to avoid collision