The origin of navigational lights, like the origin of many other utilitarian devices, is impossible to determine. Just when the volume of water-borne traffic became great enough to cause some cautious mariner to hang a crude lantern or tallow pot in the rigging is a matter of conjecture. Information that is available would seem to indicate that navigational lights originally were for the purpose of homing on the flagship. The admiral of a squadron would hang a white light in the rigging, and the other vessels of his squadron would know, at all times, his location. The first direct evidence that the volume of water-borne traffic was such as to require navigational lights at night seems to be inclusion in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854.
The steady increase in volume of waterborne traffic, coupled with the increase in speed due to the use of steam, made the display of navigational lights absolutely necessary. Further, as the ships of the various nations were plying the same paths of commerce, it was necessary that these lights be standardized. International conferences were held to reconcile differences between nations in matters pertaining to water-borne traffic. The International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea held in Washington in 1889 adopted Regulations to Prevent Collisions of Vessels at Sea.1 These regulations (Navy Regulations 1920, Chapter 55) constitute the law of the sea. Any vessel failing to comply with these Regulations would find it well- nigh impossible to evade responsibility for any collision with another vessel. The offending vessel would in all probability be required to show that its noncompliance with the Regulations not only did not, but could not, have been the cause of or contributed to the accident.
It should be inculcated into the consciousness of every naval officer that the legality of lights will eventually be interpreted by a civil court. If the lights of a naval vessel involved in a collision at night were so located as not to conform with the Regulations to Prevent Collisions of Vessels at Sea, the burden of proof that these lights were not the cause, contributory or direct, of the collision is immediately placed upon the lawyers representing the government. A vessel’s status as a naval vessel (public vessel) does not give it a privileged position in the eyes of the court.
An examination of photographs of the vessels operating at the time of the Washington Convention of 1889 makes it difficult to visualize any problem, as to location, in installing legal lights. In fact, with the exception of aircraft carriers, which will be discussed in detail, no real difficulty was experienced in installing “legal” lights on naval vessels until the outbreak of World War II.
Each war is fought with new devices and new techniques. World War II was no exception. Radar pre-empted space on masts. The demands of amphibious warfare led to the development of strange and fantastic appearing craft that looked like a designer’s nightmare.
Landing Ship Tank, Landing Craft Infantry, and Landing Craft Tank, to name only a few, waddled out of the builders’ yards and started to clutter up an otherwise orderly ocean. The aviators developed night vision and insisted on making “night flight operations.” Large-scale aircraft attacks led to the installation of anti-aircraft guns in every conceivable location on board ship. The electrical designer’s lot was not a happy one when he was faced with the problem of installing “legal” lights on modern naval vessels.
Offhand, it would seem that worry about navigational lights in wartime is largely academic. Ships sailed under darkened conditions and even the flare of a match struck on deck brought forth a flow of imprecatory language from the bridge. There are, however, two considerations which bear on the problem. One is that from a purely legal aspect, a war vessel operating in international waters may be held liable for a collision resulting from the warship’s failure to display proper lights or lights which are so placed as to mislead another ship in such a manner as to have caused a collision. This places a burden on a vessel of war, as it is necessary to cruise under “darkened ship” conditions for obvious military reasons. It was advisable to install navigational lights on all our vessels, so controlled that the deck officer could turn all of them on or off at once. The decision as to the use of the lights, either momentarily or continuously, was a matter of discretion. The choice, in many instances, was between avoiding imminent collision or revealing the presence of the ship to an enemy submarine or aircraft which might be operating in the vicinity. The second consideration was that even in wartime vessels operating on inland waters, such as portions of Chesapeake Bay, displayed navigational lights.
It soon became evident to all concerned that it was impractical, if not impossible, to install “legal” lights on many types of naval vessels without interfering with their military characteristics. This meant that these vessels, in the event of a collision at night, might be found liable due to faulty lights. An apparent solution for this difficulty was found in the Second War Powers Act (Public Law 507—77th Congress). This Act enacted in March, 1942, provides under Title V— Waiver of Navigation and Inspection Laws:
The head of each department or agency responsible for the administration of the navigation and vessel inspection laws is directed to waive compliance with such laws upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy or the Secretary of War to the extent deemed necessary in the conduct of the war by the officer making the request. The head of such department or agency is authorized to waive compliance with such laws to such an extent and in such manner and upon such terms as he may prescribe either upon his own initiative or upon the written recommendation of the head of any other Government agency whenever he deems that such action is necessary in the conduct of the war.
The waiver provision of the Second War Powers Act seemed to give blanket coverage for any deviation by naval vessels from the navigational light provisions of the Regulations. However, it was determined not to use waivers as an easy out. As each case came up for consideration, every effort was made to install lights that would satisfy the most exacting admiralty lawyer.
In order that correspondence might be reduced to a minimum, waivers were initiated sub rosa. The lighting experts of the Bureau of Ships would study the design plans of the ship. They would determine what they considered the most practical arrangement of lights, bearing in mind that the military efficiency of the ship must not be impaired. The proposed arrangement was then carried over to the Interior Control Board where numerous officers would study it upon the basis of their operating experience. Did the proposed lights interfere with the arcs of fire of guns, unloading material, etc.? Suggestions were made, thrashed out, rejected, or incorporated. If a nonstandard arrangement of lights was deemed necessary, a representative of the Judge Advocate General’s office joined the group and volunteered his opinion. Finally, when the most practical arrangement was adopted by the rump committee, a proposed letter was written up that satisfied all hands and carried back to the Bureau of Ships.
The stage was set. The Bureau, of Ships sent an official letter to the Interior Control deceiving information to another vessel as to the position or course of the naval vessel. Board recommending that waivers be obtained for the arrangement of navigational lights on a certain type vessel. The Interior Control Board, having helped write the letter to itself, immediately set the machinery in motion to approve the recommendations. The Judge Advocate General was asked for an official opinion relative to the legality of the lights. The Interior Control Board then presented the recommendations of the Bureau of Ships, bolstered by the legal opinion of the Judge Advocate General, to the Chief of Naval Operations for approval. Once approved by the Chief of Naval Operations, signature by the Secretary was largely a matter of routine. Again, it is reiterated that no waiver was requested which, in the official opinion of all concerned, resulted in an array of navigational lights likely to give
One of the knottiest problems that had to be considered was the installation of legal lights on a carrier. Before the outbreak of World War II, our few carriers were fitted with a motor-operated telescoping mast which housed into the ship. This mast, when in the “up” position, carried the masthead light and the forward anchor light on the center line of the vessel at the height prescribed by the Regulations. The mast, when “down” or housed, cleared the flight deck through which it projected and planes were able to take off. While a range light is not required by the present Regulations, the Navy Department, recognizing its value, has established the policy of its installation on all ships. In order to carry this light on a carrier, a boom was stuck out from the island structure in such a way that the range light could be carried at the required position relative to the masthead light.
This attempt to comply literally with rules which were made in 1889 by a group of men to whom the aircraft carrier was not even a figment of the imagination introduced practical difficulties. The telescoping mast housing into the ship added materially to the list of excess weights, occupied space in the ship below the flight deck needed for other purposes, necessitated that the mast and boom be retracted during flight operations, and, when night flight operations were developed, required that the vessel navigate without displaying its masthead or range light.
The Bureau of Aeronautics declared that any obstructions on the flight deck which would interfere with the landing or taking off planes were unacceptable. Ships were operating in areas where a display of lights was advisable and deemed necessary. The Bureau of Ships and the Interior Control Board studied the problem of locating lights on carriers so that they would not interfere with the purpose for which the ship was designed and yet would serve to indicate the course and position of the carrier to another vessel. Obviously, under these conditions the requirement that the masthead and range lights be “in line with the keel” could not be met. The only remaining possibility was to install the lights symmetrically with the island structure. However, installing the masthead and range lights on the center line of the island structure and the side lights port and starboard at the extremities of the flight deck resulted in an array of lights which could cause confusion in a meeting vessel as to the carrier’s relative course.
The decision was then reached to set aside the letter of the law but carry out its spirit. It was decided to install the side lights on the island structure symmetrical about the white lights. While this was a flagrant violation of the Regulations, it resulted in a display of lights which was not deceiving as to the course and position of the carrier.
Anchor lights on aircraft carriers also had to be considered. Where were they to be suspended? In order to insure visibility all around the horizon for at least two lights, four lights were installed, one at each corner of the flight deck. The after lights were installed as near 15 feet lower than the forward lights as the structure of the vessel would permit. This arrangement was borrowed from the Great Lakes Rules and serves the peculiar shape of the carrier very well, although not in accordance with the Regulations.
The recommended arrangement was approved by the Chief of Naval Operations and a waiver was granted by the Secretary of the Navy.
The installation of navigational lights on the ubiquitous Landing Ship Tank (LST) was devoid of precedent. The sharp rise in the sheer near the bow, the carrying of cargo of considerable bulk and height on the deck, and the location of the mast with its attendant guys in the stern of these vessels made the installation of “legal” lights difficult. The obvious solution would have been to install a mast in the forepart of the vessel. Such an installation would have interfered with the military characteristics of the vessel. It would have interfered with the handling of cargo; it would have interfered with the arcs of fire of the anti-aircraft guns. In short, such an installation was impractical.
It was thought that a properly located light installed on the mast in the stern of the vessel might satisfy the Regulations. But the Judge Advocate General advised otherwise. He held that the single mast of an LST located in the stern could not be considered a “foremast,” stating “the term has significance only when there is more than one mast, to distinguish the foremast from the mast or masts aft of it.” He further pointed out that the Regulations provided that in the case of a vessel without a foremast, the masthead light shall be carried “in the forepart of the vessel.” In summation, the Judge Advocate General stated that “the single mast of an LST cannot be considered the foremast for the purpose of mounting a masthead light in compliance with Rule 2 of the Regulations.”
The erection of a mast forward of the center of the ship having been deemed impractical, it was decided to install the mast-head light on the mast at the required height above the hull and to obtain a waiver for its being located in the after part of the ship. In this location, the light is clearly visible, not in an area of great activity, and at a height above the hull sufficient to insure its uninterrupted visibility over the required arc and range.
Normally the side lights are located in the vicinity of the navigating bridge. The side lights installed in a conventional location on the wings of the bridge of the LST were not satisfactory. Instead of suffering from the expected fault of showing across the bow within the ship, the side lights were screened by life rafts, deck gear, the cargo and the bow to the extent that in one reported case neither light was visible dead ahead at a distance of one-quarter mile from the stem. This was overcome by installing the side lights well forward near the bow.
One thing remained to be done and that was to follow naval policy and install a range light. Obviously, it was impossible to install the light abaft the masthead light. Consequently, it was installed in the bow. This location of the range light touched off a controversy of no mean magnitude. It was contrary to commonly accepted practice. On all well-regulated ships the masthead light was forward and below the range light in accordance with the specifications laid down in the Regulations. Thus reasoned the experienced seamen and navigators. Accepting this reasoning, it would have been necessary to secure another waiver. But, was a waiver necessary? Did the Regulations prescribe the relative position between the two lights or just the horizontal and vertical distance between the lights?
The Regulations in fact, do not directly or by implication state which light shall be forward of the other. Article 2(e) of the Regulations reads:
Steam Vessel—Range Lights. A steam vessel when under way may carry an additional white light similar in construction to the light mentioned in sub-division (a). These two lights shall be so placed in line with the keel that one shall be at least fifteen feet higher than the other and in such a position with reference to each other that the lower light shall be forward of the upper one. The vertical distance shall be less than the horizontal distance.
A study of the Protocols of Proceedings of the International Marine Conference 1889 reveals that not only was it not the intention of the Conference to fix the range light abaft the masthead light, but to so word the regulation that the second light could legally be carried forward or aft of the masthead light. Captain Mensing, the German delegate, stated:
I have had occasion to mention this morning that I was heartily in favor of such a proposition [a system of range lights] but I would like to bring to the consideration of the Conference—first of all, that this system could not be used by a ship having but one mast. Then I would like to point out that the light on the second mast is farther back on the ship, and is not visible when the observer is right ahead of it, which is the place of danger, certainly. The light is presumably to be carried somewhere about the rigging, and it would be obscured by the foremast, by every sail that was set. Therefore, I would like to ask the delegate from the United States whether he could not frame his proposition so that this light should be carried forward of the foremast, where, I think, it would best be seen. I believe this light will be used by the largest vessels under peculiar circumstances; for instance, as in the case which has been commented upon by the delegate from Denmark. In such a case there might be a great deal gained by it, which could not be otherwise obtained. Take it as it stands here, according to its wording, the light must be carried on one of the after masts. If you adopt that I think there will be great difficulty in placing it so that it can be seen all the time; and I think it ought to be made optional, so that if desired, it might be carried forward of the foremast light.
The recommendations of the German delegate were studied particularly by the British and the United States naval officers, and Captain Shackford, the United States delegate, offered another amendment which is substantially the same as now found in the Regulations.
All steamers under way may carry an additional white light similar to the present light mentioned in Article 3(a). These lights must be so placed, in line with the keel, that one must be at least 20 feet higher than the other and should be in such a position with reference to each other that the lower light will be forward of the upper one. . ..
A study of the evidence reveals clearly that the Regulations do not prescribe the relative position of the masthead and range light. It also reveals that the formulators of the Regulations not only did not desire to define the position of the lights, but that they wrote the Regulations so that the range light would be “legal” either aft or forward of the masthead light. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to request a waiver for the location of the range light forward of the masthead light in LST’s.
Another vessel which posed an interesting problem was the net layers. These ships handling the anti-submarine nets were a species of sitting ducks. Their movements were so hindered by the nature of their work that they were unable to navigate in accordance with the sailing and steering rules. Obviously, these vessels required a suitable warning to navigation. Consultation with the Canadian government resulted in a decision to use the special light prescribed in Article 4(b) of the Regulations for vessels employed in laying a telegraph cable. Article 4(b) reads:
A vessel employed in laying or in picking up a telegraph cable shall carry in the same position as the white light mentioned in Article 2(a), and if a steam vessel in lieu of that light three lights in a vertical line one over the other not less than six feet apart. The highest and lowest of these lights shall be red, and the middle light shall be white, and they shall be of such a character as to be visible all around the horizon, at a distance of at least two miles. By day she shall carry in a vertical line, one over the other, not less than six feet apart, where they can best be seen, three shapes not less than two feet in diameter, of which the highest and lowest shall be globular shape and red in color, and the middle one diamond in shape and white.
This expedient was then being used by the Canadians and seemed quite appropriate.
New techniques in minesweeping required the towing of a long and unwieldy cable. This cable constituted a real hazard to both military and naval shipping operating in the vicinity of minesweepers. Unfortunately, however, the International Regulations do not provide a special light signal for a vessel towing a submerged object. In this case, Article 13 of the Regulations:
Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by the Government of any nation with respect to additional station and signal lights for two or more ships of war or for vessels sailing under convoy or with the exhibition of recognition signals adopted by shipowners, which have been authorized by their respective Governments, and duly registered and published,
was invoked and the Navy Department prescribed the following lights to be displayed by vessels towing sweep gear:
3 green lights—visible all around and located one at foretruck and each foreyard arm.
The information regarding this signal and the measures to be taken by other vessels observing this signal was published by the Hydrographer in “Notice to Mariners.”
Anticipating the danger to aircraft created by the masts of vessels anchored in the vicinity of air bases, the Secretary of the Navy approved use of an “Aircraft Warning Light.” This light is described as an all- around red light visible about 2 miles, to be displayed at the truck of each mast extending more than 25 feet above the highest point in the superstructure of a vessel anchored in the vicinity of air bases, especially aviation training centers.
As one gazes into the crystal ball and attempts to find there the form and substance of the future Navy, everything is indistinct. One thing is apparent, however, and that is that aircraft carriers and landing craft are to be an integral part of the Navy. But what of navigational lights on these vessels? Shall we install “illegal” lights and depend for protection upon some legal device as yet untested in the courts? The answer would seem to be no!
An International Conference is tentatively scheduled to be held in London in June of 1946. This conference will make such changes in the Regulations to Prevent Collisions of Vessels at Sea as the experience of the past years dictates. The delegation from the United States should be instructed to secure such changes to the Regulations as will permit all naval vessels to operate in international waters with legal navigational lights. This is not impossible of accomplishment.
The first step would be to survey the navigational lights on all naval vessels. The second step would be to study those vessels whose lights, under the present regulations, are “illegal.” Such a study should be conducted by officers with material, operational, and admiralty law experience. As a result of these studies, the United States delegation to the Conference should be provided with specific recommendations. These recommendations would provide for the installation of lights which would not interfere with the military characteristics of the vessel, and which would give satisfactory indication of the vessel’s position and course. Such recommendations approved by the London Conference and embodied in a future international treaty would give naval vessels legal protection before the courts in the adjudication of disputes over navigational lights.
1. The exact title, Regulations to Prevent Collisions of Vessels at Sea, is used throughout in lieu of the more commonly accepted Rules of the Road.