Archived

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

PaulinVictoria

Team Vestas grounded

Recommended Posts

it sure looks as if they suspect something isn't right, the way they are looking to windward....

 

 

..someone to windward says... ''check this out'' ~25 seconds before they hit :(

 

 

the 'inside track' only shows 9seconds previous to the crash,while the other footage shows 25sec,,,the comment's at the beginning of the 25seconds.

 

 

 

 

......sickening :mellow::unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they are on deck looking around because they maybe can hear something ahead or maybe trying to get a glimpse of something. I don't think they had any idea they were near a reef and only after they hit something and saw a rock to starboard did they realize it wasn't say a UFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it sure looks as if they suspect something isn't right, the way they are looking to windward....

 

 

..someone to windward says... ''check this out'' ~25 seconds before they hit :(

 

 

the 'inside track' only shows 9seconds previous to the crash,while the other footage shows 25sec,,,the comment's at the beginning of the 25seconds.

 

I'm just uploading the original video to YouTube, but 213MB take their time. Will post link later...

Goodness, it hurts to watch it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

 

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

it sure looks as if they suspect something isn't right, the way they are looking to windward....

 

 

..someone to windward says... ''check this out'' ~25 seconds before they hit :(

 

 

the 'inside track' only shows 9seconds previous to the crash,while the other footage shows 25sec,,,the comment's at the beginning of the 25seconds.

 

I'm just uploading the original video to YouTube, but 213MB take their time. Will post link later...

Goodness, it hurts to watch it...

.

...none of you can get the original??

 

..it's in the small box to the right here http://volvooceanrac...c6-b1923e1e4340

 

..or direct link here... http://preview.thene...4139_358249.MP4

 

..''check this out'' and...''listen'',,,are heard right at the beginning,,25 seconds before impact. ...there's then 4 or 5 crew all peering out to windward...not much else until impact :mellow:

 

the 'inside track' comes in with the last 9 sec.

 

 

 

...I think I need to take my hat off **to the OBR on this one .

 

.......**....and eat it!,,after earlier comments on OBR's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shot of Nicholson wading out to his boat with nothing but hurt in his eyes will be the most haunting part of that whole thing.

 

Edit: isn't there a lighthouse beacon on the island to the left of where they hit? That would line up with the way they were looking and explain the "check this out"

 

Edit2: It fucked my mind to look at the transom of the boat sitting in the breakers and then watching the whole transom undulate over the top of a wave. Like the boats just mush. So much hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

 

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

.

 

......the least concern is whoever was at the helm--he's just pointing the boat where he's told!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

 

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

.

 

......the least concern is whoever was at the helm--he's just pointing the boat where he's told!

Would you like to have been driving at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

 

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

.

 

......the least concern is whoever was at the helm--he's just pointing the boat where he's told!

Would you like to have been driving at the time?

.

...more-so than being the navigator. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about ocean racing, but I was in the Navy and sometimes had to deal with emergencies at sea.

 

What I saw in that video was, after about 5 seconds of initial shock, someone calmly taking charge, making good decisions, giving clear instructions and everyone went about their duties.

 

Thoroughly professional response in every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

 

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

 

yeap, but not sure how this will come over. "Sure, I am the skipper, I take full responsibility, but I cannot control all my people all the time and need to trust them...". The navigator is going to get crunched. Maybe rightfully so..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about ocean racing, but I was in the Navy and sometimes had to deal with emergencies at sea.

 

What I saw in that video was, after about 5 seconds of initial shock, someone calmly taking charge, making good decisions, giving clear instructions and everyone went about their duties.

 

Thoroughly professional response in every way.

+1

 

Jesus christ that video is scary. Lot of fucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

it sure looks as if they suspect something isn't right, the way they are looking to windward....

 

 

..someone to windward says... ''check this out'' ~25 seconds before they hit :(

 

 

the 'inside track' only shows 9seconds previous to the crash,while the other footage shows 25sec,,,the comment's at the beginning of the 25seconds.

 

I'm just uploading the original video to YouTube, but 213MB take their time. Will post link later...

Goodness, it hurts to watch it...

 

Now for all to see...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

 

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

yeap, but not sure how this will come over. "Sure, I am the skipper, I take full responsibility, but I cannot control all my people all the time and need to trust them...". The navigator is going to get crunched. Maybe rightfully so..

Suppose you are right. It was a deliberate statement. A lot on the line I suppose.

 

There is the very remotest possibility the deck watch forgot to execute a gybe...on second thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeap, but not sure how this will come over. "Sure, I am the skipper, I take full responsibility, but I cannot control all my people all the time and need to trust them...". The navigator is going to get crunched. Maybe rightfully so..

 

Doubt he'll get publicly thrown under a bus.

 

Frankly, though, isn't it only human to be some percentage of pissed off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could hear Chris Nicholson yelling "Wheres Wouter!?"after impact. That says something I'd have thought....?

.

...yes...he's wondering where Wouter is :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't seem like the helmsman lost any steering after the first impact. Maybe only one Rudder at that point. They did keep going pretty fast and far into the reef before hitting hard and spinning around, keel digging in? What is the tidal range in that area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

it sure looks as if they suspect something isn't right, the way they are looking to windward....

 

 

..someone to windward says... ''check this out'' ~25 seconds before they hit :(

 

 

the 'inside track' only shows 9seconds previous to the crash,while the other footage shows 25sec,,,the comment's at the beginning of the 25seconds.

 

I'm just uploading the original video to YouTube, but 213MB take their time. Will post link later...

Goodness, it hurts to watch it...

 

Now for all to see...

 

 

Thanks Renn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope they take vare of the navigator, he must feel very bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

[ . . . ]

the other on GPS (which is less accurate near high coasts).

[ . . . ]

??

 

As long as the high coast is less than 15° above the horizon GPS will not be affected. With today's robust constellation a quarter of the sky could be blocked and you would still get a good GPS fix.

 

Technically, sky blockage to the south when you are at or near the North Pole could cause problems (lack of visible satellites) and similarly at the South pole.

 

Portuguese coast is high there, and at night taking the sextant out to see how high the coast exactly is a bit hard.

And I am not convinced by your explanation, could be that I am too stupid.

Doing a lot of mountain biking lately, in summer almost all gps tracks at barren high altitude in the Alps. And behold, the gps is way of often.

Or I have really done 200km/hr descending a Col.

And getting into forested area is even worse for reception.

I was talking about a marine GPS with an external deck mounted antenna on a boat in the ocean. On land, with an inexpensive handheld, in canyons and/or under forest canopy GPS can fail to get a fix due to multipath or not enough satellites visible. It's all about clear sky visibility, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so skipper never crosschecked the charts...? because he trusts so much....they did not have a clew they were aproaching a reef! And with regard to what many said here before: It is crossly negligent to go on an ocean race without paper charts! Electronics can all go bust /short circuit etc/ - the paper charts by the way nowadys very often are out of waterresistant paper - just for you "idiots" who dissed this before.

 

You can all just praise their professionalism or admit that in this crew something fundamentally was wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so skipper never crosschecked the charts...? because he trusts so much....they did not have a clew they were aproaching a reef! And with regard to what many said here before: It is crossly negligent to go on an ocean race without paper charts! Electronics can all go bust /short circuit etc/ - the paper charts by the way nowadys very often are out of waterresistant paper - just for you "idiots" who dissed this before.

 

You can all just praise their professionalism or admit that in this crew something fundamentally was wrong!

.

,,,clearly those blokes weren't on the friggen 'A-team',,eh :mellow:

 

...maybe see if you can get spell-check working after yer clean the spit from your keyboard <_<;)

.........or maybe you're 'clewless' :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did have paper charts - or at least the NOR demands team supplied paper charts for each leg.

 

29.4 Paper Charts: Appropriate for the course to be sailed, as well as a light list (paper or electronic) and plotting equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow Ren. Thanks for posting. Just… wow...

 

Horrible to watch the hit. Amazing no one was hurt. Some major tossing about.

 

Nico came up from down below - watch for yourself how he reacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem they did not come to an immediate stop. Most of the crew are still standing after the first impact. My only point of comparison is when I hit a rock at 6.5 kts (in a known area, known rock etc.) - it was a hard stop and it threw me across the cockpit and my crew was thrown from the main sheet to inside the cabin in less than a second. I would have thought hitting at 19 kts would be several orders of magnitude greater in terms of impact. Still the same utterly sickening sound though.

 

The crew reacted well. It does sound as if the navigator is going to get thrown under the bus at the end of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised the impact wasn't more forceful as well.

 

Looks like they were zoomed in. Someone must of done that afterwards.

 

Did a delivery last spring to Cordova from Seattle, with much of it on the inside, till we crossed the Gulf of Alaska. It was non stop speed run, to make it time for Alyeska SERVS drills in Prince William Sound. Did it in six days and three hours, with a crew of four. Two of our crew were new to the run. Four hour watch changes ended with a briefing to the new watch standers. Then standing by for 15-20 minutes, till we felt the new watch stander had the situation well in hand, especially with the newbs.

 

Always had one GPS zoomed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, when there's large amounts of money and careers involved, somebody gets thrown under the bus. Like or not, thats life and it's cruel. I must say looking at that grounding footage was absolutely terrifying. It did not look to me that any of the crew were wearing tethers and certainly no pfd's. If anyone was thrown overboard in the impact they would not have been able to recover them. They would have had to swim to shore assuming if they could even see where that was in pitch darkness. This could have been far worse. It's only a f**king boat at the end of the day, and insurance is for that purpose. Never feel sorry for an insurance company. If there was no risk there would be no insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

yeap, but not sure how this will come over. "Sure, I am the skipper, I take full responsibility, but I cannot control all my people all the time and need to trust them...". The navigator is going to get crunched. Maybe rightfully so..

Doubt he'll get publicly thrown under a bus.

 

Frankly, though, isn't it only human to be some percentage of pissed off?

Initially, I took Nico's statement as a bit of the ol' self-preservation. But in adding the trust issue, it really becomes a self damning statement. After all, is he suggesting that he entrusted the navigation to Wouter, that Wouter was the only one checking the route at the time? Too early to tell. But I have seen many videos from other teams, where the Skippers are glued to the screen alone or with their navigator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, can you crash tack one of these canters, and how long does it take?

.

 

.....if you don't mind going from ~3' draft to ~15' :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video starts with them looking at something to port. One guy comes up on deck to look. Then the big smash.

 

What had their attention just a minute before the big crash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

yeap, but not sure how this will come over. "Sure, I am the skipper, I take full responsibility, but I cannot control all my people all the time and need to trust them...". The navigator is going to get crunched. Maybe rightfully so..

Doubt he'll get publicly thrown under a bus.

 

Frankly, though, isn't it only human to be some percentage of pissed off?

Initially, I took Nico's statement as a bit of the ol' self-preservation. But in adding the trust issue, it really becomes a self damning statement. After all, is he suggesting that he entrusted the navigation to Wouter, that Wouter was the only one checking the route at the time? Too early to tell. But I have seen many videos from other teams, where the Skippers are glued to the screen alone or with their navigator.

I'd like to hear the question he was answering. It sounded to me like N was prompted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's kind of what I guessed. At the point they became suspicious it was probably too late to change the outcome. Total loss of situational awareness on Wouter's part. He's going to get skewered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video starts with them looking at something to port. One guy comes up on deck to look. Then the big smash.

 

What had their attention just a minute before the big crash?

 

The rocks are closer on the port side.

Still, on their course the archipelago had a cross section of ~12nm, they managed to hit it almost dead center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's kind of what I guessed. At the point they became suspicious it was probably too late to change the outcome. Total loss of situational awareness on Wouter's part. He's going to get skewered.

.

 

...yes, definitely in the courtroom of SA at least :o

 

 

...personally,,I'd tend to believe him if he says he'll never do it again. ...much more than some 'A-team' pratt who's shaking his finger here,,holding paper charts and says he'll 'never do it' <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was the thought that the rudders hit first confirmed by the video? A less violent impact because it tore one clean off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, is that rear section fixable or is the hull lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dynamics of a canting keel boat hitting a reef would be quite different than a fixed keel boat

 

i would expect more rotating or spinning of the hull, and then skidding on the hull..., rather than coming to an abrupt stop the way a fixed keel boat does when it hits something hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, is that rear section fixable or is the hull lost?

.

....they'd need to mold that section plus many other repairs,plus 2 way transport...... better to get on with #8 if it's not done already.

 

 

...sell #7 as a fixer-upper,,it's definitely a longer term 'project' :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

yeap, but not sure how this will come over. "Sure, I am the skipper, I take full responsibility, but I cannot control all my people all the time and need to trust them...". The navigator is going to get crunched. Maybe rightfully so..

Doubt he'll get publicly thrown under a bus.

 

Frankly, though, isn't it only human to be some percentage of pissed off?

Initially, I took Nico's statement as a bit of the ol' self-preservation. But in adding the trust issue, it really becomes a self damning statement. After all, is he suggesting that he entrusted the navigation to Wouter, that Wouter was the only one checking the route at the time? Too early to tell. But I have seen many videos from other teams, where the Skippers are glued to the screen alone or with their navigator.

 

All three of you are right. Taking responsibility he has clearly done but he does make a valid point - successful teams and organizations rely on trust and delegation.

 

Sailing is the consummate team sport. Even a small error or oversight by any crew mate can lose a race just like that. It's tough work making the fewest mistakes eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dynamics of a canting keel boat hitting a reef would be quite different than a fixed keel boat

 

i would expect more rotating or spinning of the hull, and then skidding on the hull..., rather than coming to an abrupt stop the way a fixed keel boat does when it hits something hard.

.

 

...I'll guess the first impact was one of the blades shearing,,before the primary impact a second later.

 

...bodies would definitely have been rag-dolled with a fixed keel,,solid hit with no warning. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Spanish is rather rudimentary, but I from what I understand there's nothing new in it. Nevertheless, could anyone translate, if I'm wrong?

 

 

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The video starts with them looking at something to port. One guy comes up on deck to look. Then the big smash.

 

What had their attention just a minute before the big crash?

 

The rocks are closer on the port side.

Still, on their course the archipelago had a cross section of ~12nm, they managed to hit it almost dead center.

Before the crash. Something got their attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was the thought that the rudders hit first confirmed by the video? A less violent impact because it tore one clean off?

 

I think the rudders did not hit first. First, the helmsman would have reacted to that in some way. You can see that the steering is in full working order, and the wheels freewheel easily as the boat swings around. If the rudder was a mess, I think the steering would in less than ideal condition. It is made for a broken cable, but for a smashed rudder?

 

I think they hit an outlying coral head first with the keel, then did little to change course or slow down (hard to be sure of either heading or speed though). You do get the sense the boat was still heeled looking at the crew. So still powered up.

 

This points to the idea that they had zero idea in what hot water they were already. Nobody thinks about cutting a sheet, that is sure.

 

Aside, if these guys are so knackered, maybe the safety "zoomed in" observer needed to be in Alicante, doing shift work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The video starts with them looking at something to port. One guy comes up on deck to look. Then the big smash.

 

What had their attention just a minute before the big crash?

 

The rocks are closer on the port side.

Still, on their course the archipelago had a cross section of ~12nm, they managed to hit it almost dead center.

Before the crash. Something got their attention.

the waves of the reef. I think I hear someone saying "a wave" seconds before the crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I guessed. At the point they became suspicious it was probably too late to change the outcome. Total loss of situational awareness on Wouter's part. He's going to get skewered.

.

 

...yes, definitely in the courtroom of SA at least :o

 

 

...personally,,I'd tend to believe him if he says he'll never do it again. ...much more than some 'A-team' pratt who's shaking his finger here,,holding paper charts and says he'll 'never do it' <_<

I suspect that no one is taking it worse than Wouter. I missed a gybe call by 6 hours and felt like moving to Nebraska. I can't imagine wacking something.

 

What are the odds that the boats get an additional body to deal with the fatigue/CRM issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Spanish is rather rudimentary, but I from what I understand there's nothing new in it. Nevertheless, could anyone translate, if I'm wrong?

 

 

Thanks in advance!

.

...''Nico and th'Wout's were down below mixing another round of goombay-smash,,when Maciel called out..'oi,wot's that'.....then Robbie said....'either the seagulls here have very long legs or........'.,,then all hell broke loose. We blame the butler.'' :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new. Top professionals doing their best in difficult circumstances to leave the beautiful island in pristine condition, that sort of thing...

My Spanish is rather rudimentary, but I from what I understand there's nothing new in it. Nevertheless, could anyone translate, if I'm wrong?

 

 

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just curious, can you crash tack one of these canters, and how long does it take?

.

 

.....if you don't mind going from ~3' draft to ~15' :mellow:

 

Two good points for anyone thinking "Could the helmsman have thrown the helm over if he was in doubt?"

 

1. The boat on the other tack would have been on it's ear with shit everywhere in the dark… i.e. high risk of MOB.

 

2. The keel would most likely have struck as it arced down through the tack anyway

 

Makes you realise it's not easy to throw an instant manoeuvre at a fully powered up canter.

 

My 1.04c worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just curious, can you crash tack one of these canters, and how long does it take?

.

 

.....if you don't mind going from ~3' draft to ~15' :mellow:

 

Two good points for anyone thinking "Could the helmsman have thrown the helm over if he was in doubt?"

 

1. The boat on the other tack would have been on it's ear with shit everywhere in the dark… i.e. high risk of MOB.

 

2. The keel would most likely have struck as it arced down through the tack anyway

 

Makes you realise it's not easy to throw an instant manoeuvre at a fully powered up canter.

 

My 1.04c worth.

And the first 2 seconds one would imagine they are thinking submerged object rather than geographical feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they hit an outlying coral head first with the keel, then did little to change course or slow down (hard to be sure of either heading or speed though). You do get the sense the boat was still heeled looking at the crew. So still powered up.

It didn't seem like they veered as hard as I'd expect if the keel hit first. Maybe the lee board hit first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My Spanish is rather rudimentary, but I from what I understand there's nothing new in it. Nevertheless, could anyone translate, if I'm wrong?

 

Thanks in advance!

.

...''Nico and th'Wout's were down below mixing another round of goombay-smash,,when Maciel called out..'oi,wot's that'.....then Robbie said....'either the seagulls here have very long legs or........'.,,then all hell broke loose. We blame the butler.'' :mellow:

 

Plausible, thanks.

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dynamics of a canting keel boat hitting a reef would be quite different than a fixed keel boat

 

i would expect more rotating or spinning of the hull, and then skidding on the hull..., rather than coming to an abrupt stop the way a fixed keel boat does when it hits something hard.

This.

 

The fixed frame of reference with the camera gives us no idea of how the boat moved as it hit. The main starts to luff and the boom is swinging in at about 30 seconds in which suggests the boat spun head to wind around the canted keel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From where they are, MM. Magellan, Cook, De Bougainville, and La Pérouse, as coral-reefs-slalom-experts are certainly looking at that strange affair with a sharp interest and, may be, some amusement in their eyes! Unfortunately their famous navigation training course is over from many and many years! The good news: there were no cannibals on St Brandon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Nicholson's comment at the end is preparation for "throwing Wouter under the bus". I think he's just being honest.

 

It seems likely (as it has pretty much from the beginning) that they had no idea they were heading onto a shoal, and the likeliest explanation for that is that no one took the time to check the intended track at sufficient zoom to show the reef. If that's what happened, then that obviously was primarily Wouter's mistake, in that he was responsible for doing that.

 

With that said, it's a long way from that to saying he was "grossly negligent" (as one commenter on that Wired article was quick to say, or as ateam seems to be trying to say above). Assuming the scenario played out like that, there were a lot of mitigating factors that would need to be taking into account before a legal finding of "gross negligence" could be made, and frankly, from what I've seen so far, I don't think it could be made.

 

* Wouter's highly experienced, with two previous Volvos under his belt.

* He's highly regarded by people like Campbell Field and Chris Nicholson.

* He was operating in an environment that subjects a navigator to longterm stress and sleep deprivation.

* He was operating in an environment that pressures the navigator to do his job as quickly as possible.

* The electronic charting feature that makes the reef disappear at lower zoom levels is bad human factors design. It's an accident waiting to happen.

 

People who want to make the "gross negligence" claim have misinterpreted me as trying to excuse Wouter's actions when I bring up things like this. They think I'm trying to say he wasn't negligent. But that's not what I'm saying. Assuming the scenario described above is what happened, he was negligent. Just not grossly so, in the legal sense.

 

Gross negligence, at least as I understand it, is when someone is willfully acting in a way that a reasonable person would regard as seriously careless. Negligence doesn't get upgraded to gross negligence based on the magnitude of the harm that actually occurred. Yes, the possibility of harm of that magnitude (in this case, the loss of the boat, and potentially injury and loss of life) should be a factor in what a reasonable person would regard as necessary and appropriate care. But there are _lots_ of potentially boat-losing/injury-or-death-causing mistakes that can be made on a Volvo boat. This is just one of them. Was Wouter showing a reasonable degree of care, generally speaking, in how he was going about his job in the days and weeks before the incident? If so, then I don't think a momentary act of negligence would be likely to rise to the level of gross negligence. I'm not saying it couldn't. But I don't think it's likely.

 

If the scenario I described is what happened, Wouter made a bad mistake, one with serious consequences, in part because he was willing to put himself in an environment in which small mistakes can have such consequences, and in which the human propensity for error is magnified by stress and competition. Yes, he let the team down. But in a real sense I think the system of oversight in which he was operating, and the tools he was using, let him down, too. Because people make mistakes, and when a mistake like this is made more likely by software that doesn't take human limitations into account, it's not reasonable to think that you're going to eliminate the possibility of that happening just by telling someone, "remember to be really, really careful".

 

I guess it's a somewhat circular argument I'm making. I'm sold on the idea that Wouter is, generally speaking, a careful, prudent navigator. So for an accident like the one I've described to happen to someone like him, it means that necessarily, the solution isn't to try to make human navigators more careful and prudent than he was. Because you're not going to be able to. Wouter is pretty much at the top of the field in terms of experienced, prudent navigators. Indeed, if Wouter can make a mistake like this, I'd expect that lots more navigators who don't rise to his level will be making similar mistakes all the time. So make the tools, and the system of oversight, better.

 

I don't think Nicholson is going to minimize Wouter's role in what happened. But neither do I think he's going to say anything to scapegoat him or "throw him under the bus".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if there's a version of the video with the curse words bleeped out? While F-bombs and S-bombs would definitely be part of my vocabulary under similar circumstances, and S-bombs are hilarious with a French accent, I'd like to be able to show the video to my son with full audio without adding those words to his vocabulary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* The electronic charting feature that makes the reef disappear at lower zoom levels is bad human factors design. It's an accident waiting to happen.

It is not an ideal design. To be fair computer screens are much smaller than standard charts so they must limit the information. There has to be some way to declutter the screen or you also miss things because of z-layering. Most charting software has a bunch of options for dealing with this. It's hard to get them working nicely by hand. Automating it is not a trivial problem. Fundamentally though a small computer screen has to have less information on it than a big chart can.

 

Edit: I believe it has been shown that with some settings the label and depth contours of the reef are visible at or most zoom levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if there's a version of the video with the curse words bleeped out? While F-bombs and S-bombs would definitely be part of my vocabulary under similar circumstances, and S-bombs are hilarious with a French accent, I'd like to be able to show the video to my son with full audio without adding those words to his vocabulary...

.

 

 

....the G rated version should be out in a month or two :);)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule69, I think you may be right - could very well be one of the daggerboards taking the first impact and thus slowing them down more gentle then with the keel.

 

Beside the obvious damage to the hull, there must be a lot of internal breakages. Don't see that boat racing again soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

What do you guys think of the comments? Any way you slice it, he is throwing the navigator under the bus. Appropriate or bad form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Nicholson's comment at the end is preparation for "throwing Wouter under the bus". I think he's just being honest.

 

It seems likely (as it has pretty much from the beginning) that they had no idea they were heading onto a shoal, and the likeliest explanation for that is that no one took the time to check the intended track at sufficient zoom to show the reef. If that's what happened, then that obviously was primarily Wouter's mistake, in that he was responsible for doing that.

 

With that said, it's a long way from that to saying he was "grossly negligent" (as one commenter on that Wired article was quick to say, or as ateam seems to be trying to say above). Assuming the scenario played out like that, there were a lot of mitigating factors that would need to be taking into account before a legal finding of "gross negligence" could be made, and frankly, from what I've seen so far, I don't think it could be made.

 

* Wouter's highly experienced, with two previous Volvos under his belt.

* He's highly regarded by people like Campbell Field and Chris Nicholson.

* He was operating in an environment that subjects a navigator to longterm stress and sleep deprivation.

* He was operating in an environment that pressures the navigator to do his job as quickly as possible.

* The electronic charting feature that makes the reef disappear at lower zoom levels is bad human factors design. It's an accident waiting to happen.

 

People who want to make the "gross negligence" claim have misinterpreted me as trying to excuse Wouter's actions when I bring up things like this. They think I'm trying to say he wasn't negligent. But that's not what I'm saying. Assuming the scenario described above is what happened, he was negligent. Just not grossly so, in the legal sense.

 

Gross negligence, at least as I understand it, is when someone is willfully acting in a way that a reasonable person would regard as seriously careless. Negligence doesn't get upgraded to gross negligence based on the magnitude of the harm that actually occurred. Yes, the possibility of harm of that magnitude (in this case, the loss of the boat, and potentially injury and loss of life) should be a factor in what a reasonable person would regard as necessary and appropriate care. But there are _lots_ of potentially boat-losing/injury-or-death-causing mistakes that can be made on a Volvo boat. This is just one of them. Was Wouter showing a reasonable degree of care, generally speaking, in how he was going about his job in the days and weeks before the incident? If so, then I don't think a momentary act of negligence would be likely to rise to the level of gross negligence. I'm not saying it couldn't. But I don't think it's likely.

 

If the scenario I described is what happened, Wouter made a bad mistake, one with serious consequences, in part because he was willing to put himself in an environment in which small mistakes can have such consequences, and in which the human propensity for error is magnified by stress and competition. Yes, he let the team down. But in a real sense I think the system of oversight in which he was operating, and the tools he was using, let him down, too. Because people make mistakes, and when a mistake like this is made more likely by software that doesn't take human limitations into account, it's not reasonable to think that you're going to eliminate the possibility of that happening just by telling someone, "remember to be really, really careful".

 

I guess it's a somewhat circular argument I'm making. I'm sold on the idea that Wouter is, generally speaking, a careful, prudent navigator. So for an accident like the one I've described to happen to someone like him, it means that necessarily, the solution isn't to try to make human navigators more careful and prudent than he was. Because you're not going to be able to. Wouter is pretty much at the top of the field in terms of experienced, prudent navigators. Indeed, if Wouter can make a mistake like this, I'd expect that lots more navigators who don't rise to his level will be making similar mistakes all the time. So make the tools, and the system of oversight, better.

 

I don't think Nicholson is going to minimize Wouter's role in what happened. But neither do I think he's going to say anything to scapegoat him or "throw him under the bus".

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he is certainly being honest, but that is the part of his comments that the team (or whoever put the video together) selected for the closing statement.

 

I don't think Nicholson's comment at the end is preparation for "throwing Wouter under the bus". I think he's just being honest.

 

(...)

 

I don't think Nicholson is going to minimize Wouter's role in what happened. But neither do I think he's going to say anything to scapegoat him or "throw him under the bus".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

What do you guys think of the comments? Any way you slice it, he is throwing the navigator under the bus. Appropriate or bad form?

 

"Bad form" was my first reaction. But after taking into account what he continuously said and says about the team, I now think that it is more an expression of frustration. Like we all know, so often at work when someone f#cks up: "Man, I can't do everything, FFS!" Followed by a short rush of despair.

Let's see what comes out in the next days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Was that the Argentinian Cicchetti at the helm? Poor bastard. Sickening to watch.

Pretty full disclose, I'd say. And the comment at the very end by Nicholson pretty much places the (fault) on one person, paraphrasing - like in any organization, you have put a certain amount of trust in every individual, and this is where the breakdown happened. Taking responsibility, but letting it known it wasn't his mistake.

What do you guys think of the comments? Any way you slice it, he is throwing the navigator under the bus. Appropriate or bad form?

 

"Bad form" was my first reaction. But after taking into account what he continuously said and says about the team, I now think that it is more an expression of frustration. Like we all know, so often at work when someone f#cks up: "Man, I can't do everything, FFS!" *Despair*

Let's see what comes out in the next days.

 

It is bad form. It is the absolute truth, but everyone already knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Nicholson's comment at the end is preparation for "throwing Wouter under the bus". I think he's just being honest.

 

It seems likely (as it has pretty much from the beginning) that they had no idea they were heading onto a shoal, and the likeliest explanation for that is that no one took the time to check the intended track at sufficient zoom to show the reef. If that's what happened, then that obviously was primarily Wouter's mistake, in that he was responsible for doing that.

 

With that said, it's a long way from that to saying he was "grossly negligent" (as one commenter on that Wired article was quick to say, or as ateam seems to be trying to say above). Assuming the scenario played out like that, there were a lot of mitigating factors that would need to be taking into account before a legal finding of "gross negligence" could be made, and frankly, from what I've seen so far, I don't think it could be made.

 

* Wouter's highly experienced, with two previous Volvos under his belt.

* He's highly regarded by people like Campbell Field and Chris Nicholson.

* He was operating in an environment that subjects a navigator to longterm stress and sleep deprivation.

* He was operating in an environment that pressures the navigator to do his job as quickly as possible.

* The electronic charting feature that makes the reef disappear at lower zoom levels is bad human factors design. It's an accident waiting to happen.

 

People who want to make the "gross negligence" claim have misinterpreted me as trying to excuse Wouter's actions when I bring up things like this. They think I'm trying to say he wasn't negligent. But that's not what I'm saying. Assuming the scenario described above is what happened, he was negligent. Just not grossly so, in the legal sense.

 

Gross negligence, at least as I understand it, is when someone is willfully acting in a way that a reasonable person would regard as seriously careless. Negligence doesn't get upgraded to gross negligence based on the magnitude of the harm that actually occurred. Yes, the possibility of harm of that magnitude (in this case, the loss of the boat, and potentially injury and loss of life) should be a factor in what a reasonable person would regard as necessary and appropriate care. But there are _lots_ of potentially boat-losing/injury-or-death-causing mistakes that can be made on a Volvo boat. This is just one of them. Was Wouter showing a reasonable degree of care, generally speaking, in how he was going about his job in the days and weeks before the incident? If so, then I don't think a momentary act of negligence would be likely to rise to the level of gross negligence. I'm not saying it couldn't. But I don't think it's likely.

 

If the scenario I described is what happened, Wouter made a bad mistake, one with serious consequences, in part because he was willing to put himself in an environment in which small mistakes can have such consequences, and in which the human propensity for error is magnified by stress and competition. Yes, he let the team down. But in a real sense I think the system of oversight in which he was operating, and the tools he was using, let him down, too. Because people make mistakes, and when a mistake like this is made more likely by software that doesn't take human limitations into account, it's not reasonable to think that you're going to eliminate the possibility of that happening just by telling someone, "remember to be really, really careful".

 

I guess it's a somewhat circular argument I'm making. I'm sold on the idea that Wouter is, generally speaking, a careful, prudent navigator. So for an accident like the one I've described to happen to someone like him, it means that necessarily, the solution isn't to try to make human navigators more careful and prudent than he was. Because you're not going to be able to. Wouter is pretty much at the top of the field in terms of experienced, prudent navigators. Indeed, if Wouter can make a mistake like this, I'd expect that lots more navigators who don't rise to his level will be making similar mistakes all the time. So make the tools, and the system of oversight, better.

 

I don't think Nicholson is going to minimize Wouter's role in what happened. But neither do I think he's going to say anything to scapegoat him or "throw him under the bus".

The statement was added deliberately. It could just as easily been left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You could hear Chris Nicholson yelling "Wheres Wouter!?"after impact. That says something I'd have thought....?

Nico is asking about Wouter because only seven crew are visible… I think something is said about checking for Wouter in the cabin to make sure he is onboard. Nico doing what the skipper should do… being concerned about his crew. I didn't detect any more content than that.

makes sense. I was thinking he wanted to know WTF was going on with respect to the navigation, I heard the comments bout checking for wouter, but heard them as checking for 'water' in the cabin (are we sinking?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Nico saying that he entrusted navigation to one person, as if there was no system of checks and balances, no pilot/copilot verification of the route? I wouldn't expect the skipper to check every knot and every bit of trim but navigation seems like something the navigators and Skippers should be in sync with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just curious, can you crash tack one of these canters, and how long does it take?

.

 

.....if you don't mind going from ~3' draft to ~15' :mellow:

 

Two good points for anyone thinking "Could the helmsman have thrown the helm over if he was in doubt?"

 

1. The boat on the other tack would have been on it's ear with shit everywhere in the dark… i.e. high risk of MOB.

 

2. The keel would most likely have struck as it arced down through the tack anyway

 

Makes you realise it's not easy to throw an instant manoeuvre at a fully powered up canter.

 

My 1.04c worth.

 

 

In hindsight of course, wouldn't the correct course of action be to simply bear away? From video they appear to be sailing close-hauled on port tack. The waves first appear on port side. This is consistent with google earth images that show the boat approached the reef at a point where it is oriented SW to NE. Simply bearing away from the shallow stuff at port to a NNE course might have allowed them to quickly get back in deeper water. No tack necessary. Said with 20/20 hindsight from the comfort of a keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognative dissonance I think is the issue. I once was surfing down a wave hundreds of miles from land and almost ran over a floating chest freezer. My brain did not go into evasive action mode right away, it was more like "WTF is a freezer doing here "!

The crew's brains were most likely going "that looks like a reef, but we are in the middle of the ocean where there are no reefs, so WTF am I looking at" :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hindsight of course, wouldn't the correct course of action be to simply bear away? From video they appear to be sailing close-hauled on port tack. The waves first appear on port side. This is consistent with google earth images that show the boat approached the reef at a point where it is oriented SW to NE. Simply bearing away from the shallow stuff at port to a NNE course might have allowed them to quickly get back in deeper water. No tack necessary. Said with 20/20 hindsight from the comfort of a keyboard.

.

 

...factor in a lot of fatigue to all decisions,preparations,practices and the followups and reactions.

Personally,I'd consider fatigue the primary cause.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as you can see in the Expedition screen shots i posted above, even with the blue shading turned off.., and at the most zoomed out view, there is still a depth contour at the reef..., and any navigator is going to take a closer look - at least you would think....

 

so, with C-Map in expedition, the feature _doesn't_ disappear completely at _any_ zoom level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Vestas. really feel for them! Sad news, but not the end of the world. Great they are all safe.

 

This is a screen grab of Wouter calling in the mayday from todays video. The reef/island is visible on the computer on the left?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just curious, can you crash tack one of these canters, and how long does it take?

 

.

 

.....if you don't mind going from ~3' draft to ~15' :mellow:

Two good points for anyone thinking "Could the helmsman have thrown the helm over if he was in doubt?"

 

1. The boat on the other tack would have been on it's ear with shit everywhere in the dark… i.e. high risk of MOB.

 

2. The keel would most likely have struck as it arced down through the tack anyway

 

Makes you realise it's not easy to throw an instant manoeuvre at a fully powered up canter.

 

My 1.04c worth.

 

In hindsight of course, wouldn't the correct course of action be to simply bear away? From video they appear to be sailing close-hauled on port tack. The waves first appear on port side. This is consistent with google earth images that show the boat approached the reef at a point where it is oriented SW to NE. Simply bearing away from the shallow stuff at port to a NNE course might have allowed them to quickly get back in deeper water. No tack necessary. Said with 20/20 hindsight from the comfort of a keyboard.

I believe they were off the wind at the time. Apparent wind was forward because the boat is so fast, but bearing away to starboard would have required gybing, with (as has been mentioned) a dramatic increase in draft to get the keel vertical on its way to the starboard side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be way interested in how they got out, how they got the gear out, and what they plan to do next.

 

No offense the the blame mongers intended - but - considering the crash is over - it would seem far more interesting to see the solutions they came up with rather than endless discussion concerning how the crash came about to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Just curious, can you crash tack one of these canters, and how long does it take?

.

 

.....if you don't mind going from ~3' draft to ~15' :mellow:

 

Two good points for anyone thinking "Could the helmsman have thrown the helm over if he was in doubt?"

 

1. The boat on the other tack would have been on it's ear with shit everywhere in the dark… i.e. high risk of MOB.

 

2. The keel would most likely have struck as it arced down through the tack anyway

 

Makes you realise it's not easy to throw an instant manoeuvre at a fully powered up canter.

 

My 1.04c worth.

 

 

In hindsight of course, wouldn't the correct course of action be to simply bear away? From video they appear to be sailing close-hauled on port tack. The waves first appear on port side. This is consistent with google earth images that show the boat approached the reef at a point where it is oriented SW to NE. Simply bearing away from the shallow stuff at port to a NNE course might have allowed them to quickly get back in deeper water. No tack necessary. Said with 20/20 hindsight from the comfort of a keyboard.

 

Of course this is all almost irrelevant since it appears that `cognitive dissonance' that Kent IS mentions would not permit a split second reaction.

 

However… I doubt they were close hauled since the boom was well off centre and they had 19 knots on the clock, more likely 100-120 TWA. Bearing away would have powered the boat up more at high speed with a possible gybe thrown in. I don't know how quickly the helmsman can cant the keel, though?

 

Tacking would have scrubbed speed off and reduced the mayhem but you are right that a tack would have initially taken the boat closer so not ideal.

 

Pretty much the worst speed and point of sail to find a low lying reef on a dark night. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognative dissonance I think is the issue. I once was surfing down a wave hundreds of miles from land and almost ran over a floating chest freezer. My brain did not go into evasive action mode right away, it was more like "WTF is a freezer doing here "!

The crew's brains were most likely going "that looks like a reef, but we are in the middle of the ocean where there are no reefs, so WTF am I looking at" :ph34r:

 

Fight or flight reflex is controlled by the amygdala portion of the brain. That automatic reaction to snap back at someone who snaps at you or duck when someone hits a line drive at you.

 

Pro sailors would have the experience to "pause" this reaction and assess the situation before making a decision. No rash knee-jerk reactions.

 

Mex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That vid puts chills down the spine - I went back for a second look but something stopped me...

 

too sad to watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites