Archived

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

PaulinVictoria

Team Vestas grounded

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

The question is whether he was grossly negligent in not knowing that a reef (particularly of that large size) could be left off the screen at certain scales.

 

or whether it is grossly negligent not to have the paper charts out at the same time throughout the race. (which I personally think is not workable with those boats' navigatorium setups)

What scales are we talking? In the Android navionics version I can see land right where they hit surrounded by significant depth contours at a zoom level such that it is 300 miles from one side of the chart to the other. This is gross negligence. If someone looked at the chart and saw those land specs surrounded by those depth contours and didn't bother zooming in, then it is recklessness.

For days we have had to listen to you and ateam foam at the mouth, shouting for a lynching as though any one who was actually involved in this owed your ritlan addled asses the time of day.

 

Wouter and Nico are stand up guys who both have taken personal responsibility in a very public way as soon as it was practical. There are innumerable differences between those two and the likes of you and ateam, but only one difference that matters in this context. I would be honored to have either Nicole or Wouter race on Dragon. Whereas I would not let either of you two clowns wash my decks let alone sail with me. Life is too short to spend with talentless finger-pointers.

 

Did I hurt your feelings for calling a spade a spade? You, sir, are a liar. I never called for any lynching. I expressly said that this isn't even about rubbing their faces in it. This is just about admitting that it was a fuckup, and not a "zoom problem" or a "course change" problem or a "depth alarm" problem or a "fatigue problem" or anything else. This was a "I should have been watching, but I wasn't" problem.

 

But then Wouter comes out and says it was a zoom problem and that his mistake was not having everything he needed to avoid this catastrophe. He had everything he needed. He is very lucky that he didn't get someone killed when they hit. They took the blow in increments. Those guys on deck not tethered in not wearing pfd's at night could have easily been thrown off that boat unconscious.

 

All that is needed here is a little honesty and responsibility. That is what big boys do when they fuckup. And, as you say, everyone fucks up.

 

I'm curious what your definition of "gross negligence" is. You do realize that it's a specific legal term with a specific meaning, right?

 

I know you're very invested in defending your previously stated opinion at this point. But when you write, "It is an intentional and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care," you're setting a really high bar.

 

Let's pretend we're in court. You've made that assertion -- that Wouter intentionally disregarded the need to use reasonable care. That is, at some point in time Wouter specifically said to himself, "I know it is unreasonable for me not to explore our track at high zoom levels, due to the possibility that we might run aground and lose the boat. But you know what? Fuck it. I don't feel like doing that tonight. I'd rather catch an extra 20 minutes of rack time instead." That's what you're asserting. That he made that choice consciously and on purpose.

 

Prove it.

 

With pleasure. Reasonable care is zooming into that area of the chart that he admitted to being shallow in the middle of nowhere. He did not do that. He intentionally did not do that. There are plenty of cases in court that involve far less of a breach of reasonable care than in this case. Let me see if I can find some for you.

 

Remember that this is not recklessness. Recklessness would be throwing bricks off of a downtown building during lunch hour. You didn't aim for anyone, but you had a reckless disregard for the safety of the crowd down below. Negligence would be if they hit an uncharted reef but had a ample warning with their depth sounder but no one was watching it and the alarm was off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished catching up on the latest 100 posts or so... a couple random thoughts about the latest thinking...

 

- Comments about Nico falling on his sword and bringing an un-named crew member with him... I don't think he fell on his sword at all. He said it's ultimately his responsibility, but then thoroughly set up the point that as skipper, he must be able to trust each crew member to do their job, and one crew member was essentially at fault for the whole thing. It appears to me that he's chucking that guy (presumably Wouter) on the sword and saying his only mistake was to trust that guy. I'm not judging Nico, as I think his feelings may be somewhat fair, and we don't know the whole story yet... I just didn't hear him falling on his sword in those comments.

 

- As a few people have said, most disasters aren't due to a single root cause. They're due to a series of events that come together to produce the end result. This wasn't a reckless, inexperienced, or stupid navigator. It was a chain of events. Will part of the conclusion be that the one un-named person made serious mistakes as part of the equation? Probably. Hard to imagine that isn't part of it. Is the zoom part of it? Probably. Is the fact that this happened in an area that was exclusion zone until shortly before the start, and therefore there was little time to research the possible hazards prior to the start? Probably. Given that the event happened a couple weeks after the actual start, should that hazard research have been completed aboard by the time they arrived? Probably. Was fatigue a factor? Probably. Were there other factors that none of us has thought of yet? Probably. Is there a single root cause that can explain the whole event? No way. It's a combination of events.

 

- Don't forget that Dongfeng almost did the same thing. As far as I can tell, the only reason they altered course at the last minute while Vestas plowed into the reef was that Dongfeng arrived before sunset. I'm hoping that when they do their root cause analysis, they involve Dongfeng to see whether or not there were commonalities in between the near miss and the brutal hit. I'm guessing yes, and those commonalities would likely need the most urgent attention because those would be factors that could imply continued risk for the remaining 6 competitors if not resolved.

 

Well said, brew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, you guys make it sound like they've "accepted responsibility" for being discovered dancing around a pile of dead puppies while wearing women's underwear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With pleasure. Reasonable care is zooming into that area of the chart that he admitted to being shallow in the middle of nowhere. He did not do that. He intentionally did not do that. There are plenty of cases in court that involve far less of a breach of reasonable care than in this case. Let me see if I can find some for you.

 

Remember that this is not recklessness. Recklessness would be throwing bricks off of a downtown building during lunch hour. You didn't aim for anyone, but you had a reckless disregard for the safety of the crowd down below. Negligence would be if they hit an uncharted reef but had a ample warning with their depth sounder but no one was watching it and the alarm was off.

 

Cool. I look forward to seeing your evidence. Please note, again, I'm not asking you to prove what Wouter did. That's not the issue I'm raising. I'm asking you to prove your assertion as to his particular state of mind when he did it. That is, that he was disregarding the need to scan at high zoom, thereby subjecting them to the risk of grounding, intentionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the real problem with this thread. Early on, we started posting that there is no excuse for professionals at this level to sail right into a well charted reef. To that simple true statement, we received a barrage of "arm chair sailors" have-no-right-to-comment-on-this-situation posts because we "don't have all of the facts." And, now I have even been personally banned from swabbing Rail Meat's decks. Now I have to come up with a whole new set of dreams and goals.

 

Here is the simple truth. Real professionals that made a huge mistake like this would not make the statements that have, so far, been made by this skipper and navigator. This is really easy. Here is what the skipper should have said: "I take full responsibility for this. Not only am I the Captain responsible for everything, but I should have also been looking at the charts as well."

 

The navigator should have said "I have no excuse. I just missed it. I had all the tools available and the best navigational software available to prevent this, but I just missed it. This should not have happened."

 

Instead, our captain said "Yeah, I am the captain, but I can't be micromanaging everyone all the time. I have to be able to trust that my guys will do their job without me looking over their shoulders checking their work."

 

And our navigator said "It was the zoom problem with software. I looked, and we had plenty of water. And, I didn't have the tools necessary on board to prevent this because we had that last minute change. If anything, my mistake was thinking that I had everything I needed."

 

If they just came out and made the suggested statements, would anyone have thought less of them? I think not. But the statements that they did make were weak, at best.

Fair points. Clearly Oxley and Sifi had the brains to keep the shoals on their radars. Both boats are on camera stating they were aware of it and had excluded it on their plotters. Perhaps someone on the Shore Team could have investigated the newly-available "exclusion" zone for dangers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With pleasure. Reasonable care is zooming into that area of the chart that he admitted to being shallow in the middle of nowhere. He did not do that. He intentionally did not do that. There are plenty of cases in court that involve far less of a breach of reasonable care than in this case. Let me see if I can find some for you.

 

Remember that this is not recklessness. Recklessness would be throwing bricks off of a downtown building during lunch hour. You didn't aim for anyone, but you had a reckless disregard for the safety of the crowd down below. Negligence would be if they hit an uncharted reef but had a ample warning with their depth sounder but no one was watching it and the alarm was off.

 

Cool. I look forward to seeing your evidence. Please note, again, I'm not asking you to prove what Wouter did. That's not the issue I'm raising. I'm asking you to prove your assertion as to his particular state of mind when he did it. That is, that he was disregarding the need to scan at high zoom, thereby subjecting them to the risk of grounding, intentionally.

 

I have no intention of getting into the discussion of which legal terms apply..., but...

 

In his statement, he basically said that he saw on the chart that the depths were 50M, and that he thought that would be fine.

 

well, that would be fine in some cases....

 

but not when you are on the ocean, and that 50M depth occurs where the water shoals from 2500M to 50M!

 

50M is _NOT_ ok in that situation!

 

50M should have been a red flag to him

 

Not investigating why the chart showed 50M in that situation is a big mistake!

 

Now, I am not saying he should be crucified, or that I have never made any big mistakes.,...

 

I'm only saying that he had all the info he needed to avoid this mistake.

 

Again, I believe that fatigue probably played a role - decision making suffers when fatigued, and I have experienced this myself while navigating - never with consequences like this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I read that by Wouter, where he is taking all the blame. That is admirable of him. It is the right thing to say, he is a class act, and so is Nicho. But this was a team failure. I doubt anybody on the team is laying all the blame on Wouter either. I'm sure they are all professional enough to know they all screwed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was my boat and I was paying the bills, I would be proud of their response after the crash, and the fact that I didn't have to notify a widow or two. Every body makes mistakes as we are human, but its only a boat folks, and after seeing their response to the emergency I would happily put them in a new yacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a several distance races in exotic water that was unknown to our team (mind you, nothing to this extreme). And in my opinion, while it certainly is always up to the skipper to be on point, it does ultimately come down to the navigator to be directing. But, that is just me..

 

It will be interesting to watch the rest of this unfold. I'm wishing all the best to Team Vestas. What a shitty thing to have happen.

 

-Weatherly J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just read some stuff here. Don't include me in a lynch mob. They screwed up, yeah, but all they did was lose the boat and exit the race. No one was hurt, no one was killed. They did get damn lucky (and they handled the aftermath like true pros), and luck still does count for something. Better to be lucky than good.

 

Ha, ask Dongfeng! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

So, not to be tiresomely repetitive, but this isn't the standard you've articulated in this thread. You've said multiple times that Wouter acted intentionally. I've asked you to prove that. What you're doing with this example looks like moving the goalposts, hoping people won't notice.

 

I'm willing to drop it, since at this point your failure to support the assertion of intentional disregard, and your offering of an example in which you specifically call out the truck driver's lack of intention, make it pretty clear that you're backing away from that part of your position. Which is good -- you should back away from it. It was a silly assertion.

 

As to whether the Vestas Wind case rises to a level that a court would find to be grossly negligent is an interesting question, but it's a long way from being proven. In the case you cite there was lots of evidence heard about the standard of care, and any mitigating circumstances that might have been relevant -- exactly the sorts of things people have been raising in this thread, but which you've been prone to dismiss with statements like this: "This is just about admitting that it was a fuckup, and not a "zoom problem" or a "course change" problem or a "depth alarm" problem or a "fatigue problem" or anything else. This was a "I should have been watching, but I wasn't" problem."

 

In the real world, things can be more than one thing at a time. This incident was definitely a fuckup. But it was also a zoom problem, and a (lack of a) depth alarm problem, and a fatigue problem. To assert that the universe can only allow one of those things to be true at any given time is, again, a fairly silly position to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is this thread done? We've got two groups of people shouting;

 

Group 1: The idiots crashed into an island and they should be burned. I'm not an idiot.

Group 2: The idiots crashed into an island, thank fuck it wasn't me this time.

 

We're all waiting for a little more detail on how they crashed into and island, but in reality we already know. On top of that they've already admitted they were idiots, what's left?

 

They already admitted they made a mistake. Which makes them anything BUT idiots.

 

Besides, there is a third category, by far the largest, on this thread: those who think that nobody on that boat is an idiot.

 

Here is the real problem with this thread. Early on, we started posting that there is no excuse for professionals at this level to sail right into a well charted reef. To that simple true statement, we received a barrage of "arm chair sailors" have-no-right-to-comment-on-this-situation posts because we "don't have all of the facts." And, now I have even been personally banned from swabbing Rail Meat's decks. Now I have to come up with a whole new set of dreams and goals.

 

Here is the simple truth. Real professionals that made a huge mistake like this would not make the statements that have, so far, been made by this skipper and navigator. This is really easy. Here is what the skipper should have said: "I take full responsibility for this. Not only am I the Captain responsible for everything, but I should have also been looking at the charts as well."

 

The navigator should have said "I have no excuse. I just missed it. I had all the tools available and the best navigational software available to prevent this, but I just missed it. This should not have happened."

 

Instead, our captain said "Yeah, I am the captain, but I can't be micromanaging everyone all the time. I have to be able to trust that my guys will do their job without me looking over their shoulders checking their work."

 

And our navigator said "It was the zoom problem with software. I looked, and we had plenty of water. And, I didn't have the tools necessary on board to prevent this because we had that last minute change. If anything, my mistake was thinking that I had everything I needed."

 

If they just came out and made the suggested statements, would anyone have thought less of them? I think not. But the statements that they did make were weak, at best.

 

you said...

 

"Real professionals that made a huge mistake like this would not make the statements that have, so far, been made by this skipper and navigator."

 

I note this is a race crew and race boat active in one of the most important races in our sport. Not fully crewed cruise ship or cargo delivery asset. Professional means something different here and comes with another level of goal, duty, responsibility, and crew competence or measure. When an f-1 or Indy car slams into the wall due to driver error. We do not jump to incompetence. Sleep deprivation and under-staffing is a known part of this endurance race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

I wouldnt use this as the best case example for gross negligence. Virginia is pretty twisted when it comes to all driving laws. I hate driving through that state as they fully intend to rape anyone that gets pulled over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

So, not to be tiresomely repetitive, but this isn't the standard you've articulated in this thread. You've said multiple times that Wouter acted intentionally. I've asked you to prove that. What you're doing with this example looks like moving the goalposts, hoping people won't notice.

 

I'm willing to drop it, since at this point your failure to support the assertion of intentional disregard, and your offering of an example in which you specifically call out the truck driver's lack of intention, make it pretty clear that you're backing away from that part of your position. Which is good -- you should back away from it. It was a silly assertion.

 

As to whether the Vestas Wind case rises to a level that a court would find to be grossly negligent is an interesting question, but it's a long way from being proven. In the case you cite there was lots of evidence heard about the standard of care, and any mitigating circumstances that might have been relevant -- exactly the sorts of things people have been raising in this thread, but which you've been prone to dismiss with statements like this: "This is just about admitting that it was a fuckup, and not a "zoom problem" or a "course change" problem or a "depth alarm" problem or a "fatigue problem" or anything else. This was a "I should have been watching, but I wasn't" problem."

 

In the real world, things can be more than one thing at a time. This incident was definitely a fuckup. But it was also a zoom problem, and a (lack of a) depth alarm problem, and a fatigue problem. To assert that the universe can only allow one of those things to be true at any given time is, again, a fairly silly position to take.

 

You are misunderstanding the required level of intent required for gross negligence. It is not that he intended to crash the boat into the rocks. It is that he intentionally didn't zoom in on that water that he admitted went from real deep to 20m or so. Or, he intentionally didn't check the charts thinking they were far from anywhere of concern. Frankly, I think it is the latter despite his statement that he looked and didn't zoom. That would be almost reckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

So, not to be tiresomely repetitive, but this isn't the standard you've articulated in this thread. You've said multiple times that Wouter acted intentionally. I've asked you to prove that. What you're doing with this example looks like moving the goalposts, hoping people won't notice.

 

I'm willing to drop it, since at this point your failure to support the assertion of intentional disregard, and your offering of an example in which you specifically call out the truck driver's lack of intention, make it pretty clear that you're backing away from that part of your position. Which is good -- you should back away from it. It was a silly assertion.

 

As to whether the Vestas Wind case rises to a level that a court would find to be grossly negligent is an interesting question, but it's a long way from being proven. In the case you cite there was lots of evidence heard about the standard of care, and any mitigating circumstances that might have been relevant -- exactly the sorts of things people have been raising in this thread, but which you've been prone to dismiss with statements like this: "This is just about admitting that it was a fuckup, and not a "zoom problem" or a "course change" problem or a "depth alarm" problem or a "fatigue problem" or anything else. This was a "I should have been watching, but I wasn't" problem."

 

In the real world, things can be more than one thing at a time. This incident was definitely a fuckup. But it was also a zoom problem, and a (lack of a) depth alarm problem, and a fatigue problem. To assert that the universe can only allow one of those things to be true at any given time is, again, a fairly silly position to take.

 

 

In the US Navy world the officers would be brought up on charges. At least one would be a failure to maintain situational awareness. They did not know they were close to shoals or land. Another charge would likely be the commanding officer's failure to be "on deck" near land, possibly the same with the navigator. In the commercial world a ship would likely slow steam in a safe area until the crew was able to get adequate rest for any challenging operations in their path. That is not racing...

 

If you really want to consider something... Should a ocean racing boat have the skipper, navigator, and a watch captain all asleep at the same time? Maybe we should have the nav and com station manned by someone with a boat traveling 19knts at night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Not that I agree with any of this but I think what he is saying is that "intention" is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

So, not to be tiresomely repetitive, but this isn't the standard you've articulated in this thread. You've said multiple times that Wouter acted intentionally. I've asked you to prove that. What you're doing with this example looks like moving the goalposts, hoping people won't notice.

 

I'm willing to drop it, since at this point your failure to support the assertion of intentional disregard, and your offering of an example in which you specifically call out the truck driver's lack of intention, make it pretty clear that you're backing away from that part of your position. Which is good -- you should back away from it. It was a silly assertion.

 

As to whether the Vestas Wind case rises to a level that a court would find to be grossly negligent is an interesting question, but it's a long way from being proven. In the case you cite there was lots of evidence heard about the standard of care, and any mitigating circumstances that might have been relevant -- exactly the sorts of things people have been raising in this thread, but which you've been prone to dismiss with statements like this: "This is just about admitting that it was a fuckup, and not a "zoom problem" or a "course change" problem or a "depth alarm" problem or a "fatigue problem" or anything else. This was a "I should have been watching, but I wasn't" problem."

 

In the real world, things can be more than one thing at a time. This incident was definitely a fuckup. But it was also a zoom problem, and a (lack of a) depth alarm problem, and a fatigue problem. To assert that the universe can only allow one of those things to be true at any given time is, again, a fairly silly position to take.

 

You are misunderstanding the required level of intent required for gross negligence. It is not that he intended to crash the boat into the rocks. It is that he intentionally didn't zoom in on that water that he admitted went from real deep to 20m or so. Or, he intentionally didn't check the charts thinking they were far from anywhere of concern. Frankly, I think it is the latter despite his statement that he looked and didn't zoom. That would be almost reckless.

 

The crime if there is one is the command was asleep near shore or in a dangerous area. Leaving the basic seamen alone on deck going about their assign task to note and say ... What the F... is that..............waves, surf?.............................. Bang!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

I hope your not a lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

I hope your not a lawyer

I hope you're not a grammar teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

I hope your not a lawyer
I hope you're not a grammar teacher.

Zing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you are demanding an explanation, as if Vestas was funded by tax payer's money. This is a problem between the sailors, their sponsors, and a lot of damaged coral. By all accounts Chris handled this brilliantly, and has a full and healthy crew to show for it. That's as much as you can ask for in a crisis such as theirs, regardless of how they got there. Time for some of us here to fuck off.

 

My hope is that someone on the crew or otherwise writes a book about this incident. I'd purchase that immediately. Even faster than a book by Rhimas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fault is singular and inescapable...I've stayed out of this waiting for more facts....not happy with the excuses me/we...we/me...The fault is singular and inescapable....zip it and take like a man !

 

Wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it likely that this much scrutiny is taking place onshore by the investigation and the powers that be? If so, I can imagine the biggest regret is not just losing the boat but also having to endure this process, publicly and behind closed doors.

 

Another question. To what degree is the VOR responsible? Will the question of whether the exclusion zone should have been lifted in the first place ever be raised? I'm not trying to shift blame. I'm wondering what the investigation process entails. It's kind of like removing the cones from a pot hole in an F1 race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Navy Runs Aground

 

USS_Port_Royal_grounded.jpg

 

 

Captain John Carroll was relieved of his duties and, along with the ship's executive officer and three other sailors, subsequently disciplined for dereliction of duty and improperly hazarding a vessel. After spending time in the Pearl Harbor shipyard for $18 million in scheduled repairs, Port Royal departed for the open ocean off Oahu for sea trials at 08:15 on 5 February 2009. The ship's fathometer was broken. At 12:01, the Voyage Management System's (VMS — an automated navigation system) primary input at the chart table was shifted from a forward Global Positioning System to forward Ring Laser Gyro Navigation, an inertial navigator. Three times the VMS dead-reckoned the ship's location, mistakenly reporting the ship's location as 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from its actual position. The error was not noticed by watchstanders. The ship was undergoing her first sea trials, including full power, steering and helicopter flight operation checks.

 

Capt. John Carroll, skipper of the Navy's guided missile cruiser, had
only 4 1/2 hours of sleep in 24 hours, and 15 hours of sleep over three
days as he pushed to get the warship under way after shipyard repairs.

Carroll was qualified for the job, but was not proficient, the report
said. He was at sea in command for the first time in nearly five years.

The 9,600-ton cruiser's fathometer, which measures water depth, was
broken, and both radar repeaters, or monitors, on the bridge were out of
commission.

 

A shift in the ship's navigation system led to erroneous information on
the ship's position. The switch from a Global Positioning System to a
gyroscope caused a 1.5-mile discrepancy in the ship's position and set
off alarm bells that were continuously disregarded.

 

During the transfer of personnel back to shore that night using a small
boat, the operations officer took a binocular bearing to the harbor
landing from the boat deck and noted a discrepancy.

 

He tried unsuccessfully to radio others and then headed back to the
bridge, where he immediately realized the cruiser was in the wrong spot.

Waves were breaking forward of the bow, and silt was visible in the
water.

At 8:03 p.m., the Pearl Harbor ship was "soft aground" with the bow's
sonar dome on the reef a half mile south of the reef runway.

Waves forced the 567-foot ship firmly onto the reef as the crew tried to
free it. "Backing bell" and "twist" maneuvers using one screw, or
propeller, failed.

 

The board found many equipment malfunctions and human errors - but said
there were enough working sensors and visual cues to prevent the
grounding.

 

"Bridge watch team, navigation, and (Combat Information Center) team did
not work together to assess situation and keep the ship from standing
into danger," the report says.

 

The safety investigation report, obtained by The Advertiser, said the
ship ended up shifting two miles to the east.

 

The officer of the deck had been qualified for only three months, and
had no experience operating at night in the vicinity of the reef.

According to the internal report, the quartermaster of the watch had
stood three months of watch on a deployment a year earlier, but could
not plot fixes in near-shore waters, so another sailor, a navigation
evaluator, took over to plot the ship's position.

 

The navigation evaluator subsequently lost "situational awareness,"
officials said.

 

Qualified lookouts were on board for watch duty the night of the
grounding, but they were working in the mess as food service attendants
and were not allowed to assume the watch.

 

Set and drift were not calculated, the report states.

Carroll, the captain, "did not receive forceful recommendations to
improve the navigation picture."

subject to change

 

Names were not included in the report, the purpose of which is to
enhance safety. The report says the information is still in the
endorsement process and subject to change.

 

Capt. W. Scott Gureck, a spokesman for U.S. Pacific Fleet, yesterday
said he would not comment on the safety board report.

Gureck said the report was not intended to be released to the public.

Norman Polmar, an analyst, author and authority on naval issues, said
the safety investigation reveals a series of red flags that indicated
that the Port Royal was potentially straying into danger.

 

"Three things should have caused an alarm bell in the skipper - no
matter how little sleep he had," Polmar said.

 

"One is if you are operating in that area without a fathometer, you are
in trouble.

 

"Item two, when you switch from one (navigational) system to another and
it shows a significant discrepancy, you are in trouble.

 

"... And the third thing is when the operations officer came in, what he
should have done is just dropped anchor right there (and) turned on all
the lights."

 

Polmar also was incredulous that Carroll, the Port Royal's skipper,
hadn't been to sea in command in nearly five years.

 

"That's the system that's wrong," Polmar said. "The system should have
said if you are not at sea in three or four or five years ... he should
have gone out in an identical ship with another captain. He should have
been a rider for a day or two."

 

According to the report, the Port Royal was in the shipyard since Sept.
24, 2008, for maintenance and repairs. It was originally scheduled to
leave dock Jan. 21, but the sea trials were delayed for two weeks, and
scaffolding on the bridge wing was not removed until 30 minutes before
the ship got under way on Feb. 5.

 

Carroll said he had 15 hours of sleep in three days before the ship got
under way, and admitted that he was tired and the subsequent small boat
operations added to his fatigue, according to the report.

Carroll appeared at a Navy hearing on the grounding and was given
"nonjudicial punishment for dereliction of duty and improper hazarding
of a vessel," the Navy said in June.

consequences

 

Carroll was relieved of his command soon after the grounding and was
reassigned to the Pacific Fleet staff. He was appointed captain of the
Port Royal in October 2008 and had commanded the frigate Rodney M. Davis
out of Everett, Wash., in 2002.

 

Along with Carroll, executive officer Cmdr. Steve Okun appeared at the
hearing and was given nonjudicial punishment for dereliction of duty,
the Navy said.

 

Two officers and an enlisted sailor appeared at a separate hearing and
also were given nonjudicial punishment for dereliction of duty and
improper hazarding of a vessel, the Navy said. Their names were not
released.

 

Damage to the Port Royal was estimated at $25 million to $40 million.
That does not include damage to the reef, which the Navy has begun to
repair.

 

Checks were commenced 72 hours prior to the under way. At sea, the ship
performed under full power, steering and helicopter flight operation
checks. Carroll spent most of his time on the bridge or in the Combat
Information Center, the report states.

 

To foster a "strong relationship" with aviation assessors, who were
requested on short notice, the ship's command added boat operations at
night to return the passengers to shore, the report states.

 

The earlier navigation shift in the ship's "Voyage Management System"
meant the Port Royal had a position error throughout its time at sea.
The bridge team did not recognize the input difference, officials said.

The report also said bridge watchstanders silenced or ignored alarms
calling attention to the position discrepancy.

 

The Port Royal is expected to remain in drydock into September for
repairs including the refurbishment of the shafting, running gear,
propellers, painting of the underwater hull, replacement of the bow
sonar dome and its internal elements, and repairs to damaged tanks and
superstructure cracks, U.S. Pacific Fleet said.

 

The Safety Investigation Board concluded that training was inadequate in
a number of areas.

 

Its recommendations included a supervisory-level navigation course, as
well as an "operational pause" of at least 96 hours between shipyard
availabilities and sea trials to ensure crews are adequately rested and
prepared for underway operations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been lurking in Sailing Anarchy for years and following this particular thread with great interest. I also realize that most people on here have forgotten more about sailing and navigation than I'll ever know. So I've registered today because I have a question.

 

Why is everyone so quick to exonerate the charting software with known zoom issues?

 

Did the crew screw up? Yes, absolutely, and I think they'd be the first to admit it. They had all the tools and knowledge at their fingertips to avoid this accident. Does it reflect poorly on their professionalism? Not necessarily. At the end of the day all human beings are imperfect and prone to mistakes regardless of how skilled and professional they are. If you're lucky your screw ups are minor and occur in private. If you're an elite professional the likelihood that your screw ups have major consequences and occur in a high profile way increases dramatically. Airplanes crash, race cars crash, doctors lose patients. It happens. The best we can do is to learn and adapt.

 

So if we accept, as a given, that all human beings will make mistakes then what do you do? You make the systems at their disposal more "idiot" proof. This isn't without precedent. The best examples are in the airline industry. After many fatal crashes, even ones due entirely to pilot error, the NTSB will mandate changes to the aircraft design. It's not that the design was fundamentally flawed, or inherently dangerous. It's just that the design could have been better, simpler and/or more clear in order to prevent or at least minimize the risk of human error.

 

Sailors that depend on this charting software for their safety should be pushing for improved design and interface. A design that doesn't make important, safety critical, information difficult to find or use and certainly doesn't have it disappear entirely!

 

Crucify the crew if you must but I won't take part in that. I don't think they did anything worthy of crucifixion. Lessons will be learned about situational awareness and crew management. But certainly, the manufacturers of the electronic charts should also be pushed to implement lessons learned as well. The end result will be beneficial to racers and cruisers alike.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Crucify if you must".....I have zero interest in anything other than Wouter morphing... me into we....stup up and take it like a man...

 

Agreed. Who is asking for crucifixion? When you crash a multi-million dollar boat into a well charted reef because you weren't paying attention you step up and say "I am sorry, I wasn't paying attention." Instead of "there were zoom problems, we changed course, I didn't have all the tools I need."

 

That's it. No crime involved. Just a big screw up that warrants personal responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Crucify if you must".....I have zero interest in anything other than Wouter morphing... me into we....stup up and take it like a man...

 

Agreed. Who is asking for crucifixion? When you crash a multi-million dollar boat into a well charted reef because you weren't paying attention you step up and say "I am sorry, I wasn't paying attention." Instead of "there were zoom problems, we changed course, I didn't have all the tools I need."

 

That's it. No crime involved. Just a big screw up that warrants personal responsibility.

 

I guess you missed this clear statement....

 

"I made a big mistake, but then we didn’t make any others even though there were many difficult decision to be made and the situation was very challenging and grave indeed."

 

 

There are many others in the community who want many more details. There is no practical forthright way to communicate all the details without at least the appearance of offloading or shifting blame. So far there has been no dodging of questions of even the appearance of unwillingness to share details. The race organiser intentionally underman the boats. That is both cost saving and part of the sport of it. Blame if you must have it will start with the boat and crew design and end with the master in command who took the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Crucify if you must".....I have zero interest in anything other than Wouter morphing... me into we....stup up and take it like a man...

 

Agreed. Who is asking for crucifixion? When you crash a multi-million dollar boat into a well charted reef because you weren't paying attention you step up and say "I am sorry, I wasn't paying attention." Instead of "there were zoom problems, we changed course, I didn't have all the tools I need."

 

That's it. No crime involved. Just a big screw up that warrants personal responsibility.

 

I guess you missed this clear statement....

 

I made a big mistake, but then we didn’t make any others even though there were many difficult decision to be made and the situation was very challenging and grave indeed.

Keep reading. He talks about his mistake being not having all the tools necessary. And more bullshit about zoom levels. Did you get to that part? He checked, and there was 42 and 80 m but he didn't make the entire crew aware of it. And he didn't zoom in, even if there were zoom issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

I dunno, some folks might deem it grossly negligent to cross the Gulf Stream without ever checking the weather as a matter of routine, or consider it reckless behavior to enter the channel at Bimini with 25' seas running in the Straits of Florida...

 

Not that the latter ever actually happened, would be my guess...

 

:-)

 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1955186-post8.html

 

jzk.gif?dateline=1381930527

jzk user_online.gif
Senior Member

 

Re: Miami to Bimini

I have crossed from Fort Lauderdale more times than I can count in my former Irwin 38. I also made the crossing in a Sea Ray 460 a few times. Last March, my girlfriend and I crossed from Miami to Bimini on two SeaDoo waverunners. I don't think we ever took weather into account when sailing. Sometimes we motored the whole way because the water was glass, and sometimes there were 25 footers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A debrief and lessons learned will be valuable for the fleet and the community. IMHO it can't be conducted within the isolation of a single crew, i.e. Vestas. For example, if there are systemic issues, i.e. crew fatigue, how is it addressed from boat-boat? Has the crew limitation created an unacceptable safety hazard on boats like the VO65? Are there systemic equipment problems, i.e. the mapping and charting/routing programs? What are they? Are there workarounds? We should ALL be interested in that aspect because we all use this stuff, even in our 8-10 kt lives. This discussion needs to focus less on individuals and more on process IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

I dunno, some folks might deem it grossly negligent to cross the Gulf Stream without ever checking the weather as a matter of routine, or consider it reckless behavior to enter the channel at Bimini with 25' seas running in the Straits of Florida...

 

Not that the latter ever actually happened, would be my guess...

 

:-)

 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1955186-post8.html

 

>jzk.gif?dateline=1381930527

jzk user_online.gif
Senior Member

 

Re: Miami to Bimini

I have crossed from Fort Lauderdale more times than I can count in my former Irwin 38. I also made the crossing in a Sea Ray 460 a few times. Last March, my girlfriend and I crossed from Miami to Bimini on two SeaDoo waverunners. I don't think we ever took weather into account when sailing. Sometimes we motored the whole way because the water was glass, and sometimes there were 25 footers.

 

Oh look, another liar. Where does it say we didn't check the weather?

 

That being said, have I ever committed gross negligence in.my life? Yes. Does that prove that these sailors were not grossly negligent? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure the entire crew of this boat are top people, just like all the boats. They wouldn't be there if they weren't. But the fact is, the team ran their boat on to a clearly charted island. It may be one person's fault more than another person's, it may be down to a systematic failure but ultimately it is a team failure. If the system failed, they were the ones who designed the system. The skipper, navigator, watch captains, helm, trimmers, all the way down, with varying degrees of responsibility didn't do a good enough job. These boats are seriously shorthanded, you can't compartmentalize and say, "well, that's not my job". You can't trust that someone else has got this. Likewise, if you are the skipper, it is your responsibility to recognize that, and educate your crew that all crew need to be engaged with all aspects of the race. They need to have awareness of the situation, the overall game plan, strategy and vital information, such as exclusion zones (i.e. land).

 

This isn't piling on, I feel terrible for them. It is a horrible event, I'm sure they are completely heartbroken. Their actions from that moment on are a huge credit to their professionalism, and couldn't have been more well-executed. But It doesn't change they made a critical, team-wide mistake. A major mistake, and they know it. I doubt we are going to see anybody throwing anyone else under the bus, it wouldn't matter anyway, nobody can absolve themselves. They are just damn, damn, lucky it happened where it did.

+1

 

Wouter admitted his mistake and Nico acknowledged his own mistake. No question about this or that shit happens, even to the best. No question about either ones professionalism or integrity or experience. No question they are genuine guys.

 

The skipper's responsibility is for the boat and crew. To a large degree he cannot babysit every man onboard but the route is different. The route is what wins or loses or ends the race (amongst other things). I don't think that any of the teams leave this decision ultimately to the navigator alone and in retrospect (and with some sleep) I don't think Nico did either.

 

It's possible that after a long fight through the TD, Nico did not scrutinize the charts like he normally did and trusted that Wouter had it under control. This was probably not par for the course, but they were all knackered, like many have suggested, and this step was skipped. Nico was tired and trusted his navigator. Wouter was tired and made a fatal mistake.

 

On a larger scale and in retrospect there might have been other things the team as a whole could have done to minimize or prevent this from happening. The other teams were fortunate to be able to learn from this experience unscathed.

In any bluewater race, as a competitor, you put your life into the hands of many, from your fellow crew, to the boat builder, the keel fabricator, the designer/engineer, spar builder/rigger right down to whoever prepared the food for the trip and assembled the water maker in China. If any one of these people doesn't do their job properly, lives can be at risk and significant risk at that. Can a skipper ensure that everyone in the chain has done their job 100% correctly? Absolutely not, but can he minimise those risks by having competent people/builders/fabricators/designers/spar builders/cooks/water makers on his programme? Absolutely yes.

 

The VOR is as much about the human aspect of this race as much as it is of the race itself. This incident is just another chapter in the human aspect of this race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What jurisdiction were they operating under? I see a Kongelig Dansk Yachtklub crest on their transom, so presumably registered in Denmark (Der). Does there have to be any form of enquiry? Not that it particularly matters.

 

Team-Vestas-Wind-Etapa-0-Foto-Ainhoa-San

Yes the boat is sailed under KDY

I believe the boats are owned by VOR and rented by the teams - nit sure where that puts the inquest responsibilities - UK or DK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"Crucify if you must".....I have zero interest in anything other than Wouter morphing... me into we....stup up and take it like a man...

 

Agreed. Who is asking for crucifixion? When you crash a multi-million dollar boat into a well charted reef because you weren't paying attention you step up and say "I am sorry, I wasn't paying attention." Instead of "there were zoom problems, we changed course, I didn't have all the tools I need."

 

That's it. No crime involved. Just a big screw up that warrants personal responsibility.

 

I guess you missed this clear statement....

 

I made a big mistake, but then we didn’t make any others even though there were many difficult decision to be made and the situation was very challenging and grave indeed.

Keep reading. He talks about his mistake being not having all the tools necessary. And more bullshit about zoom levels. Did you get to that part? He checked, and there was 42 and 80 m but he didn't make the entire crew aware of it. And he didn't zoom in, even if there were zoom issues.

At 19 knots the boat is moving at almost 10 metres per second, nearly 600 metres per minute and almost 36000 metres per hour. With the navigator having a (most likely well overdue) 40 minute cat nap or 40 minutes checking the latest wind and current data, you've sailed over the horizon and it can be all over. As the video shows, from Tony Rae saying 'check this out' and looking 200+ metres away, 25 seconds and 250 metres later, they're on a Volvo 55. It's not hard to see how this may have occurred and the combination of circumstances that lead to it.

 

It may be a lesson that each boat has a dedicated navigator in future editions or legs where there are a litany of obstacles on the route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

I hope your not a lawyer
I hope you're not a grammar teacher.

Zing!

Ha ha! A little mere negligence with my grammar. I take full responsibility for my actions, though. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Rennmaus was faster]

A new Inside Track episode containing more footage is up.

 

It contains a longer pre crash sequence starting 90 seconds before the first impact. Dissecting it may give additional insights, for example "We are passing over the top of some shallows right now, 40 meters deep" ~30 sec before the initial impact. Sounds not like it was expected.

 

Interview with Knut, takeaway is that it was not a technology problem. [As in not a systems failure leading to the crash.]

 

 

Edit: Length of pre impact sequence added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What jurisdiction were they operating under? I see a Kongelig Dansk Yachtklub crest on their transom, so presumably registered in Denmark (Der). Does there have to be any form of enquiry? Not that it particularly matters.

 

Team-Vestas-Wind-Etapa-0-Foto-Ainhoa-San

Yes the boat is sailed under KDY

I believe the boats are owned by VOR and rented by the teams - nit sure where that puts the inquest responsibilities - UK or DK

 

What funny coincidence: "KY" means Cayman Islands, and indeed, the boat is Cayman flagged.

"KYD" is the Cayman Dollar, "KDY" the Kongelig Dansk Yachtclub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nico in no uncertain terms needed to clear the air. Whilst overall responsibility lays with him the fault or blame lies with the Navigator. Anyone who can read simple English between the lines lingo should see it that way. I have no issue with it, I far prefer clean talking than Spin Doctored Bullshit. Air France crashed a few years ago because the Captain was asleep and the plane was being flown by Junior Pilots into a massive storm. Lessons to be learnt there and lessons to be learnt here.!

This accident did not happen due to a "massive storm", or because the Captain was sleeping. It happened because the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall. They could not figure out what was happening to them. Some days you when and some days you don't. You are very fortunate when noone is killed.

 

from Wiki:

 

Air France Flight 447 (AF447/AFR447[a]) was a scheduled, international, long-haul passenger flight, operated by the French airline Air France from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. On 1 June 2009 the aircraft being flown, an Airbus A330, just after 02:14 UTC, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. All 228 passengers, aircrew and cabin crew aboard the plane were killed.[2]

While the Brazilian Navy removed the first major wreckage and two bodies from the sea within five days of the accident, the BEA's (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile) initial investigation was hampered because the aircraft's black boxes were not recovered from the ocean floor until May 2011, nearly two years later.[1][3]

BEA's final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012,[4][5] concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements – likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals – caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover.[4][6][7] The accident is the deadliest in the history of Air France.[8][9] It was also the Airbus A330's second and deadliest accident, and its first in commercial passenger service.[10]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any bluewater race, as a competitor, you put your life into the hands of many, from your fellow crew, to the boat builder, the keel fabricator, the designer/engineer, spar builder/rigger right down to whoever prepared the food for the trip and assembled the water maker in China. If any one of these people doesn't do their job properly, lives can be at risk and significant risk at that. Can a skipper ensure that everyone in the chain has done their job 100% correctly? Absolutely not, but can he minimise those risks by having competent people/builders/fabricators/designers/spar builders/cooks/water makers on his programme? Absolutely yes.

 

Well said. As a single handed sailor, I sometimes fall into the trap of believing it's all on me, and most of it is, but when you think about it in the above terms, I rely on tons of people to get me to the finish line. Having the right team isn't just about being competitive, it's about survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the video added tonight (Inside track, Team Vesats Wind Special), it looks the crew listen something before the first hit, maybe the breaking swell on the reef.

 

My English is far from perfect, someone can transcript what is said aboard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like after they had the first impact they kept sailing for about 20-30s and then stopped dead. Only then did someone recognize "oh faak it's a rock!"

 

perhaps one of the boards or rudders skimmed a rock down to leeward and then they ploughed into the reef itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

jbc,

 

Here are some examples of Gross Negligence:

 

- a doctor amputating the wrong limb of a patient.

- a surgeon leaving a foreign object inside the body of a patient.

- speeding in a parking lot where pedestrians are walking

- forgetting to feed an elderly patient for several days in a nursing home.

 

 

Here is an actual case of gross negligence:

 

Alfonso v. Robinson, 514 S.E.2d 615 (1999).

 

Truck driver driving truck on three lane highway. The truck stalled and he was able to get the truck into the right hand lane. It was night time. The driver had the lights of the truck on. But not the flashers and he did not place flares on the road. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle crashed into the rear of the truck.

 

The alleged gross negligence conduct was not placing flares or triangles in the road and not putting on the flashers.

 

Jury finds defendant guilty of gross negligence. Supreme Court of Virginia affirms.

 

Truck drives know they are supposed to put flashers on and flares/triangles in the road. This guy just didn't do it. He forgot. He didn't mean to put anyone in danger. He didn't intend for anyone to be in danger. It just slipped his mind. He didn't think "I am supposed to put on my flashers and put out some flares, but, fuck it, I don't have time for that shit." He was just probably caught up in the moment of having a stalled truck and forgot.

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

I hope your not a lawyer
I hope you're not a grammar teacher.

Zing!

Ha ha! A little mere negligence with my grammar. I take full responsibility for my actions, though. ;-)

This sort of negligent incompetence will NOT be tolerated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"we are going over the top of some shoals now"...."40m deep" omg

 

That sure does add a new dynamic here. You go from 1000m to 40m and you know it. No one would check the chart at that point? And, I think that the camera man put that whole zoom thing to rest when he flipped through the zoom llevels at 6:03.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Rennmaus was faster]

A new Inside Track episode containing more footage is up.

 

It contains a longer pre crash sequence starting 90 seconds before the first impact. Dissecting it may give additional insights, for example "We are passing over the top of some shallows right now, 40 meters deep" ~30 sec before the initial impact. Sounds not like it was expected.

 

Interview with Knut, takeaway is that it was not a technology problem. [As in not a systems failure leading to the crash.]

 

 

Edit: Length of pre impact sequence added.

 

"Systems failure" isn't just whether technology failed, in fact usually quite the opposite. I wonder if this is part of why there's lines drawn on this thread.

 

It's often a case of: "these guys had all the technology working, but yet they still did x/ignored alarms/missed y (i.e. f'd up). How can we address the system they work in (and that includes changing the work culture/environment) to prevent human factors from f'n it up again"

In my area we are taught to trust our alarms and question/make sure they are lying to you before you dismiss them. Literaly told to "trust your equipment" but understand the situations where it can sabotage you.

 

Human factors research and design accepts that humans are fallible. Design the system (technology is only a fraction of this, it's the watch changes/navigator roles, etc) to catch the human failures in time.

 

What Nico's done in encouraging the recording is a) make this interesting for us and ensure a ROI for Volvo and his sponsors & B) salvage as much information to figure out why this has happened. It's obvious from early on in the vid that he was comfortable with the depth change and that it was expected (just as much that later the impact was not!). BCs initial thought might have been in his role of OBI but he's preserved a ton of info about timing etc so that if those laptops are toast some data can be salvaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some of us on this thread have actually got boats past reefs on dark and stormy nights with a 3 day old celestial fix, a knotmeter, and a dodgy RDF. Not all are commenting from the "couch of ignorance", unless we just don't get that now you see a picture of exactly where you are every second of the day you just are going to hit things :rolleyes:

 

My worst screw ups were when my relief had marginal skills and I just could not stay awake for days on end to keep after them. One tried to drive right through the middle of Kent Island, my future home - fortunately made of sand. I would think the VOR boats would not be so constrained by manpower, but maybe I am wrong. THAT is something I am not real familiar with. Are they all boatspeed 24/7 and leave all the nav work to just one guy?

 

EDIT - the Navy ship in the post above mine ignored warnings from local boats not to keep going :rolleyes: That skipper is driving a desk at best right now.

Some of us (me, in this case) have done that too and yet still put the boat on the bricks. I have 47,000 people who have watched me do it on youtube.

 

Mistakes happen.

 

47,001.

 

Emma Creighton is a freakin' monster for being able to stay with the boat on that one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if Wouter had pressed the '+' button one more time if/when he was reviewing the route

 

That's one of the holes in the filters designed to catch problems.

 

Specifically: You have an electronic mapping system where detail is lost in a stepwise fashion with zooming. Just 1 more zoom would have identified this problem, but it wasn't used in this case (for reasons xyz) and so the error continues to the next filter that usually catches it; but once again missed & continues.

 

Swiss cheese model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

I dunno, some folks might deem it grossly negligent to cross the Gulf Stream without ever checking the weather as a matter of routine, or consider it reckless behavior to enter the channel at Bimini with 25' seas running in the Straits of Florida...

 

Not that the latter ever actually happened, would be my guess...

 

:-)

 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1955186-post8.html

 

<

blockquote>

>>jzk.gif?dateline=1381930527

jzk user_online.gif
Senior Member

 

Re: Miami to Bimini

I have crossed from Fort Lauderdale more times than I can count in my former Irwin 38. I also made the crossing in a Sea Ray 460 a few times. Last March, my girlfriend and I crossed from Miami to Bimini on two SeaDoo waverunners. I don't think we ever took weather into account when sailing. Sometimes we motored the whole way because the water was glass, and sometimes there were 25 footers.

strong>lockquote>

 

Oh look, another liar. Where does it say we didn't check the weather?

 

 

Oh look, another liar lawyer...

 

Oh, well... if my failure to appreciate the salient distinction between "checking the weather", and "taking the weather into account" makes me a "liar", then I suppose I'm guilty as charged...

 

Such parsing is especially amusing, coming from one who claims to have crossed the Stream out of Lauderdale - on more than one occasion, no less - in 25 foot seas...

 

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"we are going over the top of some shoals now"...."40m deep" omg

 

Whole new spin on it, for certain...

 

Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know whose voice that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imagine if Wouter had pressed the '+' button one more time if/when he was reviewing the route

 

That's one of the holes in the filters designed to catch problems.

 

Specifically: You have an electronic mapping system where detail is lost in a stepwise fashion with zooming. Just 1 more zoom would have identified this problem, but it wasn't used in this case (for reasons xyz) and so the error continues to the next filter that usually catches it; but once again missed & continues.

 

Swiss cheese model.

That's my point exactly. People are going to make mistakes, regardless of the level of training or experience. It is going to happen. I don't think that it's too much to ask the chart plotter designers to consider changes that would help minimize the inevitable human mistakes.

 

So due to human error, fatigue, ineptitude or whatever you want to call it, it is possible that forgetting to zoom in can cause dangerous accidents? Well since you can't fix the human to make him perfect then let's design some sort of system that doesn't make you have to remember to zoom in in order to provide critical data. I'm not saying the current designs are faulty or inherently dangerous. I'm not even saying that the zoom issue "caused" the accident. A human error caused the accident due to a failure to utilize technology properly. So let's change the technology to make it a little more fool proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More...

 

 

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but why did they block out portions of the audio on this extended video of the grounding?

 

Footage begins at 0:29 and we hear the video's audio plus some ridiculous, eerie tones that were spliced in

Then at 0:50, the video's audio cuts out for 4 seconds

At 0:59, it cuts out again for 12 seconds

At 1:21, it cuts out for 5 seconds

At 1:36, it fades a bit then cuts out for 6 seconds - in the other video, this is where one guys says "Check this out" and another guy says "What is this?" and they both go up to the high side to look over the edge.

At 1:46, it fades a little, comes back and that stupid eerie sound comes back

 

So we know there's audio on there that was cut from this extended version, specifically "Check this out" and "What is this?"

 

I guess we can assume there was other stuff said they don't want us to hear? 27 seconds of deck talk missing, can't all just be swears they wanted to clean up for the kids, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"we are going over the top of some shoals now"...."40m deep" omg

 

Whole new spin on it, for certain...

 

Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know whose voice that is?

Sounds a lot like Nico's

 

 

More...

 

 

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but why did they block out portions of the audio on this extended video of the grounding?

 

Footage begins at 0:29 and we hear the video's audio plus some ridiculous, eerie tones that were spliced in

Then at 0:50, the video's audio cuts out for 4 seconds

At 0:59, it cuts out again for 12 seconds

At 1:21, it cuts out for 5 seconds

At 1:36, it fades a bit then cuts out for 6 seconds - in the other video, this is where one guys says "Check this out" and another guy says "What is this?" and they both go up to the high side to look over the edge.

At 1:46, it fades a little, comes back and that stupid eerie sound comes back

 

So we know there's audio on there that was cut from this extended version, specifically "Check this out" and "What is this?"

 

I guess we can assume there was other stuff said they don't want us to hear? 27 seconds of deck talk missing, can't all just be swears they wanted to clean up for the kids, right?

Absolutely, noticed this myself. Is it in that 6m version posted on the Volvo press website Renn linked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"we are going over the top of some shoals now"...."40m deep" omg

 

That sure does add a new dynamic here. You go from 1000m to 40m and you know it. No one would check the chart at that point? And, I think that the camera man put that whole zoom thing to rest when he flipped through the zoom llevels at 6:03.

 

Has been mentioned here before, but this enforces my impression that they had absolutely no idea where exectly they were and what obstacles were around. So weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no one has an answer for - why no radar active with guard zone, why no depth alarms. Is this standard practice in these boats - seems to me it contravenes the Colregs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"we are going over the top of some shoals now"...."40m deep" omg

Whole new spin on it, for certain...

 

Forgive my ignorance, but does anyone know whose voice that is?

 

Sounds a lot like Nico's

>

More...

 

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but why did they block out portions of the audio on this extended video of the grounding?

 

Footage begins at 0:29 and we hear the video's audio plus some ridiculous, eerie tones that were spliced in

Then at 0:50, the video's audio cuts out for 4 seconds

At 0:59, it cuts out again for 12 seconds

At 1:21, it cuts out for 5 seconds

At 1:36, it fades a bit then cuts out for 6 seconds - in the other video, this is where one guys says "Check this out" and another guy says "What is this?" and they both go up to the high side to look over the edge.

At 1:46, it fades a little, comes back and that stupid eerie sound comes back

 

So we know there's audio on there that was cut from this extended version, specifically "Check this out" and "What is this?"

 

I guess we can assume there was other stuff said they don't want us to hear? 27 seconds of deck talk missing, can't all just be swears they wanted to clean up for the kids, right?

Absolutely, noticed this myself. Is it in that 6m version posted on the Volvo press website Renn linked?

 

It starts with "Check this out", the part before that is new in the "Inside Track" video. The sound outage could as well be a glitch of the mic. Maybe. Perhaps. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

I dunno, some folks might deem it grossly negligent to cross the Gulf Stream without ever checking the weather as a matter of routine, or consider it reckless behavior to enter the channel at Bimini with 25' seas running in the Straits of Florida...

 

Not that the latter ever actually happened, would be my guess...

 

:-)

 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1955186-post8.html

 

<

blockquote>

>>jzk.gif?dateline=1381930527

jzk user_online.gif
Senior Member

 

Re: Miami to Bimini

I have crossed from Fort Lauderdale more times than I can count in my former Irwin 38. I also made the crossing in a Sea Ray 460 a few times. Last March, my girlfriend and I crossed from Miami to Bimini on two SeaDoo waverunners. I don't think we ever took weather into account when sailing. Sometimes we motored the whole way because the water was glass, and sometimes there were 25 footers.

strong>lockquote>

 

Oh look, another liar. Where does it say we didn't check the weather?

 

 

Oh look, another liar lawyer...

 

Oh, well... if my failure to appreciate the salient distinction between "checking the weather", and "taking the weather into account" makes me a "liar", then I suppose I'm guilty as charged...

 

Such parsing is especially amusing, coming from one who claims to have crossed the Stream out of Lauderdale - on more than one occasion, no less - in 25 foot seas...

 

:-)

 

25 foot seas was on the way back to Lauderdale. Why is that so remarkable? It wasn't even hard. I would not even call it "bad weather." 11-12 in the sea ray was much more difficult.

 

We checked the weather constantly. We never took it into account in the sense that we went no matter what the weather was. We had jobs, so we didn't wait for weather windows.

 

Vestas crew were still grossly negligent. Now, it seems on a wider scale than originally thought. When they are in 40m, someone should want to know what is going on, even if they were briefed to expect it. When you sail, don't you always want to know what the depth is like ahead? Even with the Sea Do's in the Bahamas, I stopped often to check the GPS. No way would I be sailing along, notice it was 40m, and not be looking at a chart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

With everyone pointing at Wouter, I think he made it clear that more than one person is looking at the screens and that neither one of them, or none of them, saw the reef - for whatever reason which is yet to be determined.

Wouter said "we" but that doesn't necessarily mean shit, and it's a little ridiculous for you to be parsing words like that. First, english is his third or fourth language. Second, he's been on a rock for three days and now he's on a slightly more luxurious rock. He still has no possessions. And he is closer to his team than he ever has been. So yeah, he's gonna use "we" for a lot of things that you might not.

 

He seemed to accept the responsibility very damned well, and I don't see shit in the way of excuses. What I do see is a guy that genuinely addressed the questioning and criticism he saw online, answering the question exactly the way a sailor would hope he would, and seeking to learn more.

Perfectly said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

With everyone pointing at Wouter, I think he made it clear that more than one person is looking at the screens and that neither one of them, or none of them, saw the reef - for whatever reason which is yet to be determined.

Wouter said "we" but that doesn't necessarily mean shit, and it's a little ridiculous for you to be parsing words like that. First, english is his third or fourth language. Second, he's been on a rock for three days and now he's on a slightly more luxurious rock. He still has no possessions. And he is closer to his team than he ever has been. So yeah, he's gonna use "we" for a lot of things that you might not.

 

He seemed to accept the responsibility very damned well, and I don't see shit in the way of excuses. What I do see is a guy that genuinely addressed the questioning and criticism he saw online, answering the question exactly the way a sailor would hope he would, and seeking to learn more.

Perfectly said.

Yes could not agree more, sailed with him for many years when he was starting his sailing career. He certainly is not the person to walk away from his responsibilities.

And his Facebook post showed that. He is a great sailor and navigator and an even better person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these professionals could wreck their boat, endanger their lives, and create this much controversy based on "one more click of the zoom button," then so could ANY of us. The whole point of technology and manufactured systems is to improve safety and reduce the incidence of devastating results of human error, which is a constant possibility, no matter the size of one's ego or experience.

 

For us to merely expect the skipper and the navigator to admit responsibility isn't enough. If you stop there, if the explanation stops there, NOTHING is accomplished. It would be a real lost opportunity for us all if the crew of Vestas and VOR limit the flow of information from the accident investigation to the sailing population of the world. We need to know much more than that the skipper and the navigator are at fault... we knew that from the moment the boat was aground, and it is still the LEAST informative or useful result.

 

I want to know about zooming issues, and I want the software and hardware engineers to be forced to improve their navigational devices so that this sort of "never event" happens much less rarely when the software is used normally. Market forces driven by a well-informed customer base could make this happen. Three of seven boats commented how easily this accident could have happened, two had human systems which prevented the accident, but were also aided by luck; there were better visibility conditions when they encountered the reef.

 

I'd like to know how (or if) a boat with a canting keel can accomplish a crash-tack or crash-jybe maneuver, how it could be done most expeditiously, and the pitfalls of such maneuvers.

 

I'd like to hear about the race management decision to open up vast new areas of the Indian Ocean to the racers, and if they anticipated navigational and leadership challenges from such a decision. Do they feel they give enough advance notice, and did they make additional tools or advice available, or do they feel the professionalism of the racers was such that they didn't need their hands held?

 

What are the numbers? How many gallons of fuel, lubricants, toxins was the reef spared? Were they concerned about barracudas and sharks, and continue with a plan to mitigate danger; how much bravery did they show during this phase of the aftermath? How did they determine the best evacuation plan?

 

The last thing I want is for the skipper and the navigator to simply say they were at fault, and then no more. That would be the least useful and most frustrating thing imaginable! Seamanship is not just staying out of trouble, it is dealing with trouble once it has occurred on the water. There are stories, a wealth of experience, and treasure trove of information here if we open our eyes and remain curious, nonjudgemental and supportive.

 

I really, really hope that the Vestas skipper and crew view SA as a truly inquisitive and friendly bunch of fellow sailors who sincerely want to learn from their hard-earned lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy. You need to understand that in order to give you the exact circumstances the reasons given would have to be highly plausible. If they aren't, then when average folks set out to replicate what you describe as being the root cause, it would pin down reality. Better to leave a few questions floating around, complain about not having the tools, endorse a popular theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

More...

 

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but why did they block out portions of the audio on this extended video of the grounding?

 

Footage begins at 0:29 and we hear the video's audio plus some ridiculous, eerie tones that were spliced in

Then at 0:50, the video's audio cuts out for 4 seconds

At 0:59, it cuts out again for 12 seconds

At 1:21, it cuts out for 5 seconds

At 1:36, it fades a bit then cuts out for 6 seconds - in the other video, this is where one guys says "Check this out" and another guy says "What is this?" and they both go up to the high side to look over the edge.

At 1:46, it fades a little, comes back and that stupid eerie sound comes back

 

So we know there's audio on there that was cut from this extended version, specifically "Check this out" and "What is this?"

 

I guess we can assume there was other stuff said they don't want us to hear? 27 seconds of deck talk missing, can't all just be swears they wanted to clean up for the kids, right?

My guess is it's edited for legal and insurance reasons.

 

Another possibility is that the "stupid eerie" sound effects and the dropped-out audio from the crew were both part of the same editorial decision-making process, aimed at "spicing up" the footage, making it more compelling or exciting or dumbing it down for the mainstream audience or something. I'm not saying it succeeded if so; I had the same reaction to the sound effects you did, and if someone took out the voices because they felt they got in the way of an intended storyline, I don't think it worked. It actually reminds me a little of my least-favorite directing choice from a week or two ago: the seasick/drunken cam in Alicante. Presumably these are the same people making the editing decisions. They may just have a relatively heavy hand and an underdeveloped appreciation of the value of telling the story straight, so things like snippets of dialog during the crash were deemed expendable.

 

I suppose it could also be that the earlier video's audio track was the one that was modified, with voices commenting on waves and whatnot having been spliced into it. Less likely than the other way around, though, I'd think.

 

One thing I keep reminding myself that this is all "reality" TV, where there's a rich history of stories being created/enhanced in the editing process, showing cutaways out of context and out of sequence, splicing in unrelated audio, and leaving things that might have promoted a different interpretation out altogether. Like when Nico was being interviewed in the rain about his responsibility as skipper and his trust in his team members -- that cut in the middle of the interview is telling. We're not hearing the questions/promptings that he's responding to, not hearing whatever else he might have said to qualify the statements they showed. (I realize that's been mentioned here already; not claiming this is any great insight on my part. Just mulling over all of it myself as things play out.)

 

The layers of filtering on the information we're getting are interesting, but hard to tease apart. There's what Brian (and others) have chosen to shoot. There's whatever editing happened at his hands, at the shore team/sponsor's hands, and/or at the VOR media people's hands. And yeah, at this point there presumably are high-up business types and lawyers getting into the mix.

 

It's impossible not to wonder about various conspiracy scenarios, because it's clear that the information is being manipulated, with the same stern camera footage now having been released in at least three different configurations over the course of several days. And then there are things like Wouter posting his comments on Facebook, then taking them down a few hours later, but meanwhile using his personal Twitter account to retweet a link to the Sailing Anarchy article that quoted it in its entirety. It's hard for me not to interpret that as his having been pressured to remove it, and his choosing to comply with the letter of the request/demand, while still wanting to have the information out there.

 

So yeah; there are multiple invisible hands at work. I guess I'll never know all of what's going on. Looking forward to Clean's interview with Nico and whatever comes out of the press conference in Abu Dhabi this weekend, assuming both of those things are still going to be happening. Hopefully those will help clarify things at least somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Imagine if Wouter had pressed the '+' button one more time if/when he was reviewing the route

 

That's one of the holes in the filters designed to catch problems.

 

Specifically: You have an electronic mapping system where detail is lost in a stepwise fashion with zooming. Just 1 more zoom would have identified this problem, but it wasn't used in this case (for reasons xyz) and so the error continues to the next filter that usually catches it; but once again missed & continues.

 

Swiss cheese model.

That's my point exactly. People are going to make mistakes, regardless of the level of training or experience. It is going to happen. I don't think that it's too much to ask the chart plotter designers to consider changes that would help minimize the inevitable human mistakes.

 

So due to human error, fatigue, ineptitude or whatever you want to call it, it is possible that forgetting to zoom in can cause dangerous accidents? Well since you can't fix the human to make him perfect then let's design some sort of system that doesn't make you have to remember to zoom in in order to provide critical data. I'm not saying the current designs are faulty or inherently dangerous. I'm not even saying that the zoom issue "caused" the accident. A human error caused the accident due to a failure to utilize technology properly. So let's change the technology to make it a little more fool proof.

 

Yes!

 

And then fix the other issues/the issues caused by the new fix, etc etc. Constant refinement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^knut Is working right now to do the right thing - pulling a team together to learn as much as possible from this whole incident (including the other boat's experiences) , and take a stab at new best practices and recommendations for both process and systems improvements to share with all sailors. I expect he will encourage this team to be brutally honest and open. He has an opportunity here to make some lemonade from this lemon but he needs (and knows he needs) to be completely honest and insightful and not have any smell of CYA at all. But that will suit him well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible not to wonder about various conspiracy scenarios, because it's clear that the information is being manipulated, with the same stern camera footage now having been released in at least three different configurations over the course of several days. And then there are things like Wouter posting his comments on Facebook, then taking them down a few hours later, but meanwhile using his personal Twitter account to retweet a link to the Sailing Anarchy article that quoted it in its entirety. It's hard for me not to interpret that as his having been pressured to remove it, and his choosing to comply with the letter of the request/demand, while still wanting to have the information out there.

 

Wouter had retweeted well before he took the FB post down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's impossible not to wonder about various conspiracy scenarios, because it's clear that the information is being manipulated, with the same stern camera footage now having been released in at least three different configurations over the course of several days. And then there are things like Wouter posting his comments on Facebook, then taking them down a few hours later, but meanwhile using his personal Twitter account to retweet a link to the Sailing Anarchy article that quoted it in its entirety. It's hard for me not to interpret that as his having been pressured to remove it, and his choosing to comply with the letter of the request/demand, while still wanting to have the information out there.

 

Wouter had retweeted well before he took the FB post down.

 

I haven't seen the post on FB, but could it be that too many a**holes demanded from him to "be a man", "confess", "commit suicide"? Understandable that you don't want to have that on your FB or Twitter account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's impossible not to wonder about various conspiracy scenarios, because it's clear that the information is being manipulated, with the same stern camera footage now having been released in at least three different configurations over the course of several days. And then there are things like Wouter posting his comments on Facebook, then taking them down a few hours later, but meanwhile using his personal Twitter account to retweet a link to the Sailing Anarchy article that quoted it in its entirety. It's hard for me not to interpret that as his having been pressured to remove it, and his choosing to comply with the letter of the request/demand, while still wanting to have the information out there.

 

Wouter had retweeted well before he took the FB post down.

 

Ah, interesting. I hadn't realized that. So leaving the tweet up might just have been an oversight, rather than an intentional act of routing around the deletion of the FB post. Or he just might not have cared either way. On the scale of things he's dealing with, I'm guessing it's pretty far down the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some feel the software folk have an obligation to design products thus to baby-sit the user. Others feel that software is only another tool and so those of us who need to be baby-sat should be expected to appreciate that all tools have limitations.

 

As long as there are tools available there will be folks who misuse them, fail to use them, or even ignore them either for the moment or altogether.

 

One should consider that once everyone on board thinks some tool or some shipmate is providing backup - there is risk that everyone begins to assume that the backup person or system will take care of potential problems - and so no one person needs to take the initiative to provide constant first line vigilance.

 

This case might prove to be a good example of how too much reliance on the notion that backup shipmates or backup technology will carry the day, militates against the idea that the first line of defense needs to be independent and constant human vigilance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^knut Is working right now to do the right thing - pulling a team together to learn as much as possible from this whole incident (including the other boat's experiences) , and take a stab at new best practices and recommendations for both process and systems improvements to share with all sailors. I expect he will encourage this team to be brutally honest and open. He has an opportunity here to make some lemonade from this lemon but he needs (and knows he needs) to be completely honest and insightful and not have any smell of CYA at all. But that will suit him well.

 

From the interview he seemed to have a grasp of human factors. It was good to hear.

 

 

 

 

It's impossible not to wonder about various conspiracy scenarios, because it's clear that the information is being manipulated, with the same stern camera footage now having been released in at least three different configurations over the course of several days. And then there are things like Wouter posting his comments on Facebook, then taking them down a few hours later, but meanwhile using his personal Twitter account to retweet a link to the Sailing Anarchy article that quoted it in its entirety. It's hard for me not to interpret that as his having been pressured to remove it, and his choosing to comply with the letter of the request/demand, while still wanting to have the information out there.

 

Wouter had retweeted well before he took the FB post down.

 

Ah, interesting. I hadn't realized that. So leaving the tweet up might just have been an oversight, rather than an intentional act of routing around the deletion of the FB post. Or he just might not have cared either way. On the scale of things he's dealing with, I'm guessing it's pretty far down the list.

 

The twitter feed is most likely automated. Not sure if recovering tweets is high up his priority list. It might have been legal advice I suppose, lawyers have a different impact on the whole human factors/root cause analysis thing. Or might have been VOR asking to hold off on falling on swords pending a full root cause anaylsis. Or maybe he saw/was made aware of people on this thread interpreting it as him blaming the software (though I expect wading through this is the last thing he wants to do right now).

 

Irrelevant really at the end of the day. As someone said: what goes onto the internet...

 

 

Some feel the software folk have an obligation to design products thus to baby-sit the user. Others feel that software is only another tool and so those of us who need to be baby-sat should be expected to appreciate that all tools have limitations.

 

As long as there are tools available there will be folks who misuse them, fail to use them, or even ignore them either for the moment or altogether.

 

One should consider that once everyone on board thinks some tool or some shipmate is providing backup - there is risk that everyone begins to assume that the backup person or system will take care of potential problems - and so no one person needs to take the initiative to provide constant first line vigilance.

 

This case might prove to be a good example of how too much reliance on the notion that backup shipmates or backup technology will carry the day, militates against the idea that the first line of defense needs to be independent and constant human vigilance.

 

Over reliance on technology is part of it. As is, at times, mistrust of new tech by luddites (is anyone going to dispute GPS is an advance on dead reckoning? Or airbags/seatbelts in cars?) Instead of throwing the new tech out, we need to adapt/modify it to reduce the chance of this repeating.

 

In some ways this is already happening. Grounding a VOR by such a well regarded team and in such a public way has probably done more to emphasise these zoom traps to the sailing fraternity than any education process could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think all remotely possible obstructions would have been outlined with racenotes before the start.

 

It's my understanding (and someone please correct my ignorance)....that this entire area had initially been part of a "no go zone" (how large a zone I don't know). Due to a developing weather system of some significance this part of the ocean was "opened" to transit... so I don't think that at the outset of this leg any of the crews could have planned for transiting a closed off area. All that planning would be done on the fly.

 

 

Is this a correct interpretation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Vestas Ocean sailors know that they are supposed to periodically check the charts for obstructions ahead, so that hitting them would be impossible. They also know to zoom in when they see appropriate information on the charts. They didn't look. They didn't zoom. They didn't mean to crash the boat. They were just caught up in the race and for one reason or another didn't perform these tasks that we all know should be performed to avoid running aground.

 

Gross Negligence.

 

I dunno, some folks might deem it grossly negligent to cross the Gulf Stream without ever checking the weather as a matter of routine, or consider it reckless behavior to enter the channel at Bimini with 25' seas running in the Straits of Florida...

 

Not that the latter ever actually happened, would be my guess...

 

:-)

 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1955186-post8.html

 

<

blockquote>

>>jzk.gif?dateline=1381930527

jzk user_online.gif
Senior Member

 

Re: Miami to Bimini

I have crossed from Fort Lauderdale more times than I can count in my former Irwin 38. I also made the crossing in a Sea Ray 460 a few times. Last March, my girlfriend and I crossed from Miami to Bimini on two SeaDoo waverunners. I don't think we ever took weather into account when sailing. Sometimes we motored the whole way because the water was glass, and sometimes there were 25 footers.

strong>lockquote>

 

Oh look, another liar. Where does it say we didn't check the weather?

 

 

Oh look, another liar lawyer...

 

Oh, well... if my failure to appreciate the salient distinction between "checking the weather", and "taking the weather into account" makes me a "liar", then I suppose I'm guilty as charged...

 

Such parsing is especially amusing, coming from one who claims to have crossed the Stream out of Lauderdale - on more than one occasion, no less - in 25 foot seas...

 

:-)

 

25 foot seas was on the way back to Lauderdale. Why is that so remarkable? It wasn't even hard. I would not even call it "bad weather." 11-12 in the sea ray was much more difficult.

 

We checked the weather constantly. We never took it into account in the sense that we went no matter what the weather was. We had jobs, so we didn't wait for weather windows.

 

Vestas crew were still grossly negligent. Now, it seems on a wider scale than originally thought. When they are in 40m, someone should want to know what is going on, even if they were briefed to expect it. When you sail, don't you always want to know what the depth is like ahead? Even with the Sea Do's in the Bahamas, I stopped often to check the GPS. No way would I be sailing along, notice it was 40m, and not be looking at a chart.

 

If only we were all as good as you are...

Have you ever sailed on a RACING yacht or do you just stick to your Sea Do's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at this level sailing does the helmsman have the authority to stick the boat head to wind? 19kts, someone notes we are going over shoals, other pros declare whats that..... when are the brakes in order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

e, or consider it reckless behavior to enter the channel at Bimini with 25' seas running in the Straits of Florida...

 

Not that the latter ever actually happened, would be my guess...

 

:-)

 

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1955186-post8.html

 

<

blockquote>

>>jzk.gif?dateline=1381930527

jzk user_online.gif
Senior Member

 

Re: Miami to Bimini

I have crossed from Fort Lauderdale more times than I can count in my former Irwin 38. I also made the crossing in a Sea Ray 460 a few times. Last March, my girlfriend and I crossed from Miami to Bimini on two SeaDoo waverunners. I don't think we ever took weather into account when sailing. Sometimes we motored the whole way because the water was glass, and sometimes there were 25 footers.

strong>lockquote>

 

Oh look, another liar. Where does it say we didn't check the weather?

 

 

Oh look, another liar lawyer...

 

Oh, well... if my failure to appreciate the salient distinction between "checking the weather", and "taking the weather into account" makes me a "liar", then I suppose I'm guilty as charged...

 

Such parsing is especially amusing, coming from one who claims to have crossed the Stream out of Lauderdale - on more than one occasion, no less - in 25 foot seas...

 

:-)

 

25 foot seas was on the way back to Lauderdale. Why is that so remarkable? It wasn't even hard. I would not even call it "bad weather." 11-12 in the sea ray was much more difficult.

 

We checked the weather constantly. We never took it into account in the sense that we went no matter what the weather was. We had jobs, so we didn't wait for weather windows.

 

Vestas crew were still grossly negligent. Now, it seems on a wider scale than originally thought. When they are in 40m, someone should want to know what is going on, even if they were briefed to expect it. When you sail, don't you always want to know what the depth is like ahead? Even with the Sea Do's in the Bahamas, I stopped often to check the GPS. No way would I be sailing along, notice it was 40m, and not be looking at a chart.

 

If only we were all as good as you are...

Have you ever sailed on a RACING yacht or do you just stick to your Sea Do's?

Why are you making this about me? Is it because you can't refute any of my arguments? The liar copied this from another thread. I didn't bring any of it up. And, yes, I have skippered a racing yacht before. 200 races at least. Even in the 2011 mac storm. But, still, what if I hadn't? There is absolutely no reason for anyone to sail a perfectly good vessel onto a well charted reef. It is a multi-million dollar screwup. They are lucky no lives were lost.

 

Anyone that pilots a bayliner ought to know to look at the chart for the depth ahead. No experts necessary.

 

And we are still talking about "zoom?" WTF? There was no zoom problem. Massive depth contours showing at all zoom levels.