• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

onimod

Members
  • Content count

    1,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About onimod

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sydney
  1. Nah - I don't buy slippery slope arguments. Generally I think the technology might be better used to keep people safe and make the sport more attractive to sponsors by minimising risks. I agree that all the things suggested would be detrimental but I am a little concerned that if the sport doesn't think and act first then there is always the possibility that a real disaster will lead to an overreaction and the imposition of those things from outside. All those things you mention do exist for a reason and the idea that sailing is immune just because we don't like them is a little immature. You have to remember that there is a huge difference between a commercial aircraft ferrying paying passengers around and a yacht race. Yep, and hopefully there always will be. Once upon a time it was acceptable for Formula One drivers to die every other weekend. The risk profile changed quite markedly in a short space of time and following that it's profile as a sport increased markedly. (very simplistic illustration) Change can be positive. A baby step question - If Vestas' shore crew were granted access to the real time position of the boat and someone was watching as they approached the reef would they do something or just sit back knowing it was Chris' ultimate responsibility? Another caveat - I'm not talking about sailing generally, I'm talking about this race, with this level of technology in the same way that a cart race at a local track this weekend is different to Formula One. None of this resolves what appears to be a fundamental mistake on the boat, but maybe it's just another sliver of cheese with the hole in a different place that could make offshore sailing (starting with this race) just a little safer and more attractive to sponsors. Anyway, I'm rapidly approaching Douggie Lord status so I'll grab my coat.
  2. Just to stress (because the conversation is so disjointed) what I'm suggesting isn't THE SOLUTION. It's just one of what could be many incongruities (some small, some large) that lined up to enable a grounding (swiss cheese theory). It just seems obvious to me that when you collect position data (of relatively very high resolution) you have a duty of care to use it responsibly. I imagine that if someone was watching the data feed on virtual at Volvo then they watched the boat hit the reef live (or effectively close enough not to matter). Maybe they were watching, maybe they weren't, but they certainly could have and that also means they could have done something to stop it. Someone watching (human or computer, with the ability to act) does not mean they sit above the skipper, navigator or crew in terms of responsibility; it just means that they share some. On a higher level, it the 'skipper control model' was perfect then there would be fewer accidents. It isn't. I think it's good to discuss it even if all that eventuates is a reinforcement of the responsibility a skipper holds. Cheers Oh...that's a great idea. Ultimately VOR can do away with crews altogether and just drive the things around the world remotely, right? It seems I am not communicating my point clearly because I don't think it leads toward that (you weren't being sarcastic?).
  3. Just to stress (because the conversation is so disjointed) what I'm suggesting isn't THE SOLUTION. It's just one of what could be many incongruities (some small, some large) that lined up to enable a grounding (swiss cheese theory). It just seems obvious to me that when you collect position data (of relatively very high resolution) you have a duty of care to use it responsibly. I imagine that if someone was watching the data feed on virtual at Volvo then they watched the boat hit the reef live (or effectively close enough not to matter). Maybe they were watching, maybe they weren't, but they certainly could have and that also means they could have done something to stop it. Someone watching (human or computer, with the ability to act) does not mean they sit above the skipper, navigator or crew in terms of responsibility; it just means that they share some. On a higher level, it the 'skipper control model' was perfect then there would be fewer accidents. It isn't. I think it's good to discuss it even if all that eventuates is a reinforcement of the responsibility a skipper holds. Cheers
  4. Nah - I don't buy slippery slope arguments. Generally I think the technology might be better used to keep people safe and make the sport more attractive to sponsors by minimising risks. I agree that all the things suggested would be detrimental but I am a little concerned that if the sport doesn't think and act first then there is always the possibility that a real disaster will lead to an overreaction and the imposition of those things from outside. All those things you mention do exist for a reason and the idea that sailing is immune just because we don't like them is a little immature.
  5. Double the screen (pixels), halve the number of zooms... From my perspective there is generally an unbalanced distribution of risk that wouldn't be acceptable in my industry. I know the DNA of the sport says that outside assistance is forbidden and that the risk lies with those on the boat, but even if it is, a watchful eye from shore is surely cheap insurance against what has happened. Protocols could be set up so that a warning could be given; if a warning is given then a penalty could be applied. I find it very hard to see the logic of position plotting each boat every 10 seconds (can someone confirm this?) and then doing nothing other than produce graphics with that data. As an insurer I'd want to know who saw that data from shore, when and what they did about it. I think it's pretty obvious that if the data was available publicly, even at a slight delay, then a pair of eyeballs somewhere in the world would have seen the problem before the impact. Neither so I and that's not what I'm suggesting. Sailing it's currently accepted layers of responsibility evolved appropriately to match the risks and responsibilities of their time. When you have no contact with shore it makes complete sense that the skippers word is final. Now we have trackers, and In my head (maybe its wrong) those trackers could have been used to avoid a broken boat and some damaged egos this time; maybe they can save a life on another. Now once you raise the Idea that they could be used then you need to consider whether they should be used. In my line of work if the should didn't follow the could and a problem eventuated then my insurer will likely be facing a bill. I would hope that there is never a reason to defer to 'outside assistance'; plenty of people have made it around the globe without it and who knows, maybe the investigation proper will find such glaring differences between the culture and actions on Vestas and the other boats that what I'm suggesting is so far down the system to be irrelevant.
  6. confirmation here #2278 related link here #2080 cheers
  7. Double the screen (pixels), halve the number of zooms... From my perspective there is generally an unbalanced distribution of risk that wouldn't be acceptable in my industry. I know the DNA of the sport says that outside assistance is forbidden and that the risk lies with those on the boat, but even if it is, a watchful eye from shore is surely cheap insurance against what has happened. Protocols could be set up so that a warning could be given; if a warning is given then a penalty could be applied. I find it very hard to see the logic of position plotting each boat every 10 seconds (can someone confirm this?) and then doing nothing other than produce graphics with that data. As an insurer I'd want to know who saw that data from shore, when and what they did about it. I think it's pretty obvious that if the data was available publicly, even at a slight delay, then a pair of eyeballs somewhere in the world would have seen the problem before the impact. Can you imagine what the competitors' inboxes and penalty list would look like if you were to implement such a plan? Imagine the fleet short tacking up a shoreline - where 'tack on my mark' commands are given within just a few boatlengths of the shore? Unworkable. possibly Sync a proposed route supplied from the boat against the terrain and obvious mistakes become, well, obvious? Maybe you limit the oversight to open ocean, or only at times when the nav is off watch? Francis' post is great - sit back and learn is generally my preference. I also believe that the technology of tracking has shifted the risk and responsibility of offshore racing but that change hasn't yet been accounted for adequately. If I was a sponsor I'd want to minimize my risk and I think that's possible without changing the nature of the sport/challenge.
  8. Double the screen (pixels), halve the number of zooms... From my perspective there is generally an unbalanced distribution of risk that wouldn't be acceptable in my industry. I know the DNA of the sport says that outside assistance is forbidden and that the risk lies with those on the boat, but even if it is, a watchful eye from shore is surely cheap insurance against what has happened. Protocols could be set up so that a warning could be given; if a warning is given then a penalty could be applied. I find it very hard to see the logic of position plotting each boat every 10 seconds (can someone confirm this?) and then doing nothing other than produce graphics with that data. As an insurer I'd want to know who saw that data from shore, when and what they did about it. I think it's pretty obvious that if the data was available publicly, even at a slight delay, then a pair of eyeballs somewhere in the world would have seen the problem before the impact.
  9. They're not using 9" laptop screens. Look at the pics of the nav stations in the thread. The laptop is just the driver. The monitors are full sized...17-19". As for the rest of your head scratching, it'll be interesting as hell to read the results of the investigation. Hell, I'd love to be involved in it. not 19" (it's a shot from Brian Carlin, though the credit doesn't show Maybe it's good enough; there are plenty of workplaces where it wouldn't be. The laptops on DF look bigger on DF: But it turns out they are only 14" Panasonic Toughbook 53's - 14.0" High Definition (720p) LED 1366 x 768 (yuck) http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/semi-rugged-laptop-toughbook-53.asp Again the point is not to blame a single point of failure, just have a bigger picture look at ways to avoid it happening again. If there aren't enough eyes on the screen then maybe there needs to be more screen(s) in front of the eyes.
  10. While it seems a few are trying to pin the blame on a few I, by contrast, see a little bit of blame with many. In addition to the decisions and processes on the boat I have questions about the following: hey were in an area previously excluded for security reasons so presumably someone at VOR watched a boat (with more caution than usual) head toward a collision (with supposedly 10 second accuracy) for 3hrs? Scratches head. An area previously excluded was opened for passage without someone (teams or VOR) delivering a "playbook" on dangers in that newly opened area. Remember that the boats are data limited for competitive reasons and everyone is well aware of the short-handed nature of these boats. Scratches head. While the practicalities of laptops down below for navigating should be acknowledged there are obviously far far better solutions available. The strain of looking at a screen of that size and type for the number of hours required wouldn't pass many OHS reviews if they weren't on a boat; there are better solutions and yes they cost more (but less than a VO65). Scratches head. Given the (now?) obvious importance of navigation I find the position of the nav screens limiting in terms of access such that they might create a pinch point on onboard procedures. I wonder why there aren't screens available somewhere in the pit to better enable on-deck crew to achieve some level of multi-tasking without having to move around the boat to achieve it. Scratches head. It's quite possible I'm ignorant of some of the facts, but I'd suggest that limiting the scope of blame will likely only place more pressure on people who have shown themselves to be very fallible under the existing regime. I'm not so sure that their safety wasn't somewhat compromised from the get-go because the balance between competition and safety was overly biased toward competition. In the end humans adapt, they do the best they can with what they are given, and unfortunately it wasn't good enough.
  11. I'm impressed that he has said that, but also that someone (presumably) has allowed him to say that.
  12. ...not a bad thing to be scared about given yesterday's theatrics. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-storms-threaten-citys-west-20141203-11zdw9.html Incoming!!!!!! http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR714.loop.shtml#skip
  13. Part of the problem is that the area they were in was excluded when they left Cape Town but the exclusion was removed when the tropical depression became threatening. Hindsight suggests that maybe it should have remained excluded. Not all the exclusions for this leg were published for security reasons.
  14. There's probably a golf cart for Kenny to make the trip across the deck
  15. It is a very important point. Knuts drive to make the event cheaper by reducing the head count may have just come back to bite him in the Arse. See on board video from ADOR recently, Sifi is up trimming. Explain that. I believe SiFi drives, trims and rides the laptop. The latest Alvimedica video also interviews Will while trimming too.