Archived

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

PaulinVictoria

Team Vestas grounded

Recommended Posts

I spent half an hour preparing a reply to this topic but decided to erase it all.

Thank you alcoholfunnycar (?) for doing the job for me ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the off chance that anyone off the boat actually wades through the crap on this thread, I'd just like to say that the crew of Vestas to a man, have handled themselves with courage and honesty throughout this whole incident. Because of that, sailors everywhere will have an opportunity to learn and improve the management of our boats, whether we sail alone, as skipper, navigator or crew.

 

I wish I could say the same for some of the posters on this thread, whose childish whining and instant judgement will prevent them from learning anything. To learn something, you actually have to listen, and the statements of the Vestas crew are a great place to start.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future for the crew will come down to the people with the cash to fund future efforts whether AC or massive offshore efforts. The money folks will want the best talent or meat they can get for their efforts and money. How the skipper and crew handled themselves long before, during, and after will all come into play. If previous and current crew mates both on and off the boat want them back. They will be back! The better job everyone can do displaying and articulating what they learned from the disaster and how they put those lessons to future value the better. I remember when the saying was "the skipper who loses the NYYC AC Trophy will replace it with his head" was very common. DC lost it and his cash value went way up not down.

 

How many skilled and proven Volvo like team leaders, navigators, or skippers are there? If the community rates these two as A-holes they never wanted to sail with in the first place. We that story will not have a happy ending.

 

More specific if Nico can attracted funding and talent to work with him? Nico has a big future... maybe larger than when his command crashed on the coral. No following of cash willing to bet on him or great talent delighted to jump on the next boat with him may make the speaking circuit more attractive.

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.

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.

I think we may have the same opinion and be arguing over a language difficulty.

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.

 

 

There are no " idiots " on that boat or any volvo boat. In the wild off chance somehow an "idiot" did sneak onto a Volvo boat. That "idiot" would not be there for the next leg. These guys or professional sailors all now one another and all train at some point together before the start. The world of professional offshore sailing has no tolerance for eating, living, and sailing with " idiots" 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, on Plan2Nav which is effectively C-map, this is how it shows on my IPad.

 

Danish program too...

 

That's interesting...

 

Could you offer a bit more detail, what we're looking at there? Is that taken from anywhere near the area in question, or just a random example of the sort of "quilting" of different scales mentioned earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy saying "Check this out" is Tony Rae, he is with no doubt one of the most professional sailors I have had the pleasure of racing with.

 

Like Clean said, Nico is a very good egg and put together a team of incredible people to sail with.

 

Can we not support these guys a little more? We are all in this sport together and in a round about way we will benefit from the mistakes made and make offshore sailing safer for you and your families.

 

In the big-picture sense, the only thing lost here was a beautiful boat and a pile of money. Scrapes and bruises, and a ding to some peoples' reputations, is a small price to pay for highlighting a dangerous problem and bringing it to people's attention in a vivid and memorable way.

 

The benefits will mostly be invisible. But I think there's an excellent chance that Wouter's (and Nico's, because I don't think his role is negligible) mistake will end up saving boats and maybe even lives. It has certainly reduced the chances of any other boat in this race making a similar error.

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.

I think we may have the same opinion and be arguing over a language difficulty.

There's a lot of that going on here.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah matt.

 

This whole thing has touched me deeply as you can tell. i've known Nico for most of my (late blooming) career in sailing, and I feel a certain kinship to him after some pretty good conversations over the years. I've sailed with him on a bunch of different boats, raced against him in the Melges 32 Class (we lost), and every time we hang out, he blows me away with his wit, honesty, and openness, and he is literally one of my favorite human beings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now we wait for nico to say he's ultimately responsible & he blames himself.

 

Then there will be a press release from VOLVO to say they didn't plan to open the area up & in hindsight they shouldn't have etc etc

You say this like there is something wrong with it, and there's a level of unwillingness I don't understand at all both here and on Facebook to accept people's straight up apologies and admissions and explanations.

 

I cannot remember the last time this kind of admission of guilt happened in our sport, which is often plagued by the exact opposite.

 

If Volvo was imprudent to change the course, and Nico was imprudent to not double check Wouter, why the fuck wouldn't they admit it? And way, way more importantly, what is wrong with admitting it? Would you rather they pull an Artemis?

You've misinterpreted my post Clean. I applaud their honesty. Nicho is a living legend & I'm sure he & VOLVO will try to take as much of the heat off WOUTER as they can at their own expense because its all about teamwork & getting on with the job. Hey, we've all made mistakes this one is just very costly & public.

Ahh, ok Scanas - sorry about that. It's 0300 here, I've been working the Melges Worlds since 0530, and I still have an hour of writing and editing press releases ahead. In other words, my brain isn't working that well. Oh, and then I have to finish the front page...and I'm procrastinating.

Don't mean to be a bumlicker but this is why SA is my most visited site!

 

As a fellow Irishman, really glad to see Brian C doing a helluva job, even with his pants down. Straight on with the camera, "fucks" and "shit" and all... and managing to get all that footage across a reef and onto dry land. On top of that a huge weight of equipment and sails were moved yet they're all fine? Incredible willpower and skill.

 

Would love to see more footage post-incident and stories from the rest of the crew. Where they were at impact, what they were looking at on port, did anyone propose a change in direction....

 

considering the lengths of Brian's daily reports, we should get some great insight into how events unfolded.

 

Wondered who ordered Wouter's post to be removed? And did he have permission to put it up in the first place? Perhaps he knew it would be picked up by SA and posted it anyway?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits will mostly be invisible. But I think there's an excellent chance that Wouter's (and Nico's, because I don't think his role is negligible) mistake will end up saving boats and maybe even lives.

 

Maybe. Certainly highlights the need for thoroughness.

 

I am not involved with commercial aviation, but I understand they had a problem with people flying perfectly good aircraft into bits of ground, and that the solution was technological. What would a technological solution here be? Either charting focussed, or based on actual measurements from the boat. Forward looking sonar - with all the difficulties that has (far enough range for 15+ kts?)?

 

It has certainly reduced the chances of any other boat in this race making a similar error.

 

That's for sure. Certainly think that everybody is going to do very thorough scans for possible dangers, including looking in supposedly "banned" areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of us do not think anyone is an idiot and plenty have not called for anyone to be banned but still think the mistake is pretty damn stupid ;)

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?

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.

 

 

There are no " idiots " on that boat or any volvo boat. In the wild off chance somehow an "idiot" did sneak onto a Volvo boat. That "idiot" would not be there for the next leg. These guys or professional sailors all now one another and all train at some point together before the start. The world of professional offshore sailing has no tolerance for eating, living, and sailing with " idiots" 24/7.

I’m pretty certain that at the point the boat was bouncing on the rocks you could have found more than one person aboard who would have admitted to being an idiot.

 

I’m a professional in my field and I will admit to having being an idiot in my day to day job.

 

Anyone who doesn’t believe themselves being capable of being an idiot is either a liar or much more dangerous than an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Its gross negligence. It is an intentional and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care. Reasonable care is periodically checking the chart for the upcoming course of the boat. Whoever was supposed to do that didn't.

I have no doubt he WAS checking the electronic chart regularly.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't win races hitting things, so their strategy or Modus operandi or whatever you want to call it did not do well for them in the end. I have been on plenty of long distance races, but never on the paid professional level. I have been pretty well exhausted trying to keep up with navigation because at our amateur level there was only so many people that could do it to go around. I was wondering about how a VOR boat is run, not how to navigate a race in general. It appears this boat had basically one navigator and that was it. At 20 knots you can go a long way while he is sleeping.

As for rally cars, this wasn't hitting 11/10 instead of 10/10 and going in a ditch you knew was there or getting ahead of your navigator and taking a turn balls-out he should have called as a slow turn. This was more like going past a bridge-is-out sign and ending up in the river.

 

BTW - I wish nothing bad for the Vestas Crew. Not up to interwebs bloviators what happens to them. I would be happy if their employers gave them another boat and made a great come-back story.

 

 

 

 

 

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: Are these guys young enough to just know about DR and celestial on paper charts from reading Master and Commander?

 

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 - I just now got to see the video. It seems to me - and I could be way wrong -that going hard starboard on the first bang could have saved the day. The navigator said something like being in 40 to 80 meters depth on their charted course. Being in open ocean and having the depth come up to 40 meters of coral would have my FULL attention and then some.

 

But it doesn't prevent you from passing judgment. And yes it's all about boat-speed 24/7. IT'S A F...ING RACE.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that rally drivers put their cars in the ditch more often than the casual tourists. Even with a very concentrated co-driver.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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