• 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.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

re-psycled

3 dead in N2E

Recommended Posts

Is channel 13 preferred over ch 16 ? (less VHF traffic?)

Everyone monitors 16 so that's the channel I would hail them on, then once comms are established switch to a working frequency.

Sailing in fog is another whole subject. I wouldn't be out there in fog without a radar. I know people do it, but just the thought of sailing down the SOCAL coast in fog without a radar sends shivers down my spine.

 

That seems funny.

I'd guess I've had 100 pct success contacting commercial traffic on 13 and less so on 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

 

what????

 

AIS does not require radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS has NOTHING to do with radar and FLARM is a very specific type of "AIS" for gliders that would have no use on a boat that I can see or airplanes either outside of gliders unless you can convince everyone to buy one.

 

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

 

what????

 

AIS does not require radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences to all involved in this tragedy.

 

OCEAN ARIADNE was last tanker moored offshore PEMEX Terminal, Rosarito Beach through Friday. Debris field was reported by media as approx. 8 miles west of Rosarito, three miles south of South Coronado, where OA likely transited, her AIS possibly non-operative.

 

If I were CG, I would want to meet this ship before she arrives at March Point Terminal, Anacortes, WA, ETA 1300 PDST May 1. Just sayin'

 

where are you getting that ship name?

 

AIS receiver Pt.Loma (shipfinder.com) shows OVERSEAS ARIADMAR (apologies for error in name in original post) at Pemex Terminal, Rosarito Beach, prior to tragedy. Her outbound departure/track to Anacortes is not recorded at marinetraffic.com until she appears approx. 150 miles WNW of Pt.Conception on 4/29/12 at 17:08Z. Since then, OA has been steaming N. at 10 knots. You can Google this ship for more info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the radar reflector study mentioned in an earler post. It makes a pretty good argument for carrying and deploying one of these gadgets. We've always used one, we have also made a conscious distinction between watchkeeping while in a shipping lane and watchkeeping while not in a shipping lane. The lanes are clearly shown on the charts.

 

Radar Reflector Report

 

aa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences to all involved in this tragedy.

 

OCEAN ARIADNE was last tanker moored offshore PEMEX Terminal, Rosarito Beach through Friday. Debris field was reported by media as approx. 8 miles west of Rosarito, three miles south of South Coronado, where OA likely transited, her AIS possibly non-operative.

 

If I were CG, I would want to meet this ship before she arrives at March Point Terminal, Anacortes, WA, ETA 1300 PDST May 1. Just sayin'

 

where are you getting that ship name?

 

AIS receiver Pt.Loma (shipfinder.com) shows OVERSEAS ARIADMAR (apologies for error in name in original post) at Pemex Terminal, Rosarito Beach, prior to tragedy. Her outbound departure/track to Anacortes is not recorded at marinetraffic.com until she appears approx. 150 miles WNW of Pt.Conception on 4/29/12 at 17:08Z. Since then, OA has been steaming N. at 10 knots. You can Google this ship for more info.

 

OK THANKS. I COULDNT FIND IT IN THE REGISTRY. I guess at her next port they will be checking for some bttom paint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

7070 is correct - AIS requires only a VHF receiver and a GPS plus a means to process and display the derived information. It is a mature technology in the marine industry and has become quite economical. FLARM, while it may possibly be a good system, is not in everyday marine use. I'm not advocating this, but mandatory use of AIS would not be terribly onerous at this time. I just installed the Standard VHF with integral AIS receiver, and while I have overcomplicated its implementation, I have found it to be a very useful device, rivaling radar for anti-collision purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the radar reflector study mentioned in an earler post. It makes a pretty good argument for carrying and deploying one of these gadgets. We've always used one, we have also made a conscious distinction between watchkeeping while in a shipping lane and watchkeeping while not in a shipping lane. The lanes are clearly shown on the charts.

 

Radar Reflector Report

 

aa

 

aren't they basically saying that passive reflectors don't achieve much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without wanting to hijack discussion of the Aegean tragedy, it is perhaps worth saying that whereas the MAIB report seems to leave little doubt that the Pride of Bilbao was responsible for Ouzo's sinking, that was not the conclusion of a criminal prosecution. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7131177.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Flarm has many advantages in cost, intelligence and ease of use. It will, or others like it, be the futures anti collision system. It works phenomenally well in aircraft, especially gliders which are far faster and more manueverable. Now it is coming into rail industry, mining, and many more. Ships would be a piece of cake! But anything is better then eyeballing lights! The sailing, shipping industry needs a standard system. We are all very lucky this kind of accident does not happen more regularly. It easily could become far more common based on present safeguards.

 

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

7070 is correct - AIS requires only a VHF receiver and a GPS plus a means to process and display the derived information. It is a mature technology in the marine industry and has become quite economical. FLARM, while it may possibly be a good system, is not in everyday marine use. I'm not advocating this, but mandatory use of AIS would not be terribly onerous at this time. I just installed the Standard VHF with integral AIS receiver, and while I have overcomplicated its implementation, I have found it to be a very useful device, rivaling radar for anti-collision purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

???

WTF?

We *DO* have a standard system, I have it, and it works well.

:unsure::unsure:

 

 

Thanks. Flarm has many advantages in cost, intelligence and ease of use. It will, or others like it, the futures anti collision system. It works phenomenally well in aircraft, especially gliders which are far more manueverable. Ships would be a piece of cake! But anything is better then eyeballing lights! The sailing, shipping industry needs a standard system.

 

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

7070 is correct - AIS requires only a VHF receiver and a GPS plus a means to process and display the derived information. It is a mature technology in the marine industry and has become quite economical. FLARM, while it may possibly be a good system, is not in everyday marine use. I'm not advocating this, but mandatory use of AIS would not be terribly onerous at this time. I just installed the Standard VHF with integral AIS receiver, and while I have overcomplicated its implementation, I have found it to be a very useful device, rivaling radar for anti-collision purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've raced some dozens of times across the English Channel at night, crossing the traffic lanes going into and out of Europe's major container ports. Some comments:

 

1. There have been at least two incidents local to here in the last 15 years where (non-racing) yachts were run down by ships, in one of which the entire crew was killed. In neither of those incidents was the ship involved ever conclusively identified, despite paint tests etc.

 

2. When 20,000 tons of steel are heading for you at 15 knots, "whose fault would an accident be" is not the appropriate question to be asking. If there is not much wind, you'd better be prepared to motor out of the way. If you care anything for your safety you've got to assume that ships are not going to avoid you.

 

3. Sailing instructions here allow you to use the engine for collision avoidance and declare it after the finish. It would not result in DSQ.

 

4. Unless you've got radar, the only way offshore at night to know conclusively if you are on a closing bearing is to repeatedly take bearings on a hand-bearing compass. Crew on watch have got to have one and know how to use it.

 

There's another way. If you only see 1 colored light and the boat is turning and then you see 2 colored lights...thats a problem. Especially if they ascend and become bigger and further apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bowgirl - The link to the UK report is an excellent read. Very thorough. Highly recommended.

 

I crossed the shipping lanes just outside of the Bay of Biscay at night in May 2007 on a 60' sailboat. We kept clear of everyone, but having read that account, and looking at the size of the objects we were avoiding (from a safe distance) made me realise how difficult we could be to spot from way the hell up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Flarm has many advantages in cost, intelligence and ease of use. It will, or others like it, the futures anti collision system. It works phenomenally well in aircraft, especially gliders which are far more manueverable. Ships would be a piece of cake! But anything is better then eyeballing lights! The sailing, shipping industry needs a standard system.

 

 

 

there is a standard system - It's called AIS, it costs $150 at the low end...

 

pretty much all large commercial vessels have it installed now - yes, there are a few exceptions, but that's a problem with regulations, and implementation, not a problem with the system.

 

many many cruising and racing yachts have it installed also - i can't remember the last time i sailed on a boat that wasn't just a day sailer that _didn't_ have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not soon enough - its cheap and easy - radar and ais is better

 

Starpath has excellent (seriously excellent) online courses for all this and Colregs too - can't recommend highly enough

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is no steps, baby steps or the right step (Flarm in my opinion) if a standard is to be promoted or a mandate installed.

 

I have had the uncomfortable experience of dodging freighters in the night many, many times. I would hate to see this happen again to anyone. We can solve this problem with enough grit. Unfortunately we all know it very likely won't happen until this scenario plays out a few more times... To be different somebody needs to become a leader, big time and demand real action. Is one accident enough to make it happen?

 

If something does come of this, FLARM is my recommendation although it is clearly not the standard or the easiest path. AIS seems good as well, but is it simple enough? Flarm is like having a radar detector in size, turn it on and it beeps like mad is a potential collision exists with a graphical display of exactly where the threat is and it's relative motion (turning or not) for both targets. I am less familiar with AIS and it's capabilities.

 

I wish us all luck and sincere condolences to all affected. Really sucks to hear of all of this tragedy. Be safe all.

 

Thanks. Flarm has many advantages in cost, intelligence and ease of use. It will, or others like it, be the futures anti collision system. It works phenomenally well in aircraft, especially gliders which are far faster and more manueverable. Now it is coming into rail industry, mining, and many more. Ships would be a piece of cake! But anything is better then eyeballing lights! The sailing, shipping industry needs a standard system. We are all very lucky this kind of accident does not happen more regularly. It easily could become far more common based on present safeguards.

 

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

7070 is correct - AIS requires only a VHF receiver and a GPS plus a means to process and display the derived information. It is a mature technology in the marine industry and has become quite economical. FLARM, while it may possibly be a good system, is not in everyday marine use. I'm not advocating this, but mandatory use of AIS would not be terribly onerous at this time. I just installed the Standard VHF with integral AIS receiver, and while I have overcomplicated its implementation, I have found it to be a very useful device, rivaling radar for anti-collision purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISAF Offshore Special Regulations 3.29.1.n already require AIS Transceivers for boats racing in Category 1 and Category 2 races (and recommends them for Cat 3 races, 3.29.1.o), and have done so since 2010. Or course, US Sailing Prescriptions turn this into a recommendation rather than a requirement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the radar reflector study mentioned in an earler post. It makes a pretty good argument for carrying and deploying one of these gadgets. We've always used one, we have also made a conscious distinction between watchkeeping while in a shipping lane and watchkeeping while not in a shipping lane. The lanes are clearly shown on the charts.

 

Radar Reflector Report

 

aa

 

aren't they basically saying that passive reflectors don't achieve much?

 

That was also my understanding... most passive radars reflectors don't even meet the OSR minimum reflection requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISAF Offshore Special Regulations 3.29.1.n already require AIS Transceivers for boats racing in Category 1 and Category 2 races (and recommends them for Cat 3 races, 3.29.1.o), and have done so since 2010. Or course, US Sailing Prescriptions turn this into a recommendation rather than a requirement...

 

but SI's over ride the US Sailing prescriptions, and Newport-Bermuda requires at least a receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

???

WTF?

We *DO* have a standard system, I have it, and it works well.

:unsure::unsure:

 

 

Thanks. Flarm has many advantages in cost, intelligence and ease of use. It will, or others like it, the futures anti collision system. It works phenomenally well in aircraft, especially gliders which are far more manueverable. Ships would be a piece of cake! But anything is better then eyeballing lights! The sailing, shipping industry needs a standard system.

 

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

 

Flarm in mining: http://www.safe-mine.com/

Anyone want over/under on how long to:

AIS receive required

AIS transceiver required

 

7070 is correct - AIS requires only a VHF receiver and a GPS plus a means to process and display the derived information. It is a mature technology in the marine industry and has become quite economical. FLARM, while it may possibly be a good system, is not in everyday marine use. I'm not advocating this, but mandatory use of AIS would not be terribly onerous at this time. I just installed the Standard VHF with integral AIS receiver, and while I have overcomplicated its implementation, I have found it to be a very useful device, rivaling radar for anti-collision purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A crew or 4? 1:30 AM? From the cockpit of a small boat you can have less than 10 minutes before a large modern ship appears on the horizon and runs you down. Much less if the ship is coming out of the lights from shore. On a short handed watch, late a night, have you ever gone 10 minutes without looking directly astern or under a sail? Nod off or relax for just a few minutes and you may not have a clue until you hear the bow wake. CRUNCH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you being deliberately dense or what?

First off, you have NO IDEA if the boat in question had AIS or if the ship/sub/tug/whale/UFO/whatever that hit it had AIS either.

 

Second, my AIS receiver IS about the size of a deck of cards. The intelligence is in the plotter and you can have all kinds of bells, whistles, and disco lights go off if you want to. Self contained AIS units including the display screens with CPA alarms are readily available. The idea that AIS is too hard to use is ludicrous and utterly unproven as having anything to do with this incident.

 

Third, when I am flying a 1500 pound airplane I can destroy a 400,000 pound airplane as well as vice versa. EVERYONE has skin in the game. Some third world POS freighter skippered by someone with a ticket from Bob's School of Boats and Nigerian Scams may not give a shit if they run you over. It won't hurt them one bit.

 

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Are you saying that there won't be any lawsuits filed? Against NOSA?

 

Well, no one can promise that stupid suits won't be filed, but you can promise that there won't be a judgment for the plaintiff. What, exactly, would be the grounds of the suit? Are you assuming that Orange County small claims court has jurisdiction over events in international waters? You realize that Admiralty law explicitly indemnified all parties that are not directly involved in the cause of the collision. Can you outline a basis for a lawsuit against NOSA that could be heard in state court?

 

OC small claims court? Ahhhhhh.......

 

The action could be for wrongful death. The issue would be whether or not NOSA was negligent.

 

One could argue that NOSA (that is, the NOSA Board), in it's unsatiable qwest for more revenue, broadened the scope of the event to include those who would be less likely to possess the skills necessary to venture out on an overnight race, crossing dangerous and busy commercial lanes, and did nothing to ensure that all entries were qualified to deal with such circumstances.

 

There were no criteria around something as simple as swimming ability, or knowledge of the COLREGS, or instruction on how to navigate busy channels at night, or how to read running lights, or safety measures like carrying flares at the ready near the helm. What criteria were established to be able to stand watch and be responsible for the boat and the lives of the crewmembers sleeping below?

 

One could argue that NOSA, knowing full well that the race had been expanded to include wingnuts, and knowing full well that night time sailing in shipping lanes was dangerous, did nothing but focus on additional revenue. Infact, by offering valuable monetary incentives, like a two year Lexus lease, NOSA altered the very nature of the Ensenada Race and induced folks to enter who might not have ever ventured offshore.

 

But - the race had been run for 65 years with no serious incident... Yes, true, but prior races were restricted to racing classes, those that presumably had the skills to go offshore. Further, the event had been run by experienced and knowledagble racers at NOSA...

 

 

So, those might be the positions taken by an avaricious attorney. Do not confuse those positions with my personal position, and send me angry messages, as I am an Ayn Rand disciple. And I did not vote for BHO.

 

The question remains, what will now be the fate of the Ensenada Race? Gird your loins, NOSA, and call your D & O policy holder. The sharks are circling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

The flaw is that not every vessel is yet mandated to have an AIS transmitter, much less a receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculation:

I'm not familiar with those aboard the H37 in this incident. With only four aboard, at night, in light air, it's likely that 1-2 were below, if not 3.

 

Why would 4 be only? I have done many 100-170 M races with a crew of 4 and I think it is enough. There are only 1-2 nights and it is enough to have one person sleeping. In a cruising class there maybe only 1 or 2 on deck at night, but most likely the ones with most experience.

Reports have stated 4 aboard. I'm not questioning or commenting on the size of the crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

 

 

 

i think that we are guessing that one of the boats did not have an operational AIS, or maybe they weren't monitoring it...

 

and yes, it can give an audible alarm.

 

1/2 an hour ago you thought AIS required radar to work - maybe you should learn about the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gov Cup grew to over 400 boats and everything that floated seem to enter. The organizers realized they had a bunch of n00bs that were clueless at best and restricted entries by requiring some prior experience to filter the worst of the "only time I sail at night all year" types out.

 

[

Are you saying that there won't be any lawsuits filed? Against NOSA?

 

Well, no one can promise that stupid suits won't be filed, but you can promise that there won't be a judgment for the plaintiff. What, exactly, would be the grounds of the suit? Are you assuming that Orange County small claims court has jurisdiction over events in international waters? You realize that Admiralty law explicitly indemnified all parties that are not directly involved in the cause of the collision. Can you outline a basis for a lawsuit against NOSA that could be heard in state court?

 

OC small claims court? Ahhhhhh.......

 

The action could be for wrongful death. The issue would be whether or not NOSA was negligent.

 

One could argue that NOSA (that is, the NOSA Board), in it's unsatiable qwest for more revenue, broadened the scope of the event to include those who would be less likely to possess the skills necessary to venture out on an overnight race, crossing dangerous and busy commercial lanes, and did nothing to ensure that all entries were qualified to deal with such circumstances.

 

There were no criteria around something as simple as swimming ability, or knowledge of the COLREGS, or instruction on how to navigate busy channels at night, or how to read running lights, or safety measures like carrying flares at the ready near the helm. What criteria were established to be able to stand watch and be responsible for the boat and the lives of the crewmembers sleeping below?

 

One could argue that NOSA, knowing full well that the race had been expanded to include wingnuts, and knowing full well that night time sailing in shipping lanes was dangerous, did nothing but focus on additional revenue. Infact, by offering valuable monetary incentives, like a two year Lexus lease, NOSA altered the very nature of the Ensenada Race and induced folks to enter who might not have ever ventured offshore.

 

But - the race had been run for 65 years with no serious incident... Yes, true, but prior races were restricted to racing classes, those that presumably had the skills to go offshore. Further, the event had been run by experienced and knowledagble racers at NOSA...

 

 

So, those might be the positions taken by an avaricious attorney. Do not confuse those positions with my personal position, and send me angry messages, as I am an Ayn Rand disciple. And I did not vote for BHO.

 

The question remains, what will now be the fate of the Ensenada Race? Gird your loins, NOSA, and call your D & O policy holder. The sharks are circling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS requires radar. Needs to be simple. Flarm is GPS and radio based. Requires nothing (no radar). Simple. Does not require interpretation. Intelligent, predicts possible turns of both vessels.

 

My thoughts are with those lost & their loved ones. Bad month....bad month.

 

AIS does not require radar. I use my AIS through a netbook with free openCPN chart plotting software. With my GPS it calculates all CPAs for AIS signals & alarms can be configured. You must be a flarm dealer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you being deliberately dense or what?

First off, you have NO IDEA if the boat in question had AIS or if the ship/sub/tug/whale/UFO/whatever that hit it had AIS either.

 

Second, my AIS receiver IS about the size of a deck of cards. The intelligence is in the plotter and you can have all kinds of bells, whistles, and disco lights go off if you want to. Self contained AIS units including the display screens with CPA alarms are readily available. The idea that AIS is too hard to use is ludicrous and utterly unproven as having anything to do with this incident.

 

Third, when I am flying a 1500 pound airplane I can destroy a 400,000 pound airplane as well as vice versa. EVERYONE has skin in the game. Some third world POS freighter skippered by someone with a ticket from Bob's School of Boats and Nigerian Scams may not give a shit if they run you over. It won't hurt them one bit.

 

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

 

The AIS system does have some practical limitations. For example, whilkst sailing across teh Med several summers ago, the screen was almost blanked out by all the ships and yachts that had the system on. The frequency of use actually mitigated much of the benefit. So, even though on a 80' boat, the onus was on us to play dodge ball. Which, of course, we did.

 

There is no real substitute for an alert watch, trained in the realities of sailing in potentially dangerous situations. You can't effectively and safely fly a plane on instruments nor can you sail a yacht on instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gov Cup grew to over 400 boats and everything that floated seem to enter. The organizers realized they had a bunch of n00bs that were clueless at best and restricted entries by requiring some prior experience to filter the worst of the "only time I sail at night all year" types out.

 

[

Are you saying that there won't be any lawsuits filed? Against NOSA?

 

Well, no one can promise that stupid suits won't be filed, but you can promise that there won't be a judgment for the plaintiff. What, exactly, would be the grounds of the suit? Are you assuming that Orange County small claims court has jurisdiction over events in international waters? You realize that Admiralty law explicitly indemnified all parties that are not directly involved in the cause of the collision. Can you outline a basis for a lawsuit against NOSA that could be heard in state court?

 

OC small claims court? Ahhhhhh.......

 

The action could be for wrongful death. The issue would be whether or not NOSA was negligent.

 

One could argue that NOSA (that is, the NOSA Board), in it's unsatiable qwest for more revenue, broadened the scope of the event to include those who would be less likely to possess the skills necessary to venture out on an overnight race, crossing dangerous and busy commercial lanes, and did nothing to ensure that all entries were qualified to deal with such circumstances.

 

There were no criteria around something as simple as swimming ability, or knowledge of the COLREGS, or instruction on how to navigate busy channels at night, or how to read running lights, or safety measures like carrying flares at the ready near the helm. What criteria were established to be able to stand watch and be responsible for the boat and the lives of the crewmembers sleeping below?

 

One could argue that NOSA, knowing full well that the race had been expanded to include wingnuts, and knowing full well that night time sailing in shipping lanes was dangerous, did nothing but focus on additional revenue. Infact, by offering valuable monetary incentives, like a two year Lexus lease, NOSA altered the very nature of the Ensenada Race and induced folks to enter who might not have ever ventured offshore.

 

But - the race had been run for 65 years with no serious incident... Yes, true, but prior races were restricted to racing classes, those that presumably had the skills to go offshore. Further, the event had been run by experienced and knowledagble racers at NOSA...

 

 

So, those might be the positions taken by an avaricious attorney. Do not confuse those positions with my personal position, and send me angry messages, as I am an Ayn Rand disciple. And I did not vote for BHO.

 

The question remains, what will now be the fate of the Ensenada Race? Gird your loins, NOSA, and call your D & O policy holder. The sharks are circling.

 

Good on them. Sounds like you have competent race management.

 

It's actions like you describe that will prove to be quite damaging for the crack team at NOSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning on the Local LA news they were questioning the safety of Sailboat Racing in the waters off of Calif.

 

Time for the Nanny State to pass some stupid laws..............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only about 20-30 of us! We will be watching for the arrival.Pics will follow (if the is anything to take pics of)

 

WL

 

Any anarchists in anacortes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LS,

 

Do you actually any REAL information that the boat that was crushed to bits had AIS and somehow didn't know how to use it, or are you blowing stuff out some orifice like your incorrect earlier remark about AIS requiring RADAR?

 

Look, I'm all for folks having AIS, it really works extremely well and does NOT require a RADAR unit to function. It is a lot easier to use if it's linked to a chart plotter, which will display the course and speed of each AIS transmitter equipped vessel nearby. But even a child can use AIS with a paper chart, a straight edge and a protractor. For that matter, one can link the AIS that works with my system to my iPhone and iPad and have pretty color pictures of where everyone (who has a transmitter) is located and where they are going, the name of their ship, what their last port was ask what port they're headed to. Again, that isn't necessary, just nice to have.

 

I have flown sailplanes and things happened MUCH more quickly there. Perhaps FLARM is better there, I have never seen one. I tend to look out the windows when flying, just as when I'm driving. On the ocean, between one object moving at about 5 knots and another moving at about 20 knots there is plenty of time to draw lines on paper charts and see if there's going to be a close pass or collision. Sure folks don't see each other sometimes, but the problem is NOT that things are happening too fast. There is plenty of time to get out of the way of a 20k ships, and most don't move that quickly.

 

What I believe we on this "chat room" actually know about this accident is that the boat is in small pieces, three people are dead, one person is missing, and that the USCG hasn't released any additional information because they don't know anything more. All the rest of this, like your supposition that AIS is too hard to use and that in some way that is proven by the "3 dead bodies and another person missing" is just goof balls on SA making shit up - pretty normal behavior for this place. But, seriously, when you don't know if the boat even had AIS, why in the world would you use it as "evidence" that AIS has "got some kinks."

 

Why don't folks take a deep breath and make SOME attempt to stick to facts - I know it's SA and I know that's asking a lot.

 

My heart goes out to anyone who knew these folks and stumbles into this place and this discussion. Hopefully, someone will warn them off or the first one in will let them know what a bunch of clods we are.

 

BV

 

 

 

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

???

WTF?

We *DO* have a standard system, I have it, and it works well.

:unsure::unsure:

 

...snip...

 

7070 is correct - AIS requires only a VHF receiver and a GPS plus a means to process and display the derived information. It is a mature technology in the marine industry and has become quite economical. FLARM, while it may possibly be a good system, is not in everyday marine use. I'm not advocating this, but mandatory use of AIS would not be terribly onerous at this time. I just installed the Standard VHF with integral AIS receiver, and while I have overcomplicated its implementation, I have found it to be a very useful device, rivaling radar for anti-collision purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

 

 

 

i think that we are guessing that one of the boats did not have an operational AIS, or maybe they weren't monitoring it...

 

and yes, it can give an audible alarm.

 

1/2 an hour ago you thought AIS required radar to work - maybe you should learn about the system.

 

AIS is not so useful when there are a lot of boats in the area, all using it. The alarm constantly goes off prompting just turning off the device.

 

Then relying on an alert and trained watch captain. Oh, the horror!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to KIS about the Bob's School Of Marine Navigation and Nigerian Scams.... Not all ships out there are meeting COLREGS etc. requirements

 

 

Without wanting to hijack discussion of the Aegean tragedy, it is perhaps worth saying that whereas the MAIB report seems to leave little doubt that the Pride of Bilbao was responsible for Ouzo's sinking, that was not the conclusion of a criminal prosecution. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7131177.stm

 

Dunno about UK or where the criminal trial was held, but in the USA,

  • the standard for the Prosecutor(Plaintiff) in a Criminal Trial to prevail is "Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
  • the standard for the Prosecutor/Plaintiff in a CIVIL trial (and Admiralty law trials are mostly CIVIL trials) is "By the Preponderance of Evidence".

Hence OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in his Criminal trial, but "Responsible" in his "wrongful death" civil trial....Wierd, but that's atleast the diff under US Law.

 

I've used AIS in busy and potentially confusing Shipping lanes (the inbound turn marks into Straits of Juan De Fuca where you can have ships from a variety of directions at 25knots all slotting in to align into the VTS AND adjusting their speeds) And it was damned helpful. You can get basic AIS transponders, or you can have AIS transponders with collision alarms (to go to the FLARM approach) where you set a "radius" and if a vessel within that radius is displaying a bearing and speed to collide with you, the collision alarm goes off. You can get standalone devices or ones integrated into your PC Nav software http://www.offshorestore.com/optimum/products/products/nob_nthrp160.htm

http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1%7C344%7C1209728%7C1215767&id=1283473

 

And anyone doing a race like the Newport-Enchilada is already spending $$$ so $500 ain't gonna be the "we can't go" break the budget cost.

 

As for "lots of boats" - yes the alarm can be going off often. But on a moonless night, against a lit up shore, I'd rather have AIS giving me an idea where to look to see if it is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only about 20-30 of us! We will be watching for the arrival.Pics will follow (if the is anything to take pics of)

 

WL

 

Any anarchists in anacortes?

 

That ship should be impounded by US customs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have to take a close look when she arrives. Very sad circumstances. Condolences to the families and friends of those lost.

 

WL

 

Condolences to all involved in this tragedy.

 

Overseas Ariadmar (Corrected Vessel Name) was last tanker moored offshore PEMEX Terminal, Rosarito Beach through Friday. Debris field was reported by media as approx. 8 miles west of Rosarito, three miles south of South Coronado, where OA likely transited, her AIS possibly non-operative.

 

If I were CG, I would want to meet this ship before she arrives at March Point Terminal, Anacortes, WA, ETA 1300 PDST May 1. Just sayin'

 

At the risk of contributing to unwarranted speculation, Q88.com says that during a Port State Control Vessel Inspection of Overseas Ariadmar on March 9, 2012 in Corpus Christi that "Master reported the S-Band RADAR inoperable. Arrangements were made immidiately to repair in the Port of Corpus Christi." Q88.com further reports that on March 9, 2012 this deficiency was resolved: "Recieved a technicians report form Mackay attesting to the repair of the S-Band RADAR. Technicians identified the encoder as inoperable and replaced said encoder in the scanner of the S-Band RADAR."

 

Probably completely unrelated, but still ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone else on this thread I have no REAL info on what happened out there. What I can’t get out of my head after seeing that AIS track someone posted earlier...Your bobbing along at night at 0.3 knots....typical....you see a freighter behind you and by either checking the AIS on your plotter or by identifying the light pattern you discern it is going to overtake/pass somewhat to port of you, no need to start the engine.....then the ship makes a sudden right turn and it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prayers go out to the family and friends of those who were lost.

 

I have nothing of material to add to this thread, but between this and the LSC incident, the co-owner of my boat, and myself have been reviewing our safety procedures and in this case, our rudimentary knowledge of radio protocols have become very apparent. Besides our ability to call a launch or hail an RC boat, we would be nearly clueless what the correct radio protocol would be to alert a large vessel that we were disabled.

 

A few links I have found:

 

http://www.coastalboating.net/Cruising/Seamanship/Radio/RadioBasics.html

http://www.seakayak.ws/kayak/kayak.nsf/1/55C2AC6DE56618898525735500740A6E

 

If anyone has anything a bit more concise, it would be appreciated. I'd like to laminate the document and place it near our radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dunno about UK or where the criminal trial was held, but in the USA,

  • the standard for the Prosecutor(Plaintiff) in a Criminal Trial to prevail is "Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
  • the standard for the Prosecutor/Plaintiff in a CIVIL trial (and Admiralty law trials are mostly CIVIL trials) is "By the Preponderance of Evidence".

 

Yes it is the same here. Afaik there was however no civil case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were out there, 30 miles south and west of Aegean. It was a very clear night and large ships could be seen from very far away. We saw one freighter that was very poorly lit. But we saw it, watched its direction and bearing and remained clear. Aegean was in cruising class, which allows us of the engine. Even a PHRF class boat, though, should not hesitate to fire up the engine if a collision with a freighter was a potential risk. I've been in races where we were drifting with large ships bearing down on us. We had the key in the ignition ready to take appropriate evasive action.

 

As much as this is a horrible tragedy for the loss of life, experience and logic leads me to conclude this is crew error and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only about 20-30 of us! We will be watching for the arrival.Pics will follow (if the is anything to take pics of)

 

WL

 

Any anarchists in anacortes?

 

That ship should be impounded by US customs.

 

Why, because a few clowns on SA speculate that she may have been near the incident?

 

I am sure the USCG will be asking the ships crew plenty of questions on arrival, and will conduct a through investigation. Thats their job, and they do it pretty well. Lets not bust out the torches and pitchforks just yet.

 

My thoughts are with the friends and family of the lost sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Are you saying that there won't be any lawsuits filed? Against NOSA?

 

Well, no one can promise that stupid suits won't be filed, but you can promise that there won't be a judgment for the plaintiff. What, exactly, would be the grounds of the suit? Are you assuming that Orange County small claims court has jurisdiction over events in international waters? You realize that Admiralty law explicitly indemnified all parties that are not directly involved in the cause of the collision. Can you outline a basis for a lawsuit against NOSA that could be heard in state court?

 

OC small claims court? Ahhhhhh.......

 

The action could be for wrongful death. The issue would be whether or not NOSA was negligent.

 

One could argue that NOSA (that is, the NOSA Board), in it's unsatiable qwest for more revenue, broadened the scope of the event to include those who would be less likely to possess the skills necessary to venture out on an overnight race, crossing dangerous and busy commercial lanes, and did nothing to ensure that all entries were qualified to deal with such circumstances.

 

There were no criteria around something as simple as swimming ability, or knowledge of the COLREGS, or instruction on how to navigate busy channels at night, or how to read running lights, or safety measures like carrying flares at the ready near the helm. What criteria were established to be able to stand watch and be responsible for the boat and the lives of the crewmembers sleeping below?

 

One could argue that NOSA, knowing full well that the race had been expanded to include wingnuts, and knowing full well that night time sailing in shipping lanes was dangerous, did nothing but focus on additional revenue. Infact, by offering valuable monetary incentives, like a two year Lexus lease, NOSA altered the very nature of the Ensenada Race and induced folks to enter who might not have ever ventured offshore.

 

But - the race had been run for 65 years with no serious incident... Yes, true, but prior races were restricted to racing classes, those that presumably had the skills to go offshore. Further, the event had been run by experienced and knowledagble racers at NOSA...

 

 

So, those might be the positions taken by an avaricious attorney. Do not confuse those positions with my personal position, and send me angry messages, as I am an Ayn Rand disciple. And I did not vote for BHO.

 

The question remains, what will now be the fate of the Ensenada Race? Gird your loins, NOSA, and call your D & O policy holder. The sharks are circling.

 

 

It is interesting all of the legal theories that you suggest could be attempted against NOSA. The reality is, the sport has been designed by lawyers from Day 1 to protect the race organizers. The organizing authorities reponsibilities are to "Start a Race" and "Finish a Race." I sure don't ask for more or less from any race or regatta I go to.

 

Where the line is drawn is reinforced in the rules as follows:

 

"4 DECISION TO RACE

The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

Nobody forced this Hunter 37 to enter this race, it was their option. Nobody forced them to start or continue in this race, they chose to. They chose their safety equipment (USCG minimum required meeting the country's laws). They chose their crew. They chose their course, they chose their watches, they chose everything.

 

There are no laws requiring race organizers to test participants, there is no national database of educational classes attended and passed for participants. Do your own survey and you'll find most boat owners have not even taken a USCG Aux or US Power Squadron course. But around the bar, every person will brag how experienced and how much knowledge they possess. But good luck finding this knowledge tested in writing and results posted.

 

As you know there's a requirement for motor vehicles - drivers license, which shows a minimum of knowledge and skill. There is no such equivalent in boating. Some rumyuckle can buy a boat this afternoon with no experience and no training, go sailing for the first time ever and go out sailing in a hurricane. And you want to suggest that is someone else's fault in society that it occurred? No, we love sailing because we do take personal responsibility for out actions. Someone spill a hot cup of coffee on their lap on a sailboat? They deserved it. They can't blame someone else.

 

To me it is admirable that we have succeeded as one of the final frontiers of freedom with very little government influence. And that personal responsibility is still in force in this sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only about 20-30 of us! We will be watching for the arrival.Pics will follow (if the is anything to take pics of)

 

WL

 

Any anarchists in anacortes?

 

That ship should be impounded by US customs.

 

Why, because a few clowns on SA speculate that she may have been near the incident?

 

I am sure the USCG will be asking the ships crew plenty of questions on arrival, and will conduct a through investigation. Thats their job, and they do it pretty well. Lets not bust out the torches and pitchforks just yet.

 

My thoughts are with the friends and family of the lost sailors.

 

Occupy Oil Tankers?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

 

The flaw is that not every vessel is yet mandated to have an AIS transmitter, much less a receiver.

 

All commercial vessels are required to have AIS. It is optional on recreational boats. AIS is stupid proof. The kink Lud is referring too is likely dual-purposing your VHF antenna for AIS. Two minutes of research will dispel the misconception. I don't know of any other issues. As an owner/skipper, having sailed from SF Bay to La Paz, countless coastal trips in pea soup fog around fishing vessels, etc, you simply cannot rely on radar, radar deflectors and trying to hail on VHF. That is very crude technology and should only be relied upon to detect and/or warn other small vessels, not large ones. If it was a collision, which seems most likely, a simple $500 AIS transponder would have alerted the bridge of the large vessel to the impending collision. Another avoidable tragedy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences to all.

 

Nice boat. Looks like they were well equipped and even had an emergency o/b as well.

 

Should have been a fun cruise....

post-61257-041589900 1335800296_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences to all.

 

Nice boat. Looks like they were well equipped and even had an emergency o/b as well.

 

Should have been a fun cruise....

Is the crew in that picture wearing an Obama mask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Maybe we should wait for some facts and stop getting pissed at each other, making assumptions and stupid statements. Then you can have an argument.

Cheers

Aaron

 

+1

Maybe we should wait for some facts and stop getting pissed at each other, making assumptions and stupid statements. Then you can have an argument.

Cheers

Aaron

 

+1

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My heart goes to the families and friends of those lost souls. Also to those that aided in the recovery and search.

 

 

 

Now, please Lord, save us from keyboard sailors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any knowledge about commercial ship tracking? I.e., assuming that Aegean was hit by a large commercial ship (which is what the speculation seems to be, given the size of the small size of the debris that has been found), and contact with the sailboat was lost at 1:30 a.m. (can't remember date), wouldn't it be possible for maritime authorities to find out what ships were in the vicinity at the time? Or would this not be possible?

 

Sorry if this has been covered in this thread already --haven't had time to read through it.

 

This website tracks arrivals and departures via AIS and includes mapping: MarineTraffic.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In none of the published photos of the Aegean do I see the crew wearing PFDs. I can't help but wonder if this had some bearing on the fatalities.

 

I cannot see a radar reflector either, but would expect it be mounted higher up that the photos I have found show.

 

Some of the online reports do mention the boat having radar installed, but it is possible (even likely) that it would not be in use in such benign conditions.

 

My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of those lost. A very tough month for all sailors in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It easily could become far more common based on present safeguards.

Explain how it could become more common.

 

I claim it could -- no, is -- less common based on present safeguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charter listing for the boat at Marina Sailing <http://members.marinasailing.com/YachtLookup.asp?YachtName=aegean#> does not list AIS on the equipment list. It does list Radar. I suspect AIS was not present.

 

photos at <http://members.marinasailing.com/ShowYacht.asp?YachtName=Aegean> clearly show a VHF mounted at the helm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one N2E, I think 2003, it was cold, raining & breezy (20kts or so) as we pushed at about 10-11 kts past Rosarito; a large commercial MV with several vertical lights on it approached from the south and then turned just in front of us. As it went by I said to the owner "Say, doesn't that mean it's towing something?" The owner goes "Shit!!" and goes up hard as the towed barge w/o lights crossed maybe 5-6 lengths in front of us.

 

That tug operator knew we could not see the cable or tow and would not have felt a thing if the barge had smashed right up & over us.

 

I suspect this is what happened to the Aegean.

 

Raised a toast yesterday to the sailors lost in April 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like this may have been part of their learn to sail classes-

 

Title: Ensenada Race ASA 104/106- Long Beach

Date: Saturday, April 28

Time: 12:00:00 AM

Description: Be a part of the most famous yacht race on the west coast and get your ASA 104 and 106 at the same time! This 125 mile race is a perfect mix of fun and adventure. You’ll compete with hundreds of boats for one of 50 race category trophies. You can also earn your ASA 104/106 certifications! The ASA class is $895.00 for the four days. Text books, testing fees, and provisions are included. Call the Long Beach office for more info 562.432.4672.

 

http://www.marinasailing.com/events.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In none of the published photos of the Aegean do I see the crew wearing PFDs. I can't help but wonder if this had some bearing on the fatalities.

 

The cause of death here is 'blunt force trauma' so no, PFD's wouldn't have made an ounce of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Are you saying that there won't be any lawsuits filed? Against NOSA?

 

Well, no one can promise that stupid suits won't be filed, but you can promise that there won't be a judgment for the plaintiff. What, exactly, would be the grounds of the suit? Are you assuming that Orange County small claims court has jurisdiction over events in international waters? You realize that Admiralty law explicitly indemnified all parties that are not directly involved in the cause of the collision. Can you outline a basis for a lawsuit against NOSA that could be heard in state court?

 

OC small claims court? Ahhhhhh.......

 

The action could be for wrongful death. The issue would be whether or not NOSA was negligent.

 

One could argue that NOSA (that is, the NOSA Board), in it's unsatiable qwest for more revenue, broadened the scope of the event to include those who would be less likely to possess the skills necessary to venture out on an overnight race, crossing dangerous and busy commercial lanes, and did nothing to ensure that all entries were qualified to deal with such circumstances.

 

There were no criteria around something as simple as swimming ability, or knowledge of the COLREGS, or instruction on how to navigate busy channels at night, or how to read running lights, or safety measures like carrying flares at the ready near the helm. What criteria were established to be able to stand watch and be responsible for the boat and the lives of the crewmembers sleeping below?

 

One could argue that NOSA, knowing full well that the race had been expanded to include wingnuts, and knowing full well that night time sailing in shipping lanes was dangerous, did nothing but focus on additional revenue. Infact, by offering valuable monetary incentives, like a two year Lexus lease, NOSA altered the very nature of the Ensenada Race and induced folks to enter who might not have ever ventured offshore.

 

But - the race had been run for 65 years with no serious incident... Yes, true, but prior races were restricted to racing classes, those that presumably had the skills to go offshore. Further, the event had been run by experienced and knowledagble racers at NOSA...

 

 

So, those might be the positions taken by an avaricious attorney. Do not confuse those positions with my personal position, and send me angry messages, as I am an Ayn Rand disciple. And I did not vote for BHO.

 

The question remains, what will now be the fate of the Ensenada Race? Gird your loins, NOSA, and call your D & O policy holder. The sharks are circling.

 

 

It is interesting all of the legal theories that you suggest could be attempted against NOSA. The reality is, the sport has been designed by lawyers from Day 1 to protect the race organizers. The organizing authorities reponsibilities are to "Start a Race" and "Finish a Race." I sure don't ask for more or less from any race or regatta I go to.

 

Where the line is drawn is reinforced in the rules as follows:

 

"4 DECISION TO RACE

The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."

 

Nobody forced this Hunter 37 to enter this race, it was their option. Nobody forced them to start or continue in this race, they chose to. They chose their safety equipment (USCG minimum required meeting the country's laws). They chose their crew. They chose their course, they chose their watches, they chose everything.

 

There are no laws requiring race organizers to test participants, there is no national database of educational classes attended and passed for participants. Do your own survey and you'll find most boat owners have not even taken a USCG Aux or US Power Squadron course. But around the bar, every person will brag how experienced and how much knowledge they possess. But good luck finding this knowledge tested in writing and results posted.

 

As you know there's a requirement for motor vehicles - drivers license, which shows a minimum of knowledge and skill. There is no such equivalent in boating. Some rumyuckle can buy a boat this afternoon with no experience and no training, go sailing for the first time ever and go out sailing in a hurricane. And you want to suggest that is someone else's fault in society that it occurred? No, we love sailing because we do take personal responsibility for out actions. Someone spill a hot cup of coffee on their lap on a sailboat? They deserved it. They can't blame someone else.

 

To me it is admirable that we have succeeded as one of the final frontiers of freedom with very little government influence. And that personal responsibility is still in force in this sport.

 

 

Good points.

 

However, consider that a waiver of claims, before a negligent act, is not a bar to a lawsuit.

 

Next comes the issue of the very validity of a waiver of liability. Courts have held that a waiver of liability for negligence is against public policy. And if against public policy, then the courts will not uphold it.

 

Nimrod the Sailor (NtS) simply cannot be held accountable for risks that he could not possibly be aware of. This issue has far more meaning if the waiver clearly stated the dangers inherent in racing at night, in busy shipping lanes and the need to have qualified folks in charge, at all times, of each vessel. It did not say that severe injury, even death, is a risk of the event.

 

So, ordinary negligence or gross negilence?

 

Now, the question therefore becomes: was NOSA negligent in inducing Nimrods to race without informing them of the dangers and doing very little to educate them or set standards for entries?

 

Which begs the question, what is the standard of care for conducting an overnight race in international waters and in potentially hazardous conditions? We know the Transpac has very strict standards for entries, equipment, and experience. As does Cabo, the Fastnet, etc. We see Kent Island in a post above comment that his club reacted to an influx of Nimrods by establishing new standards for a local race.

 

Having said all that, please be aware that I do not advocate the potential positions described above. I am just pointing out a probable outcome driven by avaricious, blackhearted lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one N2E, I think 2003, it was cold, raining & breezy (20kts or so) as we pushed at about 10-11 kts past Rosarito; a large commercial MV with several vertical lights on it approached from the south and then turned just in front of us. As it went by I said to the owner "Say, doesn't that mean it's towing something?" The owner goes "Shit!!" and goes up hard as the towed barge w/o lights crossed maybe 5-6 lengths in front of us.

 

That tug operator knew we could not see the cable or tow and would not have felt a thing if the barge had smashed right up & over us.

 

I suspect this is what happened to the Aegean.

 

Raised a toast yesterday to the sailors lost in April 2012.

 

As a question, why didn't you folks clearly understand the meaning of three vertical white lights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of the guys that found the bodies. What mess. Condolences to family and friends.

 

Your comment is in rather poor taste. Please consider the family that might be reading this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In none of the published photos of the Aegean do I see the crew wearing PFDs. I can't help but wonder if this had some bearing on the fatalities.

 

I cannot see a radar reflector either, but would expect it be mounted higher up that the photos I have found show.

 

Some of the online reports do mention the boat having radar installed, but it is possible (even likely) that it would not be in use in such benign conditions.

 

My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of those lost. A very tough month for all sailors in California.

 

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

First, why would one fly a radar detector at 1:00 in the afternoon, at the start of the race, in bright sunlit conditions?

 

Secondly, given that they were in heavy traffic lanes, in foreign waters, with the usual hoarde of Mexican fishing boats, some without lights - why wouldn't you have the radar on?

 

And this poster is why it is dangerous out on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In none of the published photos of the Aegean do I see the crew wearing PFDs. I can't help but wonder if this had some bearing on the fatalities.

 

The cause of death here is 'blunt force trauma' so no, PFD's wouldn't have made an ounce of difference.

 

Has the coroner released a cause of death, or do you have some information on that? All I have read says they were found in the water, no cause of death attributed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

So how is one to gain experience in overnight races if you wont allow them to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

So how is one to gain experience in overnight races if you wont allow them to?

 

You take legitimate courses from, e.g. the CG, gain boathandling skills in day races, and act as crew on overnight races, but not in a position as watch captain or skipper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tragic accident and my thoughts go out to the Families. This is not supposed to happen, yet all of us who have spent time on the water at night, know how easily this could happen!

How many times have you been tracking the progress of commercial traffic, only to see them change course? I must admit I have had some hold breath moments, getting out of the way.

 

I fear the focus on blame will be painful for all involved, yet all of us know we have had some close calls. Please go easy on the assessment of crew error. This is not something that can be substantiated and is insensitive to speculate at this time. Having spent 4 years on a Coast Guard Inshore Search and Rescue vessel, I do know the families will seek out all manner of info of what happened, and this forum will likely form part of their search for answers. So please be as sensitive as the situation calls for.

 

We have lost members of our sailing community. Let us remember them without judgement. This was a tragic accident.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

So how is one to gain experience in overnight races if you wont allow them to?

 

You take legitimate courses from, e.g. the CG, gain boathandling skills in day races, and act as crew on overnight races, but not in a position as watch captain or skipper.

 

Yes, Yes

 

having won in the N2E in 2009 is no qualification for doing such an offshore race

 

Must take classes, read books &/or post on SA cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've raced some dozens of times across the English Channel at night, crossing the traffic lanes going into and out of Europe's major container ports. Some comments:

 

1. There have been at least two incidents local to here in the last 15 years where (non-racing) yachts were run down by ships, in one of which the entire crew was killed. In neither of those incidents was the ship involved ever conclusively identified, despite paint tests etc.

 

2. When 20,000 tons of steel are heading for you at 15 knots, "whose fault would an accident be" is not the appropriate question to be asking. If there is not much wind, you'd better be prepared to motor out of the way. If you care anything for your safety you've got to assume that ships are not going to avoid you.

 

3. Sailing instructions here allow you to use the engine for collision avoidance and declare it after the finish. It would not result in DSQ.

 

4. Unless you've got radar, the only way offshore at night to know conclusively if you are on a closing bearing is to repeatedly take bearings on a hand-bearing compass. Crew on watch have got to have one and know how to use it.

 

There's another way. If you only see 1 colored light and the boat is turning and then you see 2 colored lights...thats a problem. Especially if they ascend and become bigger and further apart.

 

Excellent comment.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

So how is one to gain experience in overnight races if you wont allow them to?

 

You take legitimate courses from, e.g. the CG, gain boathandling skills in day races, and act as crew on overnight races, but not in a position as watch captain or skipper.

 

I gained much experience volunteering on deliveries with well respected skippers in the Gulf of Mexico, where there is a lot of varied traffic, AND ULFOs. There is no substitute for seeing these lights at night for yourself.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every news report and article talks about a "Race tracking device". Can someone shed some light on this. There were NO trackers for the N2E race. Did they have a personal one like Spot? And I'm not talking about AIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the men onboard were Theo Mavromatis's regular crew, as one news report stated, then these guys had done this race before, probably even as the crew in 2009, when Mavromatis won his class. Earlier posts named the crew, but another news source is naming three different and (apparently) younger men: Joseph Stewart, Michael Patton and Kevin Rudolph.

 

5th Crewman: Crash 'Should Not Have Happened'

 

Mike Patton backed out of the Newport Beach to Mexico Yacht Race after his mother fell ill.

 

The bodies of three members of the crew—Bill Johnson of Torrance; Joe Stewart of Bradenton, Fla.; and Kevin Rudolph—were discovered tethered to the boat wreckage Saturday, and the search for the boat's owner and skipper, Theo Mavromatis, was called off Sunday afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

So how is one to gain experience in overnight races if you wont allow them to?

 

You take legitimate courses from, e.g. the CG, gain boathandling skills in day races, and act as crew on overnight races, but not in a position as watch captain or skipper.

 

Yes, Yes

 

having won in the N2E in 2009 is no qualification for doing such an offshore race

 

Must take classes, read books &/or post on SA cool.gif

 

Actually, he "won" in a cruising class. That doesn't count.

 

The next question is, what were the qualifications of the watch captains?

 

Your turn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In none of the published photos of the Aegean do I see the crew wearing PFDs. I can't help but wonder if this had some bearing on the fatalities.

 

I cannot see a radar reflector either, but would expect it be mounted higher up that the photos I have found show.

 

Some of the online reports do mention the boat having radar installed, but it is possible (even likely) that it would not be in use in such benign conditions.

 

My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of those lost. A very tough month for all sailors in California.

 

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

First, why would one fly a radar detector at 1:00 in the afternoon, at the start of the race, in bright sunlit conditions?

 

To answer: Many boats, especially cruising boats, ship permanently mounted radar reflectors. In my experience, it is usually the harder core racers that deploy them when warranted, cruisers either have them 'up' or not.

 

Secondly, given that they were in heavy traffic lanes, in foreign waters, with the usual hoarde of Mexican fishing boats, some without lights - why wouldn't you have the radar on?

 

To answer: They =may= have chosen to rely on 'eyes and ears' watchkeeping rather than used their radar. Conditions were by all accounts benign, visibility was good, and a lack of concern could have led them not to switch it on. Obviously, it should have been on, but that doesn't mean it was. They would have had to consciously chosen to switch the radar on, and =may= have chosen not to. We don't, and likely never will know if it was in use. As with PFDs, which I assume they had and apparently chose not to use, at least at the start of the race.

 

And this poster is why it is dangerous out on the water.

 

Dorag, not sure why my questions make me dangerous on the water. My radar reflector is permanently mounted, and my radar does go on at night as a standard operating procedure. PFDs are on all my crew before we leave the dock and are required attire when on deck and under way, and my AIS transceiver is always on. Having safety and collision avoidance equipment aboard and using it are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one N2E, I think 2003, it was cold, raining & breezy (20kts or so) as we pushed at about 10-11 kts past Rosarito; a large commercial MV with several vertical lights on it approached from the south and then turned just in front of us. As it went by I said to the owner "Say, doesn't that mean it's towing something?" The owner goes "Shit!!" and goes up hard as the towed barge w/o lights crossed maybe 5-6 lengths in front of us.

 

That tug operator knew we could not see the cable or tow and would not have felt a thing if the barge had smashed right up & over us.

 

I suspect this is what happened to the Aegean.

 

Raised a toast yesterday to the sailors lost in April 2012.

 

As a question, why didn't you folks clearly understand the meaning of three vertical white lights?

 

We did: it went from being dark, rainy & with a big chute up (all of which limited visbility) to watching a vessel come out of the murk, to watching it pass well outside of us, to watching it suddenly & amazingly turn across our path, to focusing on it to the realization that it was a tug and that somewhere out in that murk was likely a big old rusty tow barge.

 

In the states the tug operator would most likely have shined a light on the tow just to be certain we saw it. Down south they don't do that sort of thing. It's a different view of the way things are done which sort of view & attitude probably contributed to what happened to the Aegean.(I'm guessing!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because most sailors who race light offshore distance races have little more than a clue of what they are doing. I think it's a miracle that fatal collisions with commercial traffic are not more common. I think that that it is amazing how few collisions have occured to date. I would not be surprised if more accidents happened in the future as a basic law of averages (amazingly lucky so far minus this mishap, see countless comments of close calls, etc here). There tremendous risk of collision in the sport as it exists today. No foolproof system is in place or mandated. Got it?

 

It easily could become far more common based on present safeguards.

Explain how it could become more common.

 

I claim it could -- no, is -- less common based on present safeguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is illustrative of why inexperienced people should not be allowed in overnight races.

 

So how is one to gain experience in overnight races if you wont allow them to?

 

You take legitimate courses from, e.g. the CG, gain boathandling skills in day races, and act as crew on overnight races, but not in a position as watch captain or skipper.

 

Yes, Yes

 

having won in the N2E in 2009 is no qualification for doing such an offshore race

 

Must take classes, read books &/or post on SA cool.gif

 

Actually, he "won" in a cruising class. That doesn't count.

 

The next question is, what were the qualifications of the watch captains?

 

Your turn...

 

http://redondobeach.patch.com/articles/registered-crewman-not-aboard-aegean

 

While the search continues for the missing crewmember of the Aegean, a Redondo Beach-based yacht that may have collided with a larger ship while competing in a race from Newport Beach to Mexico, one of the registered crewmen is safe at home on his boat in King Harbor.

 

Mike Patton told Redondo Beach Patch that his mother took ill, so he backed out of the annual Lexus Newport Beach to Ensenada Yacht Race at the last minute.

 

"Everyone's been saying I'm the luckiest guy in the world," Patton said. "I don't feel that way."

 

The bodies of three members of the crew—Bill Johnson of Torrance; Joe Stewart of Bradenton, Fla.; and Kevin Rudolph—were discovered tethered to the boat wreckage Saturday, and the search for the boat's owner and skipper, Theo Mavromatis, was called off Sunday afternoon.

 

Patton speculated that Mavromatis went down with the Aegean.

 

"Theo's a tremendous skipper," he said, adding that the sailboat's owner was almost "fanatical" about safety.

 

"That was the safest crew I've ever seen, almost to the point of ridiculousness," Patton said. "I know that boat intimately, and there's no way it should have happened."

 

He described the other crewmen as confident men who "all worked really well together."

 

The team of Mavromatis, Patton, Johnson, Stewart and Rudolph aboard the Aegean won last year's Newport Beach to Ensenada race. It was Johnson's first race, Patton said.

 

"They're all good," he said. "There's not someone who didn't know what they were doing."

 

Patton can't help but wonder if his presence would have made the boat sail 10 seconds faster or slower, thus avoiding the collision—which, in his opinion, never should have happened.

 

"I know those waters," he said. "I know where they were. I’ve been there. I know there's traffic there, but it's not that heavy.

 

"This is just horrendous."

 

 

Hay I thought you were flicked ??? ohmy.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because most sailors who race light offshore distance races have little more than a clue of what they are doing. I think it's a miracle that fatal collisions with commercial traffic are not more common. I think that that it is amazing how few collisions have occured to date. I would not be surprised if more accidents happened in the future as a basic law of averages (amazingly lucky so far minus this mishap, see countless comments of close calls, etc here). There tremendous risk of collision in the sport as it exists today. No foolproof system is in place or mandated. Got it?

 

It easily could become far more common based on present safeguards.

Explain how it could become more common.

 

I claim it could -- no, is -- less common based on present safeguards.

 

 

There's a one-click link around here somewhere that lets you buy an ad very easily.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...Two race participants who were in the area at the time the Aegean disappeared said they saw or heard a freighter. Cindy Arosteguy of Oxnard, Calif., remembers hearing on her radio someone say, "Do you see us?" as she saw a tanker about a half-mile away. "I got back on the radio and said, 'Yes, I see you,'" she said. "It was definitely a freighter."

 

- copied from the report on the SA home page.

 

I think this must be media garble. Two days or less after the incident, she "remembers hearing..someone"(??) but doesn't know who she heard? From the way it is reported, I infer that she assumed she was conversing with the freighter she could see. But what if she had actually heard the "Aegean" asking the freighter if the freighter saw them, and then her response was interpreted by the crew of the Hunter as coming from the freighter and everything was okay?

 

I strongly doubt, and sincerely hope, that this is not what happened.

 

My heartfelt condolonces to the families and friends of the crew, and to the local sailing community.

 

To continue this line of speculation, I just saw this on another forum:

I just talked to a returning racer on the docks, he heard the whole conversation on the radio. He heard the yacht contact the freighter twice, called it by name, and the freighter answered, guy with broken English. He said several times- "Do you see me, do you see me?" The witness said he couldn't make out what the freighter said in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences to all.

 

Nice boat. Looks like they were well equipped and even had an emergency o/b as well.

 

Should have been a fun cruise....

 

So sorry for them, their friends and families. Fair winds.

Too much loss here in California. We talked a lot about this accident (and are still suffering our losses from LSC) during our opening day festivities. Completely unrelated sailing accidents, both fairly random, and both gut wrenching.

 

Again so very sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched AIS this AM and the article I read said radar was required for advanced "Flarm like" functionality. Whatever, fine. Flarm or AIS...fine. In this case it appears AIS failed.

 

The truth is that you (small racing sailboat) are a sitting duck out there at current. Nothing is mandated. Is the ship monitoring AIS? Does the equipment work? Is the Captian drunk? Is the sailboat monitoring, etc. Is a mandate enforceable and how long would it take to get up and running, etc? Can you see each other? These accidents are waiting to happen...

 

AIS is not mandatory, correct?

 

In general if it was foggy, wavy or blowing 25 kts your in a shit sandwich with or without electronics. No ability to hear or see then ship or its barge or towcable until way too late. Replace fog with night and its nearly as dire. We all know radar reflectors are useless.

 

So what is going to happen? Answer...nothing until this happens again, and likely yet again.

 

Some kind of low cost, easy to use and highly reliable technology is needed to prevent these highly preventable accidents.

 

For f sake...I get it...AIS requires no radar. Fine....

 

LS,

 

Do you actually any REAL information that the boat that was crushed to bits had AIS and somehow didn't know how to use it, or are you blowing stuff out some orifice like your incorrect earlier remark about AIS requiring RADAR?

 

Look, I'm all for folks having AIS, it really works extremely well and does NOT require a RADAR unit to function. It is a lot easier to use if it's linked to a chart plotter, which will display the course and speed of each AIS transmitter equipped vessel nearby. But even a child can use AIS with a paper chart, a straight edge and a protractor. For that matter, one can link the AIS that works with my system to my iPhone and iPad and have pretty color pictures of where everyone (who has a transmitter) is located and where they are going, the name of their ship, what their last port was ask what port they're headed to. Again, that isn't necessary, just nice to have.

 

I have flown sailplanes and things happened MUCH more quickly there. Perhaps FLARM is better there, I have never seen one. I tend to look out the windows when flying, just as when I'm driving. On the ocean, between one object moving at about 5 knots and another moving at about 20 knots there is plenty of time to draw lines on paper charts and see if there's going to be a close pass or collision. Sure folks don't see each other sometimes, but the problem is NOT that things are happening too fast. There is plenty of time to get out of the way of a 20k ships, and most don't move that quickly.

 

What I believe we on this "chat room" actually know about this accident is that the boat is in small pieces, three people are dead, one person is missing, and that the USCG hasn't released any additional information because they don't know anything more. All the rest of this, like your supposition that AIS is too hard to use and that in some way that is proven by the "3 dead bodies and another person missing" is just goof balls on SA making shit up - pretty normal behavior for this place. But, seriously, when you don't know if the boat even had AIS, why in the world would you use it as "evidence" that AIS has "got some kinks."

 

Why don't folks take a deep breath and make SOME attempt to stick to facts - I know it's SA and I know that's asking a lot.

 

My heart goes out to anyone who knew these folks and stumbles into this place and this discussion. Hopefully, someone will warn them off or the first one in will let them know what a bunch of clods we are.

 

BV

 

 

 

So why are there 3 dead bodies and another person missing? Apparently it's got some kinks. Does AIS work well enough for the ship and the sailboat? Not everyone is a rocket scientist. It needs to be, and should be, brutally simple for both parties to identify each other and avoid. The current standard seems to have a flaw...

<