Archived

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

phomchick

America's Cup Review Panel

Recommended Posts

[source: America's Cup] Regatta Director Iain Murray and Golden Gate Yacht Club Vice Commodore Tom Ehman will announce the members of an independent panel to review all aspects of training and racing of AC72 yachts in the 34th Americas Cup.

 

The panel will report and make recommendations to the organizers and the competitors.

The scope of work for the review panel will be detailed during a press briefing at Pier 27 in San Francisco on Tuesday afternoon.

 

Crucially, the review and report will be conducted independently of any organizer or competitor in the 34th Americas Cup.

 

From VSail http://www.vsail.info/2013/05/14/americas-cup-review-panel-to-be-announced-on-tuesday/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to keep everything having to do with thevaftermath of the Artemis accident here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwin it out there

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on them for showing the event live . It's highly doubtful that there will be any facts from the recent event forthcoming but at least we will know who the players are and what their areas of responsibility will be .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please record someone, I will be on the road. Thanks

 

 

Look --> here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT"S ALIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o

 

Right NOW ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not usually one to jump on someone about tone, but Tom Ehman needs to check his enthusiasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not usually one to jump on someone about tone, but Tom Ehman needs to check his enthusiasm.

 

 

"... best sailors ... iconic beauty... "

 

he's right on message as always, what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given her husband's involvement in AC, Sally Honey might prefer to recuse herself from this one.

 

Ehman now going on about the independence of ACRM. (at 1422 PDT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Im not usually one to jump on someone about tone, but Tom Ehman needs to check his enthusiasm.

 

 

"... best sailors ... iconic beauty... "

 

he's right on message as always, what's the problem?

Fergot his socks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would guess he is hoping for assurances that the risks will be minimised. I.e. he cannot with good conscience send his team into a situation that is know to be potentially lethal.

I think they will review the safety planning for the event and training days again, each team will go over their safety and recovery procedures again, incorporating any lessons learned from this.

But I expect that they might in the end say there is no inherent problem with the class, venue or the updated safety procedures - that in this case it was failure of engineering and/or risk management. [\crystal ball]

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Im not usually one to jump on someone about tone, but Tom Ehman needs to check his enthusiasm.

 

 

"... best sailors ... iconic beauty... "

 

he's right on message as always, what's the problem?

Fergot his socks!

 

 

oddly not today B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very far removed from both San Francisco and that level of professional sailing, so I can't say anything about the quality of the panel they put together.

 

BUT

 

I was shocked by how poorly that press conference was done. At times they appeared to forget who they were speaking to, or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok what did I miss?

 

First this

 

 

then on follow up questions this

 

 

but they meant this...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they really had for facts were that

 

A review committee has been appointed

 

The member names

 

The committee makeup was unanimously approved by the teams today

 

No teams have withdrawn

 

me: not sure it warranted a presser, maybe they just wanted to make it abundantly clear that they're serious about getting to the bottom of it

 

edit, during the q and a yes, someone asked about the Newcastle article and TE was not only well aware of it, he was emphatic about denouncing its accuracy - although without being specific over what parts of it. Also said in a reply that the German Team sailors still wanted to race the YAC but had lost their sponsor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

 

No, they (now) know full well they could have had a death in the OR PP and were lucky not to, and that that sort of PP could happen to any of the boats.

 

My take is they (now) think that a death (or two) is unfortunate, but an acceptable and normal risk of the sport and nothing to be too fussed about. I am stating that very very baldly but that's what I hear when I listen to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

 

No, they (now) know full well they could have had a death in the OR PP and were lucky not to, and that that sort of PP could happen to any of the boats.

 

My take is they (now) think that a death (or two) is unfortunate, but an acceptable and normal risk of the sport and nothing to be too fussed about. I am stating that very very baldly but that's what I hear when I listen to them.

 

 

Just like NASCAR and other high impact sports. Death and injury are limited only by the sponsors and their willingness to pony up $$$$$. The rest is lip service. This may appear to be a new crossroad for sailing.... But, when was the first time someone was hurt in a yachting race?

 

I do not see the likes of Red Bull ever pulling the plug.

 

These guys still find bountiful sponsors

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they really had for facts were that

 

A review committee has been appointed

 

The member names

 

The committee makeup was unanimously approved by the teams today

 

No teams have withdrawn

 

me: not sure it warranted a presser, maybe they just wanted to make it abundantly clear that they're serious about getting to the bottom of it

 

edit, during the q and a yes, someone asked about the Newcastle article and TE was not only well aware of it, he was emphatic about denouncing its accuracy - although without being specific over what parts of it. Also said in a reply that the German Team sailors still wanted to race the YAC but had lost their sponsor.

 

Warranted a 'presser' because what is happening is different to what was announced at the last one - perhaps.

 

Not sure it's accurate to say the German YAC team lost their 'sponsor', or do you know about their financial setup. If so apologies in advance.

The German Sailing Federaton withdrew their support is what was stated. Did that include financing, or was that coming from other channels? Hope the Team gets there anyway.

 

 

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

 

This was the gist of it to me.

 

A broken cable was just suggested, could fit. (Still a Taco!)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they really had for facts were that

 

A review committee has been appointed

 

The member names

 

The committee makeup was unanimously approved by the teams today

 

No teams have withdrawn

 

me: not sure it warranted a presser, maybe they just wanted to make abundantly clear they're serious about getting to the bottom of it

 

That's about all I expected at this stage. In line with standard inquiry practise they will first make findings of fact and then comment and act on those facts.

 

Looks as if ACRM is running a pretty tight ship on the way they handle this and thus far none of the teams has broken ranks. Nor would I expect them to.

 

Missed the live podcast and have yet to go back and listen to the content of Boo-Yah's post. Thanks for that, mate.

 

One interesting point is that the panel is "in-house" in regards to sailing safety, obviously looking for the best heads with expertise in this area. It's easy to see potential conflicts of interest. John Craig as PRO, Vincent Lauriot-Prevost for his work for Oracle, Jim Farmer for his directorship in ETNZ and Ian Murray as the guy who runs ACRM. And yet you can't argue with the credentials of any of the committee members.

 

For a full and fair report better I think, to rely on wise heads close to the subject. They can, and hopefully will, co-opt outside expertise as needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

 

No, they (now) know full well they could have had a death in the OR PP and were lucky not to, and that that sort of PP could happen to any of the boats.

 

My take is they (now) think that a death (or two) is unfortunate, but an acceptable and normal risk of the sport and nothing to be too fussed about. I am stating that very very baldly but that's what I hear when I listen to them.

 

 

Just like NASCAR and other high impact sports. Death and injury are limited only by the sponsors and their willingness to pony up $$$$$. The rest is lip service. This may appear to be a new crossroad for sailing.... But, when was the first time someone was hurt in a yachting race?

 

I do not see the likes of Red Bull ever pulling the plug.

 

 

Red Bull has no interest in anything "SAFE"

 

on the other hand I can't think of Anything "SAFE"

 

 

well besides

 

safe_sex1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nav ^ Right, I suppose 'support' could mean anything and that the German team still have a (different) entity for 'financial' support. But it was a minor point of the presser anyway, and just a response to that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

 

No, they (now) know full well they could have had a death in the OR PP and were lucky not to, and that that sort of PP could happen to any of the boats.

 

My take is they (now) think that a death (or two) is unfortunate, but an acceptable and normal risk of the sport and nothing to be too fussed about. I am stating that very very baldly but that's what I hear when I listen to them.

 

 

Just like NASCAR and other high impact sports. Death and injury are limited only by the sponsors and their willingness to pony up $$$$$. The rest is lip service. This may appear to be a new crossroad for sailing.... But, when was the first time someone was hurt in a yachting race?

 

I do not see the likes of Red Bull ever pulling the plug.

 

 

Red Bull has no interest in anything "SAFE"

 

Red Bull is the official sponsor of the kids

 

 

481052_347421095368921_1776084357_n.jpg

 

 

on the other hand I can't think of Anything "SAFE"

 

 

well besides

 

safe_sex1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so they know something 'informally', having talked to AR and confirmed by OTUSA - who were close by.

 

But they don't like hearing the TACO story... so what is it that makes them (well TE, 'cause IM looked miserable and beat) so cocky about getting back on track?

 

It has to be a special circumstance that only applied in this case and/or something they can mitigate to everyone's satisfaction.

 

 

Well, I think you're on the right track with your "special circumstance" supposition.

 

As for the demeanour of The Big Fella and TFE, not too surprising. Iain always comes off in public as slow, cautious and deliberate and he certainly can't be happy in his current role. And TFE's public speaking style invariably has me on the edge of my seat waiting for his next off-centre pronouncement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nav ^ Right, I suppose 'support' could mean anything and that the German team still have a (different) entity for 'financial' support. But it was a minor point of the presser anyway, and just a response to that question.

 

 

Some counties national sailing authorities organized and funded teams to show up for the youth trials. The German organisation STG sent a team that qualified. The Team qualified and is still qualified. The adults have decided they do not want their funded team to play anymore. The team is still qualified for a slot. Will they find another sponsor group or stick with their youth sailing organisation? The whole purpose of STG is to win more medals....

 

http://www.sailing-team-germany.de/en/team/youth-americas-cup/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DA-WOODY - you were supposed to hook me up with the press conference recording. Let me search the interweb for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ TE is better suited to events with different subjects from what this unfortunate one was about.

 

But I think that Barclay or about anyone else would also have struggled with the subject matter, as IM did too.

 

There's a bit of a problem when people with clear interests in promoting the event, guys like TE or SB or RC, also take roles in any affairs that should be more PR independent. Otoh, the result (appt of a committee with hopefully broad scope and power) may appropriately be being announced by a rep of the Defending Club even if that person were, as opposed to an optimist, instead an 'undertaker' (other thread..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

 

For someone that strives to be so PC, that was a major FU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does it mean racing will start 5th July or is that not confirmed yet (I saw a short clip and they were all saying the racing will happen "this summer"). I'd like to book plane tickets to SF soon so would kind of like it confirmed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I suspect of bias any comment of the troll, do we have a video of TE ?

 

 

What does this have to do w MSP :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I suspect of bias any comment of the troll, do we have a video of TE ?

 

 

What does this have to do w MSP :lol:

^^^^ only one GGYC troll here :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DA-WOODY - you were supposed to hook me up with the press conference recording. Let me search the interweb for it.

 

 

I posted a Video on how to capture it for your viewing later pleasures

 

I personally Love to see/hear TFE

 

Liked how he threw one at the curmudgeons who tried to derail the Event @ city Hall ;)

 

and when asked about the BS Rumors story, TE broke from character for just a Moment

 

showing a few cards of Ummmmmmmmmmm Let's Say "displeasure" :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

 

For someone that strives to be so PC, that was a major FU.

SR, where are you ??? You protect better SWS from me than oncle Tom from him :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

 

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

For someone that strives to be so PC, that was a major FU.

I think Tom strives (and succeeds) at being professional. I suspect he does not think much of "political correctness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Ehman full of dust?
He finally found an opportunity to be back in front of the cams.
Only one sure thing: having him choosing a panel puts independence far, far away.

Maybe it is time for the defender to adjust the rules to try catching up on TNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Ehman full of dust?

He finally found an opportunity to be back in front of the cams.

Only one sure thing: having him choosing a panel puts independence far, far away.

Maybe it is time for the defender to adjust the rules to try catching up on TNZ

 

You must have not been around lately , that wont be necessary :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replay just went up:

 

 

(how do you embed videos?)

 

Click on the Vid in YouTube

Right Mouse - copy URL

Paste in SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Replay just went up:

 

 

(how do you embed videos?)

 

Click on the Vid in YouTube

Right Mouse - copy URL

Paste in SA

 

As is obvious, that is precisely what I did. It works for me on other IPB forums, but for some reason not this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Ehman full of dust?

He finally found an opportunity to be back in front of the cams.

Only one sure thing: having him choosing a panel puts independence far, far away.

Maybe it is time for the defender to adjust the rules to try catching up on TNZ

 

Yup, that's exactly what this is all about.

 

Let me know when you land on earth.

 

Still carrying the skid mark from the two week delay in announcing the protocol two years ago ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Replay just went up:

 

 

(how do you embed videos?)

 

Click on the Vid in YouTube

Right Mouse - copy URL

Paste in SA

 

As is obvious, that is precisely what I did. It works for me on other IPB forums, but for some reason not this one.

tongue to the left!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

 

 

Because you don't think colloquial English(Spanish) is appropriate or because...

 

iStock_000005994644XSmall+taco.jpg ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

 

 

Because you don't think colloquial English(Spanish) is appropriate or because...

 

iStock_000005994644XSmall+taco.jpg ??

That's a taco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I were project managing this team, I would have a '3 step quick fix' program plus a fourth longer term step.

 

1. Identify the few most likely (80/20 rule) types of catastrophic failure and/or serious injury

 

In another thread I suggested: collision, bear away PP, MOB, foil failure, foil control system failure, rigging (including water stays) failure, and mast getting away while stepping

 

2. Dig into these few specific events, and figure out what can be practically done in the next 6 weeks to minimize their likelihood, There seems to be meaningful opportunities for each.

 

3. In the case that program #2 fails, and one of these events does occur, figure out what assets (on the vessels and for responders) would minimize the likelihood of fatality.

 

4. (longer term) figure out how to instill a safety culture into this AC (and hopefully more broadly sailing) by studing aerospace, F1 and nuclear sub safety systems and safety cultures.

 

The basic facts of the AR incident are actually already understood well enough for this committee. The remaining questions about the AR incident revolve around whether there was Negligence (in the design, construction, maintenance, or inspection of the vessel; or in the available Team/event SAR assets or response to the incident) . This committee is going to want to have nothing at all to do with that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I were project managing this team, I would have a '3 step quick fix' program plus a fourth longer term step.

 

1. Identify the few most likely (80/20 rule) types of catastrophic failure and/or serious injury

 

In another thread I suggested: collision, bear away PP, MOB, foil failure, foil control system failure, rigging (including water stays) failure, and mast getting away while stepping

 

2. Dig into these few specific events, and figure out what can be practically done in the next 6 weeks to minimize their likelihood, There seems to be meaningful opportunities for each.

 

3. In the case that program #2 fails, and one of these events does occur, figure out what assets (on the vessels and for responders) would minimize the likelihood of fatality.

 

4. (longer term) figure out how to instill a safety culture into this AC (and hopefully more broadly sailing) by studing aerospace, F1 and nuclear sub safety systems and safety cultures.

 

The basic facts of the AR incident are actually already understood well enough for this committee. The remaining questions about the AR incident revolve around whether there was Negligence (in the design, construction, maintenance, or inspection of the vessel; or in the available Team/event SAR assets or response to the incident) . This committee is going to want to have nothing at all to do with that question.

you are right estar, i have seen before on tv how such an inquiry should be run properly :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. (longer term) figure out how to instill a safety culture into this AC

Having attempted this task with commercial fisheries, I know the difficulties of trying to build a culture of safety.

 

You see evidence of these difficulties in fatalism nested in SOME responses to Simpson's death. Ah well, life is full of risk. You could be killed on the roads ... blah, blah ... so just get used to it! He died doing what he loved.

 

Like miners and commercial fishermen, too many sailors (some posting here) just shrug and have this "nothing can be done" attitude.

 

I can promise you TNZ is taking this very seriously.

 

When the AC72 was announced Grant labelled them "suicide machines."

 

Then we had the helmet argument where certain Aussie posters (here) acted like their pecker would fall off if forced to wear a helmet. In their view helmet advocates were "sissies." Real men don't wear helmets! Fortunately, many of you (quite rightly) condemned this macho attitude.

 

Ever since Coutts went through the wing, we have heard little about helmets. People just wear them - without any obvious damage to their masculinity.

 

With the Simpson tragedy and OR pitchpole as the backdrop, I hope this "independent" panel will look at Estar's post here and be very systematic about building a culture of safety.

 

It is easy to make technical (or equipment) changes (eg. bigger oxygen bottles, better knives etc). It is also easy to change wind-speed limits or the position of the race course. Building a culture is a much tougher proposition and it will be interesting to see how it works out.

 

[Postcript: I was once peripherally involved with an enquiry into a car ferry tragedy. A family was driving cross the ramp onto a car ferry when it left the dock. The ramp detached and the van tumbled into deep water. Despite the best efforts of divers, van occupants all died. Later, the enquiry spent weeks looking at equipment, workplace manuals and other "technical" aspects of the ferry operation. But, in the end, it was a cultural problem. For years, workers in that ferry company had been taking shortcuts. New employees who did not join the prevailing culture of negligence were leaned-on by older - "we always do it this way" workers. As a result of this incident, there were many changes in that ferry company. I do not think there is a culture of negilience in AC syndicates. If anything, it is the opposite. Even so, before trying to build a culture of safety, participants need to know what is meant by "culture." Yeah ... right!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts after seeing presser:

 

1. Tom dont touch my mic Ehman is good in these situations, loud and confident.

2. IM looks shell shocked. He probably needs a break. It maybe his demeanor but he does not instill confidence.

3. TE "enchilada" comment. Poor.

4. IM says report will NOT be who, what, when, where how? Whats the point then?

5. How likely are the teams to provide each other their trade secrets on material strengths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.airsafety.aero/about/

 

An active safety culture can be considered as the heart that is vital to the continuing success of an SMS [safety Management Systems] - it gives the dynamic energy needed to ensure that the system will provide a continuous cycle of improvement as intended. This can only be developed by leadership, commitment and setting a good example.

 

Safety culture can be seen as:

What people at all levels in an organisation do and say when their commitment to safety is not being scrutinised.

Accountable managers and nominated postholders should take a leading role in developing an active safety culture within their organisation, so that SMS becomes an integral part of the management and work practices of the organization - the way we do things round here. Senior management commitment is crucial and this needs to be demonstrated on a regular basis.

 

Dr James Reason has suggested that safety culture consists of five elements:

An informed culture

A reporting culture

A learning culture

A just culture

A flexible culture

 

In an informed culture the organization collects and analyses relevant data, and actively disseminates safety information.

A reporting culture means cultivating an atmosphere where people have confidence to report safety concerns without fear of blame. Employees must know that confidentiality will be maintained and that the information they submit will be acted upon, otherwise they will decide that there is no benefit in their reporting.

A learning culture means that an organization is able to learn from its mistakes and make changes.

It will also ensure that people understand the SMS processes at a personal level. In a just culture errors and unsafe acts will not be punished if the error was unintentional. However, those who act recklessly or take deliberate and unjustifiable risks will still be subject to disciplinary action.

A flexible culture is one where the organization and the people in it are capable of adapting effectively to changing demands.

Leadership is central to safety culture:

The highest standards you can expect from the people you lead or seek to influence are the lowest you exhibit yourself.

By ignoring low standards you are approving them - you are communicating the message that low standards are acceptable.

Leadership is the communication of the actions and standards you expect by words, deeds and silence.

If everyone in the company is trained to do their job in a safe manner and proactively looking for hazards you will then be approaching a new level of safety that is behaviour driven.

All the elements of a safety culture must be actively encouraged and demonstrated by managers on a regular basis to encourage all staff to participate if this level is to be achieved.

A pretty good SMS with 100% buy-in is infinitely better than a perfect system with 0% commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing US Sailing can (or should be able) to bring to this is access to the Naval academy and in particular training on the SubSafe program*. That would be an excellent place to start on my #4. In the worst case, even if the committee did not manage to translate/transfer any of the safety culture /safety systems thinking to the AC sailors, we would at the very least then have a core of committee members (including two key players in USS's internal safety at sea committee) who were educated on modern professional safety thinking (which quite honestly they are not today).

 

* See following for public primer https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/25776/file/3193/SUBSAFE%20Program%20Overview%20-%20Rev%2002.ppt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

at least someone told TE to take his shades off his head.

I found TE's "whole enchilada" remark as being very insensitive at this time of mourning.

Because you don't think colloquial English(Spanish) is appropriate or because...

 

iStock_000005994644XSmall+taco.jpg ??

(rimshot)

 

Nav got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10883875

 

Yachting: Change to wind speed rules could knock Team NZ

 

There was a sentence from America's Cup Racing Management boss Iain Murray yesterday that will have raised the heart rates of the challengers and maybe particularly that of Emirates Team New Zealand.

Asked what sort of factors the review committee (chaired by Murray) would look at after the Andrew Simpson tragedy, Murray said: "We'll look at when we sail, the times [of the day] we sail and the winds."

Murray also pointed out that the committee, formed to review the training and racing of the AC72 yachts after the Artemis capsize, would be looking at all relevant matters.

 

But there has been a worry the fatal accident might change the game, allowing some competitors to gain an advantage. Team NZ and all syndicates are maintaining their silence out of respect and because no one wants to be seen to be politicising the tragedy or pursuing selfish interests. Teams are also in a difficult position if they oppose changes made in the name of safety - especially after a death publicised round the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10883875

 

Yachting: Change to wind speed rules could knock Team NZ

 

There was a sentence from America's Cup Racing Management boss Iain Murray yesterday that will have raised the heart rates of the challengers and maybe particularly that of Emirates Team New Zealand.

Asked what sort of factors the review committee (chaired by Murray) would look at after the Andrew Simpson tragedy, Murray said: "We'll look at when we sail, the times [of the day] we sail and the winds."

Murray also pointed out that the committee, formed to review the training and racing of the AC72 yachts after the Artemis capsize, would be looking at all relevant matters.

 

But there has been a worry the fatal accident might change the game, allowing some competitors to gain an advantage. Team NZ and all syndicates are maintaining their silence out of respect and because no one wants to be seen to be politicising the tragedy or pursuing selfish interests. Teams are also in a difficult position if they oppose changes made in the name of safety - especially after a death publicised round the world.

 

That's an update of this earlier article from the 11th of May, word for word in places, and still raising the same concerns.... http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10883078

 

 

- No one in any of the teams is talking - out of respect for Simpson and Artemis - but there will be a great deal of thinking and talking behind the scenes.

 

- However, it would be a brave team that spoke out against such a move with the spectre of a fatal accident in the background.

 

 

Discussed on the box rule thread..

 

deleted bits

 

One of the articles posted went into possible outcomes from the enquiry. I didn't raise the point at the time because it is potentially very divisive, but you have touched upon it - so lets hope there's nothing to it.

The idea being that the findings of the enquiry/s and any recommended actions will possibly significantly reshape the competition* and that it would be difficult for emotional reasons for a team to oppose any suggested changes, even if they did not appear directly related to this horrible accident.

 

* assuming it even continues

 

deleted bits

 

Lets hope the cooperation continues through - or this could get nasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10883875

 

Yachting: Change to wind speed rules could knock Team NZ

 

There was a sentence from America's Cup Racing Management boss Iain Murray yesterday that will have raised the heart rates of the challengers and maybe particularly that of Emirates Team New Zealand.

Asked what sort of factors the review committee (chaired by Murray) would look at after the Andrew Simpson tragedy, Murray said: "We'll look at when we sail, the times [of the day] we sail and the winds."

Murray also pointed out that the committee, formed to review the training and racing of the AC72 yachts after the Artemis capsize, would be looking at all relevant matters.

 

But there has been a worry the fatal accident might change the game, allowing some competitors to gain an advantage. Team NZ and all syndicates are maintaining their silence out of respect and because no one wants to be seen to be politicising the tragedy or pursuing selfish interests. Teams are also in a difficult position if they oppose changes made in the name of safety - especially after a death publicised round the world.

 

The article is incorrect and I have emailed Paul Lewis to let him know and suggest he reads the Protocol. He has the incorrect wind limits. He quoted 3 - 33 knts when it is in fact 5 - 25 knts for the LVC round robin, 5 - 28 knts for the LVC final and 5 - 33 knts for the AC.

 

The Challengers know this and should have designed the boats knowing they will be sailing in lower wind limits first.

 

He was also incorrect in his comment that changes to the Protocol have to be unanimous. Changes to the Protocol are by majority vote, changes to the AC72 Class Rule have to be by unanimous vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the first meeting of the America’s Cup Review Committee on Thursday in San Francisco, teams have been asked to suspend all sailing in AC72 and AC45 catamarans until the middle of next week.

 

The Review Committee is scheduled to meet with the teams for the first time on Friday morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10883875

 

Yachting: Change to wind speed rules could knock Team NZ

 

There was a sentence from America's Cup Racing Management boss Iain Murray yesterday that will have raised the heart rates of the challengers and maybe particularly that of Emirates Team New Zealand.

Asked what sort of factors the review committee (chaired by Murray) would look at after the Andrew Simpson tragedy, Murray said: "We'll look at when we sail, the times [of the day] we sail and the winds."

Murray also pointed out that the committee, formed to review the training and racing of the AC72 yachts after the Artemis capsize, would be looking at all relevant matters.

 

But there has been a worry the fatal accident might change the game, allowing some competitors to gain an advantage. Team NZ and all syndicates are maintaining their silence out of respect and because no one wants to be seen to be politicising the tragedy or pursuing selfish interests. Teams are also in a difficult position if they oppose changes made in the name of safety - especially after a death publicised round the world.

 

The article is incorrect and I have emailed Paul Lewis to let him know and suggest he reads the Protocol. He has the incorrect wind limits. He quoted 3 - 33 knts when it is in fact 5 - 25 knts for the LVC round robin, 5 - 28 knts for the LVC final and 5 - 33 knts for the AC.

 

The Challengers know this and should have designed the boats knowing they will be sailing in lower wind limits first.

 

He was also incorrect in his comment that changes to the Protocol have to be unanimous. Changes to the Protocol are by majority vote, changes to the AC72 Class Rule have to be by unanimous vote.

 

 

The Italians at least see this another way. Those limits are around limiting the risk of missed TV time slots.

 

The Italians are complaining that you need to survive with a heavy air boat during July to win the LV then go one to race in lighter air against Oracle USA. I expect you will see a push to sail both events in lighter air now and at least under the same conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's what I'm expecting the LR presser will be about. Either demands for, or else assurances already given and accepted, related to safety.

 

I doubt very much they will pull out as long as they do get satisfaction across some number of safety aspects, even if not all of them.

 

AR might be calling for even more than LR at this point, who really knows; but it should come as no surprise if they do, it makes sense that they might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is expected that changes may be needed for the U. S. Coast Guard to issue the required event permit."

ttp://www.sailingsc...s-reservations/

 

I seems too late to change the AC72 rule, at least for major modifications, so what can they change if not the wind limits ?

 

Wind limits are governed by the protocol and the committee is supposed to respect the protocol:

a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the Protocol Governing the 34th Americas Cup (the Protocol) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol

 

If a competitor is not happy by a modification of the protocol they can call the jury.

 

 

 

Protocol:

 

16.COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Competitors shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of any city, state, national
or other governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Event or part thereof.
So, IMO, it is not sure it will be necessary to have the majority at the forum to change the wind limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the (by some here) speculation that the America’s Cup Review Committee is but a puppet = proved Wrong

 

I'd rather go for a ride on a AC-72 than have to be one of those tasked to put a SAFE Enough Stamp on the event

 

Any changes shall be impossible for "someone" to swallow

 

Regardless of how many sign-off as it being a Good thing

 

This All shows People Care !!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"It is expected that changes may be needed for the U. S. Coast Guard to issue the required event permit."

ttp://www.sailingsc...s-reservations/

 

I seems too late to change the AC72 rule, at least for major modifications, so what can they change if not the wind limits ?

 

Wind limits are governed by the protocol and the committee is supposed to respect the protocol:

a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the Protocol Governing the 34th Americas Cup (the Protocol) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol

 

If a competitor is not happy by a modification of the protocol they can call the jury.

 

 

 

Protocol:

 

16.COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Competitors shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of any city, state, national
or other governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Event or part thereof.
So, IMO, it is not sure it will be necessary to have the majority at the forum to change the wind limits.

 

I would say you are probably right. If they wanted to get something through and couldn't get it past the competitors committee*, they could always get the CG to make it a requirement of getting the 'Event Permit'.

 

But there is a lot more they could change than just wind limits and they have mentioned for example, the course itself - amend? move? (not sure how that would work with their 'villages' et al) and the start time of races. But it would seem that safety measures, onboard the 72s, on the team chase boats and as provided by ACRM, plus some extra training are going to be less controversial measures and may be 'enough'. But If I had to guess I would think the teams would be able to agree a few small changes to limits, timing and course as well.

 

* the idea that the challengers alone get to decide what happens in the LVC is often mentioned - I believe it was clearly stated earlier that the differing wind limits LVC vs AC were at the challengers' behest - but I can see nowhere in the Protocol that that differentiation is made. Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAN DIEGO Still has the America's CUP Light On :)

 

Safe enough for 90' Zillia's that don't fit under the Coronado Bridge

 

And the Livin is EASY B)

 

BRING IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is expected that changes may be needed for the U. S. Coast Guard to issue the required event permit."

ttp://www.sailingsc...s-reservations/

 

I seems too late to change the AC72 rule, at least for major modifications, so what can they change if not the wind limits ?

 

I doubt very much that the U.S. Coast Guard will make any demands regarding the AC72 class rule or the AC34 Protocol, so you don't need to worry about it. BUT IF THEY DO make such requirements, your legal posturing about a competitor running off to the International Jury to cry about it is absurd. If the USCG demands changes to the protocol before issuing an event permit, then the competitors have to agree to the change, period. No permit, no race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"It is expected that changes may be needed for the U. S. Coast Guard to issue the required event permit."

ttp://www.sailingsc...s-reservations/

 

I seems too late to change the AC72 rule, at least for major modifications, so what can they change if not the wind limits ?

 

Wind limits are governed by the protocol and the committee is supposed to respect the protocol:

a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the Protocol Governing the 34th Americas Cup (the Protocol) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol

 

If a competitor is not happy by a modification of the protocol they can call the jury.

 

 

 

Protocol:

 

16.COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Competitors shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of any city, state, national
or other governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Event or part thereof.
So, IMO, it is not sure it will be necessary to have the majority at the forum to change the wind limits.

 

I would say you are probably right. If they wanted to get something through and couldn't get it past the competitors committee*, they could always get the CG to make it a requirement of getting the 'Event Permit'.

 

But there is a lot more they could change than just wind limits and they have mentioned for example, the course itself - amend? move? (not sure how that would work with their 'villages' et al) and the start time of races. But it would seem that safety measures, onboard the 72s, on the team chase boats and as provided by ACRM, plus some extra training are going to be less controversial measures and may be 'enough'. But If I had to guess I would think the teams would be able to agree a few small changes to limits, timing and course as well.

 

* the idea that the challengers alone get to decide what happens in the LVC is often mentioned - I believe it was clearly stated earlier that the differing wind limits LVC vs AC were at the challengers' behest - but I can see nowhere in the Protocol that that differentiation is made. Anyone?

I agree that most acceptable solutions for the competitors would me:

- minimum requirement of strenght for key components like beams

- control and load test with Veritas

- requirement for safety and divers.

The problem would come if all the teams excepted TNZ were asking to lower the wind limits and it would be made as a requirement by the USCG.

 

However I would not be acceptable to disatvantage TNZ because they designed a seaworthy boat. The decision to sail should be taken by the captain depending on his assessment of the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"It is expected that changes may be needed for the U. S. Coast Guard to issue the required event permit."

ttp://www.sailingsc...s-reservations/

 

I seems too late to change the AC72 rule, at least for major modifications, so what can they change if not the wind limits ?

 

I doubt very much that the U.S. Coast Guard will make any demands regarding the AC72 class rule or the AC34 Protocol, so you don't need to worry about it. BUT IF THEY DO make such requirements, your legal posturing about a competitor running off to the International Jury to cry about it is absurd. If the USCG demands changes to the protocol before issuing an event permit, then the competitors have to agree to the change, period. No permit, no race.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, I should have added "however the article 16 of the protocol", as this is exactly what I say, the IJ, by the protocol itself, is over ruled by the local laws.

No permit in the US, no race in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Nice in DAGO Today = BRING IT !!!!!!!! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"It is expected that changes may be needed for the U. S. Coast Guard to issue the required event permit."

ttp://www.sailingsc...s-reservations/

 

I seems too late to change the AC72 rule, at least for major modifications, so what can they change if not the wind limits ?

 

Wind limits are governed by the protocol and the committee is supposed to respect the protocol:

a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the Protocol Governing the 34th Americas Cup (the Protocol) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol

 

If a competitor is not happy by a modification of the protocol they can call the jury.

 

 

 

Protocol:

 

16.COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Competitors shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of any city, state, national
or other governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Event or part thereof.
So, IMO, it is not sure it will be necessary to have the majority at the forum to change the wind limits.

 

I would say you are probably right. If they wanted to get something through and couldn't get it past the competitors committee*, they could always get the CG to make it a requirement of getting the 'Event Permit'.

 

But there is a lot more they could change than just wind limits and they have mentioned for example, the course itself - amend? move? (not sure how that would work with their 'villages' et al) and the start time of races. But it would seem that safety measures, onboard the 72s, on the team chase boats and as provided by ACRM, plus some extra training are going to be less controversial measures and may be 'enough'. But If I had to guess I would think the teams would be able to agree a few small changes to limits, timing and course as well.

 

* the idea that the challengers alone get to decide what happens in the LVC is often mentioned - I believe it was clearly stated earlier that the differing wind limits LVC vs AC were at the challengers' behest - but I can see nowhere in the Protocol that that differentiation is made. Anyone?

I agree that most acceptable solutions for the competitors would me:

- minimum requirement of strenght for key components like beams

- control and load test with Veritas

- requirement for safety and divers.

The problem would come if all the teams excepted TNZ were asking to lower the wind limits and it would be made as a requirement by the USCG.

 

However I would not be acceptable to disatvantage TNZ because they designed a seaworthy boat. The decision to sail should be taken by the captain depending on his assessment of the risk.

 

The talk so far has showed no willingness by anyone involved, AFAIK, to interfere with the designers prerogatives. I don't think anyone involved with past or present ACs would see that as anything but the death knell of the Cup.

I'm sure we won't see any of your point 1 or 2.

CC130122-006.jpg

© ETNZ by Chris Cameron - all rights reserved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the (by some here) speculation that the America’s Cup Review Committee is but a puppet = proved Wrong

 

I'd rather go for a ride on a AC-72 than have to be one of those tasked to put a SAFE Enough Stamp on the event

 

Any changes shall be impossible for "someone" to swallow

 

Regardless of how many sign-off as it being a Good thing

 

This All shows People Care !!!!!!

Well, you might want to re-read the Review Committee scoping document from GGYC, specifically Article 6:

 

 

6. Acknowledgment: It is understood and agreed by the Trustee, all Competitors, the America’s Cup Event Authority (“ACEA”) and ACRM that:
(a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the
Protocol Governing the 34th America’s Cup (“the Protocol”) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol;
(B) some recommendations of the Review Committee will require the cooperation and support of Competitors;
GGYC have just confirmed their Review Committee is a PR response..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well the (by some here) speculation that the America’s Cup Review Committee is but a puppet = proved Wrong

 

I'd rather go for a ride on a AC-72 than have to be one of those tasked to put a SAFE Enough Stamp on the event

 

Any changes shall be impossible for "someone" to swallow

 

Regardless of how many sign-off as it being a Good thing

 

This All shows People Care !!!!!!

Well, you might want to re-read the Review Committee scoping document from GGYC, specifically Article 6:

 

 

6. Acknowledgment: It is understood and agreed by the Trustee, all Competitors, the America’s Cup Event Authority (“ACEA”) and ACRM that:
(a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the
Protocol Governing the 34th America’s Cup (“the Protocol”) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol;
( B) some recommendations of the Review Committee will require the cooperation and support of Competitors;
GGYC have just confirmed their Review Committee is a PR response..

 

 

Maybe they hope for more...

 

 

Iain's #ac72 review committee assembles tmrrw. Wrkng on gvng thm sme real teeth @americascup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well the (by some here) speculation that the America’s Cup Review Committee is but a puppet = proved Wrong

 

I'd rather go for a ride on a AC-72 than have to be one of those tasked to put a SAFE Enough Stamp on the event

 

Any changes shall be impossible for "someone" to swallow

 

Regardless of how many sign-off as it being a Good thing

 

This All shows People Care !!!!!!

Well, you might want to re-read the Review Committee scoping document from GGYC, specifically Article 6:

 

 

6. Acknowledgment: It is understood and agreed by the Trustee, all Competitors, the America’s Cup Event Authority (“ACEA”) and ACRM that:
(a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the
Protocol Governing the 34th America’s Cup (“the Protocol”) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol;
( B) some recommendations of the Review Committee will require the cooperation and support of Competitors;
GGYC have just confirmed their Review Committee is a PR response..

 

 

Maybe they hope for more...

 

 

Iain's #ac72 review committee assembles tmrrw. Wrkng on gvng thm sme real teeth @americascup

Haha....nice find, thanks. He must be ordering them some dentures because at the moment they're gumming it :D .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that most acceptable solutions for the competitors would me:

- minimum requirement of strenght for key components like beams

- control and load test with Veritas

- requirement for safety and divers.

The problem would come if all the teams excepted TNZ were asking to lower the wind limits and it would be made as a requirement by the USCG.

 

However I would not be acceptable to disatvantage TNZ because they designed a seaworthy boat. The decision to sail should be taken by the captain depending on his assessment of the risk.

 

I don't think it is possible to specify a minimum requirement for beams .. their needs depend on the design concept .. Clearly OR's concept demands a different strength and stiffness to AR's or ETNZ/LR perhaps a peer review of the design by an independent surveyor such as Lloyds ..

 

What might be useful is load testing of the rigging , attachments and king post ties as they do for lifting slings hooks and chains .. it would just require an engineers certificate as to the predicted loads for each component .. the testing load could also be determined by the engineer as any arbitrary load might exceed the design parameters .

 

If my memory serves me correctly the test load for crane hooks is twice the safe working load ..

 

This type of testing is already catered for within the industry ..

 

http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/os/C/gear.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6. Acknowledgment: It is understood and agreed by the Trustee, all Competitors, the America’s Cup Event Authority (“ACEA”) and ACRM that:
(a) the appointment of the Review Committee does not alter or add to any responsibilities assumed and allocated by the provisions of the
Protocol Governing the 34th America’s Cup (“the Protocol”) or any other rules or document referred to in such Protocol;
( B) some recommendations of the Review Committee will require the cooperation and support of Competitors;
GGYC have just confirmed their Review Committee is a PR response..

Humm, the committee recommendations dont' have much teeth but the USCG would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites