• 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.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About estarzinger

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

15,377 profile views
  1. Lol, what alternate universe do you sail in? First 7/175 = 4% rather than .14%. And second cheating is reasonably pervasive thru the sport. From the highest level (hello lead king post and mainsail which will not come down) to the mid-levels (hello j24many modifications) and to lower levels (hello youtube vids showing stacking and powered winch use in classes where they are not allowed). It is a 'self-policing' sport, with many many opportunities to gain thru little evasions of the rules which are mostly not caught, filled with guys who often made their money by playing fast and lose with rules. It is unfortunately a perfect recipe for a lot of rule bending.
  2. ^^ There is definitely an opportunity for a high-mod focused rope work book (including associated things like the low friction rings and deck eyes) - the deck of a modern boat has been revolutionized. I think Brion should be the one to do it. He writes well and is in that line of business. Writing good polished books is harder work than most people imagine, with less return. I (and I am sure Allan & Grog) would be quite happy to consult/edit/suggest if Brion wanted any outside input, but he does know what he is doing. Beth and I have struggled about whether we should get 'back into' boating. Our style has been to either commit fully to a hobby (like going full time blue water circumnavigating) or not doing it at all. Pottering around the Ches bay is not likely to be very satisfying for us, and I would rather hop on the bike and knock off 50 miles in the hill country. We still have some family commitments, probably for the next decade, which prevent us from say the 'Greenland to Bahamas' cruising which we might find satisfying. So, I think we are done, but who knows what might happen. We do miss the offshore cruising community and the adventure/challenge and the strong sense of 'vivid reality' a lot, but don't miss the boat hassles (and Hawk probably had fewer hassles than 99% of them) nor the official/paperwork hassles (which have gotten progressively worse since 9/11 and other things) at all.
  3. hey, took website down because was causing me hassles (people mis-using or mis-understanding the info and then I having to clean up messes so no-one gets hurt). And a bunch of the info was getting dated ( I have learned a lot) and I did not want to go to the effort to update it. I'm not on this site much anymore but if you PM me I'm happy to help as I can. I'm still actively involved in rope work, but now in the heavy lifting sector rather than marine (and biking 40-50/day) - I have been working on a 300% strength soft shackle design we have been playing with in heavy lifts (have to provide proof test certificates so it's getting shaken out really well).
  4. They have in fact gotten more sophisticated over the years; they were using diesel/electric drives as early as 2011. Drug Sub They are sort of neat vessels - add some windows and creature comforts and be nice for a Bahama's tour boat. Those of you who don't think AiS transmission are an opsec risk are probably not sufficiently paranoid for a military planning job You may be right, I am not going to argue that, but the military strategic planning catechism is 'anticipate the potential for surprise, beyond your knowledge of adversaries current capability"
  5. Oil tanker and cargo ship collide in English Channel
  6. I am of course aware of SOFA's (and related diplomatic baggage). I was actually involved (tangentially) in a German 'dispute' related to our SOFA there. It is why I said in my post above "I'm not too surprised . . . " Relating this specific incident to the Japanese SOFA . . . . the implications differ regarding the investigation of the Crystal Crew and the Fitzgerald Crew. For an investigation of the Crystal Crew (and to consider whether they should make changes to the area's navigational structure - like the informal TSS), it would be considered a case where the Japanese have jurisdiction. To investigate that properly they need information from Navy. In that context "The authorities of Japan and the military authorities of the United States shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses, and in the collection and production of evidence, including the seizure and, in proper cases, the handing over of objects connected with an offense" (article XVII 6(a)). Given that, it would certainly not have been unreasonable to allow JCG to sit in on some part of the Fitzgerald crew interviews. Short of that Navy does need (by the terms of this agreement) to produce "all necessary information" which satisfy's the Japanese need to fully understand the situation, and what if any sanctions should be taken against the Crystal Crew/Captain (And/or changes to the area nav structure). I will say having been involved in investigations that a 'summary of the interview results' would not satisfy me - because from such a summary you generally dont know what questions were (and more importantly were not) asked, you dont know which answers were evasive, or coached, or raw/unfiltered/emotional, and you dont know what information you consider important might have been left out because the writer did not view them as important. For an investigation of the Fitzgerald crew, it would be considered a case where both the US Military and the Japanese have concurrent right to exercise jurisdiction. Because it is related to "offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty", the US Military would have "the primary right to exercise jurisdiction". And the Japanese have given Navy access to interview the Crystal crew directly. Like all legal documents, I am sure there is an absolute ton of wiggle room and different interpretations and spin that a good lawyer could put on all these clauses . . . . but that is my simple reading of the plain written English.
  7. US Navy to bar Japanese investigators from interviewing crew I'm not too surprised, but the JCG seems to be . . . . suggests navy was not so great at teamwork/communication with a partner - really they should have communicated this to jcg first (before telling the press) and gotten agreement on a satisfactory information sharing arrangement - so when JCG was asked they could say 'yes, we know, everything has been worked out to our satisfaction'. JCG did facilitate Navy interviewing the commercial crew. Thanks for all the discussion on bridge command culture - seems consensus more 'open' than I expected given the incident reading I had done on the topic in parallel, but of course those were all cases where things did go wrong. The reason I was looking at the OOD is because there seems to be significant redundancy in all other parts of the process. It is a 'simpler' failure mode if it originates from the one 'single point of failure' - however if you all say that the bridge crew would in fact compensate for a failing OOD, then that creates redundancy there also. btw . . .the guy writing the Vessel of Interest website is a total nut job.
  8. I have a question about navy bridge command culture. Let's say you are on a collision course with a commercial ship, impact in 5 minutes, and the OOD the deck (appears to) freezes - not making decisions or taking actions, not calling the captain, not sounding the impact alarm - deer caught in the headlights. (Note: this is a hypothetical - I am not saying that is what happened, we dont know what decisions were taken on Navy bridge, other than Captain not called and collision alarm not sounded) Will someone step up and push him out of the way and take over? If so, at what point? I am asking about in the real world, not in theory? I guess there would be unpleasant consequences if someone tried to push the OOD out and he actually was not 'frozen' I know that is a soft question, and the answer is probably "it depends", but thoughts? This seems to me to be possibly an "occam razor" explanation for this incident. One guy froze, no-one else stood up in time. But several of you will know better than I if that is (or is not) really plausible, given 'real world' command hierarchy/culture.
  9. ^^ yea, again I generally agree with your thoughts there. It is possible that it was difficult for Crystal to avoid Fitzgerald, no matter what they did - we would need more information about Fitzgerald's maneuvers to assess that. But I would personally continue to believe that a (good) automation could do at least as well as a competent master in the possible/practical avoidance. Just FYI - public information says Fitzgerald's radar cross section is 1/50 of the destroyer it replaced - would make it look perhaps like a fishing vessel in that area. And LOL . . . this just crossed my inbox "In its rollout demonstration in Beijing, Ant pitted man against machine, with its algorithm squaring off against six experienced human (insurance) claims adjusters in 12 separate cases. The machine took six seconds to assess the damage and set claim amounts for the 12 cases. The human claims adjusters took six minutes and 48 seconds to reach their (similar) conclusions. Both machine and humans judged that one of the 12 cases required further investigation." (note: this required assessment of pictures of damage, and written transcripts of interviews/statements, and of official reports).
  10. Kent, ^^ lol . . . damn is it so hard to consider that #1 it is easily proven by jcg whether Crystal was on autopilot or not, and #2 lying in this situation will get you in a lot more hot water than telling the truth, and #3 these are not stupid people, and they had legal council. If you want to consider it 'far from proven' go right ahead, but it is the best information we have to deal with/speculate about, and I personally am not willing to be so disrespectful to call the Captain a flat out liar without any evidence at all. Yea, there is a non-zero possibility it will turn out to be wrong, that's true about most things in life, we still can move forward with imperfect information, and adapt as we learn more. Philosophically, there are very very few things once can assert as proven absolutely without any doubt true. There is always a non-zero probability that Aliens were a root cause
  11. Joakim, I agree; and if you look back at the post you will see I edited that point shortly after I wrote it to add this comment :"(unless Fitzgerald last minute maneuvering/speed change made any crystal maneuver moot)"
  12. NO, and NO I have said several times above that I would like to see at least crew interviews before I have any idea of root causes. I have been pretty damn clear I am not rushing to judgement. If you read the thread you will see that TJ said he thought the root cause was human error and I was simply responding to that speculation and its implication. And as I said above to you specifically, I have absolutely no agenda here - you are alleging (for the 2nd time), I am somehow being deceptive or corrupt here and honestly you should back that up or withdraw it. To be clear, I dont have any monetary interest in any aspect of automation at all.
  13. mmmm . . . #5 and #6 are facts by anyone's definition. #4 is the opinion of most all knowledgeable people who have studied the topic - it is as close to a fact as global warming is #3 is a fact - that is what I said #1 & #2 are factually what was reported as the contents of the Captain's report. They are provable with the bridge data the JCG already has. If you want to call them 'unconfirmed reports' that's fine . . . . but there are folks with an incentive to discredit them if they were not true and no-one has done so, and the Japanese ship owner would have been culturally careful to ensure they were as true as they could.
  14. You are not reading the best translation (that is from a really shitty Reuters summary of a translation of a translation) . . . you need to go back and re-read it (two better translations are in posts above) . . . that is in fact NOT what it said . . . it said they saw this target at about 15 minutes out, it changed aspect about 10 minutes out to a collision course, sometime after that they started signalling, and then at the end they tried the crash turn. You can speculate that the Captain is lieing, but all that is confirm-able by the bridge data that the JCG has in hand. And is consistent with the AiS track. And it was leaked by the Ship Owner (not the Captain), who I strongly suspect did confirm it with the JCG before leaking. And besides none of that much affects the points I have made about (modern) automation - a containership autopilot is dumb as a door nail