• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

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.