• 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.  

Francis Vaughan

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Francis Vaughan last won the day on January 22

Francis Vaughan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

282 F'n Saint

About Francis Vaughan

Profile Information

  • Location
    Adelaide, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,712 profile views
  1. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I'm not sure whether only the stern cam is on the crash cam button, or all of them are. There seems to be some conflicting information here. In principle, if all of them were part of the crash cam setup we would see the outriggers from the spreader cams - depending upon sail trim I would assume. The problem with "automatic" storage is that there needs to be some automatic way of deciding that the video needs preserving. Currently that is a human who has the presence of mind to hit the button. Storing all the video, especially at HD resolution is going to burn a lot of storage over a leg. So the usual solution is to have a circular buffer of storage - in this case it appears to be 8 minutes long. Once the crash cam button is hit the system continues to record for another 4 minutes then stops - and thus preserves the 4 minutes each side of the incident. I would assume that the OBR is needed to recover the stored video and then reset the system. This would imply that you only get one incident until reset, or maybe they have assumed that the 8 minute window is plenty, and hold multiple 8 minute snapshots. It isn't a brilliant setup, especially given more modern storage capability, but you want something well integrated and tested. So keeping the system from last time is easy to understand. A useful upgrade would need to open the recorded window significantly, and it isn't clear that there has been much call for that until now. Mostly it seems the expectation was that you would get video of wipeouts and equipment breakages. Much of this is supposition. It is a guess based upon inference from various descriptions. A circular buffer is how the "black box" recorders in planes operate. Older ones had a continuous loop of tape, modern ones emulate this with a solid state storage device. They just run the recorder all the time. Typically the recorder stops when there is nothing interesting left to record. Better understood as the plane has crashed. That is one of the issues with the loss of MH370, even if the recorders are found they will have almost certainly wiped out the important bits.
  2. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    To reiterate a point made quite a few times. Someone has to push the crash cam save button. No push button, no saved video. Skallywag had no crash cam footage of the MOB incident. Minds were more focussed on the job at hand than worrying about video for the media. I suspect that the last thing the driver was thinking about when they collided was "wow I must remember to ensure the media guys have video of this."
  3. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    That really is an interesting question. They know exactly where it is. Whether they (where even who "they" are seems to be something of an open question) will recover it might be some hint as to the attitudes had to loss of life at sea, and the direction of any investigation. If criminal negligence was on the cards recovering the boat would seem to be a must. However I'm still thinking about this with an Oz viewpoint. Had this occurred in Oz waters to an Oz fishing boat, unless the boat was off the continental shelf, I can't believe the boat wouldn't be recovered. The boat appears to be in 50m of water. That isn't desperately difficult. Nor easy. No doubt recovery will cost vastly more than the boat is worth, but that isn't point for an accident investigation. Whether boats are ever recovered under similar circumstances is another matter. I have no clue, and would love to be enlightened.
  4. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    It is incredibly hard to put together the real answer to an accident like this just looking at a few pictures of one half of the problem. If and when the other boat is recovered there will be matching damage and the jigsaw might be assembled. Right now nobody here even knows what shape the other part of the puzzle is. My usual response when things like this are finally pieced to together is "oh, yeah, thats it!" The real answer is almost always a surprise. I will point out that the damage to V11 is exclusively on one side of the boat. It never crosses the centre line of the hull. There is a clue here. But I'm damned if I'm going to speculate on what it means. If one has access to the boat and could check out precise directions of the various failures and look for paint and marks from the other boat you might get there, but from a couple of pictures, and no information of the other boat, zero chance.
  5. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Fair point. I'm never sure what best term is.
  6. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Ummm, yes? The difference between the ring frames and the skin is that you need to mould the shape of the skin - the ring frames are flat, so the cored structure can be repaired without a a mould. The skin will be laid up just like a full hull, outer pre-preg, core (foam and hony-comb) and another layer of pre-preg carbon. You then bond the lot into the repaired boat structure.
  7. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    No. You can be sure that this will be the just skin. Ring frames are cored carbon sheet, and damage is reasonably easily fixed. But repair will be meticulous. Stringer damage may be a bit harder, but in principle can be done - again very labour intensive. My suspicion is that the stringers are fine, but there may be ring frame damage. So they will cut away the skin, fix any structure, and bond on the new skin panel.
  8. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Not surprising, but a shame. I guess it confirms that the damage is more than skin deep.
  9. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

  10. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Then why quote the rule? It seemed that you were trying to use the rule to associate row boats with sailing vessels. If there is precedent that oars are mechanical, rowing boats are powered vessels. In general the rules are all about manoeuvrability, and whilst slow, other than rowing skiffs, row boats are about the most manoeuvrable things around. Everyone must really be bored.
  11. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    Actually that proves the point. A vessel under oars needs to be explicitly added to this rule. It does not somehow mean a rowing boat is a sailing boat for the purposes of the rules. It means the opposite. Bored as well right now. Absent any news we have drained this subject dry. I'll add. The COLREGS are like many such documents. They strive to be economical with words, and wherever possible avoid duplication. Duplication is a great source of errors or confusion. But what this does is make the rules difficult to read. You need to have context for almost everything, and reading a single rule in isolation will not always make sense, or give you the correct sense. You need to start from the beginning and read through, and gather together an understanding of what is going on as you go.
  12. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    One thing that may come out of this is a recommendation from the investigation that the rules for lights be reconsidered. It seems that the rules for vessels have been cast with some idea that all small boats are slow. Considering the age of the rules this is perhaps forgivable. But any boat closing at 20 knots with the lights specified by the COLREGS is going to be a problem. A large vessel has to be visible at 6 nm, whilst a 20m boat only need be visible at half that. Yet that 20m boat may be closing at the same speed as a massive container ship. If you see a dim light high above the water you either have a very large ship some distance away closing at 20 knots, or you have a VO 65 half the distance away closing at the same speed. For the same visual warning you have half the time.
  13. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

  14. VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

    I put that there just for you
  15. I suspect the very high level of technology involved in sat phones makes a lot of people nervous - even if unjustifiably so. HF and you can talk to anyone else with an HF set. No intermediaries. Sat phone and you are traversing a set of interconnected technical miracles that defies understanding. Your call may actually run around the planet a couple of times via a dozen separate carriers and systems. It all works brilliantly when it is working, but the opportunities for it to stuff up are much greater. The reality is that these systems do seem to have remarkable reliability. But compared to a simple HF set built out of steam driven parts that talks out of a bit of wire, it is a bit unnerving.