duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

On 21/01/2018 at 2:50 AM, shanghaisailor said:

Indeed.

I have just had a ping from "Facebook Yacht Club" Tom Ehman posts on his Sailing illustrated "VOR: Details of the fishing boat collision, sinking, and rescue, courtesy of the South China Morning Post"

Talk about "I know a man who knows a man who was chatting to someone else who told his he heard etc etc.

 

Cheap and easy way to try and build your website.

And reading some of the responses, some clearly knowledgeable people but a lot seem to know much less than your average anachists - quite entertaining reading

SS

 

The archetypal "Chinese Whispers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm - Have just come in from work and read from where I left off. My overriding impression is that no new information has been released and all that's going on is the same arguments just keep going round and around.

The only thing I have to offer is a suggestion that some would benefit from reading the rules pertaining to redress. It's clear that some people are posting their view of what they think is right rather than reading the rules and engaging the brain before posting.

Before any rules can be applied the facts need first to be found. RIGHT NOW WE DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS.

 

For your benefit here is the text of RRS 62.  Please read all of it slowly and understand. I've highlighted some of the text.

 

62 REDRESS

62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by

(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee, organizing authority or technical committee for the event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

(b) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

(c) giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with rule 1.1; or

(d) an action of a boat, or a member of her crew, that resulted in a penalty under rule 2 or a penalty or warning under rule 69.2(h).

62.2 A request shall be in writing and identify the reason for making it. If the request is based on an incident in the racing area, it shall be delivered to the race office within the protest time limit or two hours after the incident, whichever is later. Other requests shall be delivered as soon as reasonably possible after learning of the reasons for making the request. The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so. No red flag is required.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I don't think redress is given for a collision, unless it's with another sailboat participating in a race.  Let's say Vestas had collided with a shipping container or sea animal...even if they weren't at fault, they wouldn't be given redress.

That's the point I was trying to make.  Sorry if I was unclear about it.  If you hit a shipping container and limp to the finish, you get your finish and no redress.  If you hit a shipping container and motor in because you were too damaged to continue sailing, you get RET or DNF.  No redress.  If you hit a shipping container, lose a guy overboard, fire up the engine to pick the guy up, return to the site of the incident, kill the engine, and resume racing, I'm guessing you'd be exonerated for using the engine, but no redress for the time lost.  So...  since they didn't sail to the finish, I can't see how they can expect the redress to be treated any differently from if they had become disabled hitting a shipping container.  I can't see a valid reason for them to expect redress.

36 minutes ago, Rat Pack said:

Reading but not contributing until now. Too much speculation for my like in here. Whatever comes of this, I hope lessens will be learned.

Imagine the uproar on this thread if Vestas had raised sails and continued on after offloading a mortally injured person via helicopter. Someone had died because of a collision that they were involved with. I doubt at the time anyone was thinking "hey, we're really going to fuck our chances for redress if we don't put up sails right now."

I fully agree with the hope that lessons will be learned, and certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I also agree that it's doubtful that redress was on their mind when they were motoring to HK.  Others were already discussing the possibility of redress.  All I was trying to say is that since they didn't sail to the finish, I can't see any viable argument for redress. I'm not trying to suggest they should have raised sails, and I agree that it would have been distasteful to light it up at full speed.  Under the circumstances, I think RET is the correct final scoring.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Mitigation measures

I don't know if you remember but 2 editions ago, they went through the malacca strait. It wasn't windy so it turned out OK even if there were videos showing how crazy the traffic was.

With the VOR route now zigzaging across the globe, they are now bound to find areas on their path with lot of traffic where doing 20 knots at night is marginal safety wise.

Let's say that when they realise that the fleet will go through such a patch, they add two gates, one before and one after and give a minimum time between the 2 marks to respect.  So effectively it neutralises the race between the 2 gates (if you come in 1 hours behind a competitor you come out 1 hour behind) and skippers can adapt their speed without loosing out.

I think that's a fair way to deal with this.

 

Thank you for bringing something sensible and new to this open gutter. 

I like your idea, simple and clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

That's the point I was trying to make.  Sorry if I was unclear about it.  If you hit a shipping container and limp to the finish, you get your finish and no redress.  If you hit a shipping container and motor in because you were too damaged to continue sailing, you get RET or DNF.  No redress.  If you hit a shipping container, lose a guy overboard, fire up the engine to pick the guy up, return to the site of the incident, kill the engine, and resume racing, I'm guessing you'd be exonerated for using the engine, but no redress for the time lost.  So...  since they didn't sail to the finish, I can't see how they can expect the redress to be treated any differently from if they had become disabled hitting a shipping container.  I can't see a valid reason for them to expect redress.

I fully agree with the hope that lessons will be learned, and certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I also agree that it's doubtful that redress was on their mind when they were motoring to HK.  Others were already discussing the possibility of redress.  All I was trying to say is that since they didn't sail to the finish, I can't see any viable argument for redress. I'm not trying to suggest they should have raised sails, and I agree that it would have been distasteful to light it up at full speed.  Under the circumstances, I think RET is the correct final scoring.

 

A boat in a significant race I was in received redress from an international jury after standing-by a boat in trouble in gale conditions and then motoring into the finishing harbor.  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

since they didn't sail to the finish, 

That would depend on the boat being sufficiently sound to sail to the finish. A question the jury would need to consider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine any boat surfing along in the dark, fails to maintain a full and complete lookout, fails to avoid a collision with another vessel.  Immediate serious injury occurs to both vessels including human death.  Yes, money, egos, and other BS is involved.  DSQ is the only answer.  The honorable asshole gets that and withdraws seeking safe harbor in the nearest port.  In any case the prudent mariner of the holed vessel must use the safest route to port whether sail, power, or tow.  Anyone continuing to race and compete  under the circumstances should be tossed from the "sport".   This thing of ours is an entainment sport operating for the benefit of the sponsors?  Correct? 

Or do we think sailing is moving in the direction of gladiators? 

Just sayin.... 

 

Vestas bad night for dummies....

 

hitnrunsum_3559112k.jpg

 

nintchdbpict000357929825-e1507056006747.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Herman said:

FIFY

Leg Abu Dhabi - Sanya was 2014/15.

Doh, too many races to follow...

 

16 minutes ago, Elisa said:

Thank you for bringing something sensible and new to this open gutter. 

I like your idea, simple and clear. 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case the interpretation by VOR if redress should be granted for Vestas and we have no idea how that will go.  On the other hand, if I was Dong Feng and anyone after, I would have a difficult time accepting the points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Herman said:

Roger, setting sail on Vestas would put extra stress on the bow which just had received an enormous bang looking at the paint scraped of the underside, and was missing too a significant 2 square meters of hull on the side. Possible internal structural damage. Possible rig damage by the impact. You don’t want risking the bow further delaminating and/or breaking, and/or potentially bringing the spar down by setting sail. In short, I doubt that Vestas was sufficiently sound to sail to the finish. My 2 cents.

Edit: RC knows, they have all the stress data of the impact on the rig

I'm sure you are correct Herman, we can see significant damage. I would not be happy to continue sailing for risk of further damaging the boat or worse.

A Jury would need to satisfy themselves that it was at least not reasonable to continue sailing. I would have thought they would find this to be the case.

They would also need to satisfy themselves that the damage occurred through no fault on the part of Vestas before they could consider giving redress.

As we keep saying we do not know the full facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rogerfal said:

I'm sure you are correct Herman, we can see significant damage. I would not be happy to continue sailing for risk of further damaging the boat or worse.

A Jury would need to satisfy themselves that it was at least not reasonable to continue sailing. I would have thought they would.

They would also need to satisfy themselves that the damage occurred through no fault on the part of Vestas before they could consider giving redress.

As we keep saying we do not know the full facts.

 

Hasn’t bothered many here for the last 10 pages plus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mad said:

Hasn’t bothered many here for the last 10 pages plus. 

Exactly Mad. Don't really know why I'm still here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, southerncross said:

The Vestas Board might wonder why they are investing millions into a race 99% of the world has never heard of but has twice vaulted their brand negatively into public view worldwide.  

In terms of marketing potential v costs spent, I suspect that VOR offers limited benefit to sponsoring companies, especially companies with a global market. I'm betting that at all companies who sponsor VOR boats, there is a CEO who is very passionate about sailing who has pushed hard against the bean counters. 

On the plus side, in the last race when Vestas went aground, it was a marketing coup d'etat for Vestas. Great images of their brand name being shown around the world in media that has never showed interest in VOR, because the photos and video looked good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

A boat in a significant race I was in received redress from an international jury after standing-by a boat in trouble in gale conditions and then motoring into the finishing harbor.  .

I can't comment on that without seeing the facts found by the jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canal Bottom said:

DSQ is the only answer.  The honorable asshole gets that and withdraws seeking safe harbor in the nearest port.  In any case the prudent mariner of the holed vessel must use the safest route to port whether sail, power, or tow.

I agree, aside from suggesting RET is the honorable answer, rather than DSQ.

I was discussing the question of possible redress because it has been implied that Vestas has requested redress, not because I think they should be looking for redress.  I find their request for redress somewhat distasteful in this case.  No problem at all with Dongfeng or Akzo asking for it, but I'm having difficulty understanding the Vestas request (assuming it's true that they've requested it).

My understanding is that, since the collision wasn't with a fellow competitor, they can't expect redress for the collision itself.  Even if they successfully argued that they had zero fault, my understanding is that it would be no different from if they had hit a shipping container, for which they'd get a tough luck DNF rather than redress.  If I'm wrong about that, then I'll be interested to learn about my misunderstanding and adjust my understanding.

Having read several responses to my earlier comments, and considered Left Shift's point, I'm starting to see a scenario where they might get redress, though...  If the IJ believes that the boat could have reached the finish under jury rig after the initial incident, and they believe circumstances changed during the SAR activity (such as additional damage) that led to retirement being necessary rather than limping to the finish under jury rig... then I guess that would be different from if the initial damage alone was enough to force them to motor home.  I suppose it could be argued that whatever finish the IJ thinks Vestas could have achieved under jury rig could be granted.  It might even be reasonable to view the psychological impact of the tragedy as an adequate change in circumstances.  But...  any such redress would have to be announced extremely delicately.

I'm going to try to drop out of the redress discussion now.  I don't want to mistakenly give people the impression that I think Vestas should get redress, nor that I think they or VOR should have been or should be insensitive about the tragedy that occurred.

 

EDIT:  Please ignore the above comments and see posts 5821 and 5822.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

My understanding is that, since the collision wasn't with a fellow competitor, they can't expect redress for the collision itself.

I am not commenting on the morals of the situation.

And the rule says.

(b) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rogerfal said:

or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

Holy crap I feel stupid now.  I read that several times and somehow never saw the part about "or a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear".

Ok.  My bad.  All of my recent posts are wrong.  Sorry about that and thanks for not being insulting in the correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frogman56 said:

IMO redress = unobtainable nonsense

Clearly you are in full possession of the facts.

Please enlighten us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having trouble with the general comments that 20 knots is too fast for sailing at night in waters with any amount of traffic. I can go that fast on a bicycle. In a car it feels glacial. Given a good watch and identifiable objects ahead 20 knots is not fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeking redress for a collision that killed someone would be the dumbest thing the Vestas team could do and the same applies to VOR management if they considered it.

I suspect that the thought of a redress never crossed the minds of either party.

 

The idea that some people here are seriously discussing the possibility has got to be one of the dumbest discussions ever on SA...

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ride2live said:

I am having trouble with the general comments that 20 knots is too fast for sailing at night in waters with any amount of traffic. I can go that fast on a bicycle. In a car it feels glacial. Given a good watch and identifiable objects ahead 20 knots is not fast.

It really depends of the traffic, crossing a shipping lane at speed is easy, going through a fleet of fishing boats zigzaging in random directions and showing confusing lights can definitely be dangerous.

It also depends of the kind of sails you are using, if you can gybe / tack within 10 seconds it is easier than if you need to plan 5 or 10 minutes in advance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ride2live said:

Given a good watch and identifiable objects ahead

.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PIL007 said:

 

One more time for the record..... Shockwave grounding had nothing to do with instruments... Human visual mistake at night..

For the record: The Inquiry interviewed Greg Halls a qualified hydrographic surveyor and a well respected yacht navigator. Greg is currently working on a tunnelling project beneath Botany Bay, associated with the desalinisation plant. In this work they depend upon a very accurate GPS navigation and they monitor the accuracy of the system very closely 24 hours a day. In the early morning of 10 October the surveying had to be stopped between 2.15am and 4.15am because the GPS accuracy was outside the strict parameters set for the project. This coincides with the time PwC ran aground at about 2.35am.
110. Closer examination revealed very high Dilution of Precision13 (DOP) (see Diagrams 4 and 5) readings shortly before 2.00am (1500 UTC) until after 3.30am (1630 UTC) that could corresponded with an error possibly in excess of 100 metres.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 1:15 AM, Potter said:

Why not? This incident happened over 30 miles from the finish line. Or are you saying the VOR should not go near busy waterways? In which case they should not have gone through the Gibraltar Straits earlier in the race.

So IF you had a choice, and WERE NOT racing, would you do anything differently? Forget who you might kill, just  think of preserving the assets and NOT putting a gaping hole in the bow.

Would you slow down? Would you wait until sunrise to approach the port? How prudent is prudent? 

The answer is you do what you got away with last time, because it worked and no one got hurt....yet. If someone said you were being a stupid shit, you reply with the nanny state crap and insist on your right to do it the way you do it. 

You don't have to finish east of the Philippines, but you don't have to race into one of the most crowded thoughfares on the planet in the dark either.  This is a different situation, and the Organizers should use their discretion.  In MotorSports there is a Yellow Flag,  which suspends competition, and directs the drivers to exercise the necessary caution to ensure the safety of all competitors. Why would this not make sense for the Volvo Ocean Race?  You could transit these height traffic areas where competing is fundamentally in fair and unsafe under  Yellow Flag and resume when conditions warranted it.  

In this case, they might have hoisted the Yellow when it became clear that Sallywag was going to make landfall after dark and wasn't going to finish until after midnight. All yachts would have finished in the dark would have essentially had their position taken at that time and would have been directed to proceed with maximum caution.  This would not assure that nothing bad was going to happen, but it would have respected the risk of entering Hong Kong at night.

In other cases,  you could conceive of situations where the fleet could be advised to seek shelter or heave to until some forecast hazard had abated without compromising the sporting quality of the event.

SHC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LionIsland said:

For the record: The Inquiry interviewed Greg Halls a qualified hydrographic surveyor and a well respected yacht navigator. Greg is currently working on a tunnelling project beneath Botany Bay, associated with the desalinisation plant. In this work they depend upon a very accurate GPS navigation and they monitor the accuracy of the system very closely 24 hours a day. In the early morning of 10 October the surveying had to be stopped between 2.15am and 4.15am because the GPS accuracy was outside the strict parameters set for the project. This coincides with the time PwC ran aground at about 2.35am.
110. Closer examination revealed very high Dilution of Precision13 (DOP) (see Diagrams 4 and 5) readings shortly before 2.00am (1500 UTC) until after 3.30am (1630 UTC) that could corresponded with an error possibly in excess of 100 metres.

Navigation : the ART of knowing where you are not .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hoppy said:

In terms of marketing potential v costs spent, I suspect that VOR offers limited benefit to sponsoring companies, especially companies with a global market. I'm betting that at all companies who sponsor VOR boats, there is a CEO who is very passionate about sailing who has pushed hard against the bean counters. 

On the plus side, in the last race when Vestas went aground, it was a marketing coup d'etat for Vestas. Great images of their brand name being shown around the world in media that has never showed interest in VOR, because the photos and video looked good.

I’ve always wondered about how and if that actually benefited Vestas from. PR perspective, parking a boat on a reef because of a nav error isn’t the best look. 

I’m sure some advertising guys could make a case for both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

Would you wait until sunrise to approach the port?

definitely IF it is an unknown one .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC,

What are we then to do with, for exaple, the hk to hainan race. Downhill, trade wind, 600 miles of fishing fleet?

At night, every form of light weirdness  and net traps imaginable.

Admittedly on this one the bigger boats are wider, but the obstacles extend out to about 100 miles in some density......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herman said:

Roger, setting sail on Vestas would put extra stress on the bow which just had received an enormous bang looking at the paint scraped of the underside, and was missing too a significant 2 square meters of hull on the side. Possible internal structural damage. Possible rig damage by the impact. You don’t want risking the bow further delaminating and/or breaking, and/or potentially bringing the spar down by setting sail. In short, I doubt that Vestas was sufficiently sound to sail to the finish. My 2 cents.

Edit: RC knows, they have all the stress data of the impact on the rig

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that Vestas had sustained damage to her chainplates. We know very little, but they quickly pulled the rig from the boat upon making landfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, samc99us said:

We know very little, but they quickly pulled the rig from the boat upon making landfall.

as you would , easier to service .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mid said:

as you would , easier to service .

My point was, if there was damage to the chainplates (I wouldn't be trusting much in the bow region) then why risk a really bad situation becoming life threatening by hoisting sail and trying to finish the race? Plus they were pretty clearly directed elsewhere by the emergency services.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mad said:

I’ve always wondered about how and if that actually benefited Vestas from. PR perspective, parking a boat on a reef because of a nav error isn’t the best look. 

I’m sure some advertising guys could make a case for both. 

I'm pretty sure I saw Vestas on Aussie news sites that did not normally cover the VOR.

It would be more of an issue it Team Vestas was called Team Navionics. Then it would be a marketing disaster.

Maybe at the time of the accident there were some company CEO's, farmers, town mayors who were comparing bids for wind generators who saw the accident image. They might have gone with Vestas thinking they may need the money and support now ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Seeking redress for a collision that killed someone would be the dumbest thing the Vestas team could do and the same applies to VOR management if they considered it.

I suspect that the thought of a redress never crossed the minds of either party.

The idea that some people here are seriously discussing the possibility has got to be one of the dumbest discussions ever on SA...

+100.....COLREGS  require all parties to avoid collision. Even if the facts and official investigation find  that fault lies 99.9% with the unlit, illegally fishing and  overcrowded leaking hulk. Vestas still own 0.1% fault and therefore no redress.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I missed it upthread and will not go through the fucking torture of looking, but..

 Do we know whether VS has filed for redress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hoppy said:

I'm pretty sure I saw Vestas on Aussie news sites that did not normally cover the VOR.

It would be more of an issue it Team Vestas was called Team Navionics. Then it would be a marketing disaster.

Maybe at the time of the accident there were some company CEO's, farmers, town mayors who were comparing bids for wind generators who saw the accident image. They might have gone with Vestas thinking they may need the money and support now ;)

Or thinking ‘what a fuck up’!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Seeking redress for a collision that killed someone would be the dumbest thing the Vestas team could do and the same applies to VOR management if they considered it.

I suspect that the thought of a redress never crossed the minds of either party.

 

The idea that some people here are seriously discussing the possibility has got to be one of the dumbest discussions ever on SA...

 

Just wait, still a lot of racing to go.  Some idiot is bound to come up with something, Randumb most likely, but as most have him on we’ve probably missed a few gems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mad said:

Try AC anarchy, it’s not much better at times. 

 

IMG_6537.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LionIsland said:

For the record: The Inquiry interviewed Greg Halls a qualified hydrographic surveyor and a well respected yacht navigator. Greg is currently working on a tunnelling project beneath Botany Bay, associated with the desalinisation plant. In this work they depend upon a very accurate GPS navigation and they monitor the accuracy of the system very closely 24 hours a day. In the early morning of 10 October the surveying had to be stopped between 2.15am and 4.15am because the GPS accuracy was outside the strict parameters set for the project. This coincides with the time PwC ran aground at about 2.35am.
110. Closer examination revealed very high Dilution of Precision13 (DOP) (see Diagrams 4 and 5) readings shortly before 2.00am (1500 UTC) until after 3.30am (1630 UTC) that could corresponded with an error possibly in excess of 100 metres.

No one is denying GPS accuracy was out that night, It was but no one was looking at the GPS, only the Island in front us.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rogerfal said:

I'm sure you are correct Herman, we can see significant damage. I would not be happy to continue sailing for risk of further damaging the boat or worse.

A Jury would need to satisfy themselves that it was at least not reasonable to continue sailing. I would have thought they would find this to be the case.

They would also need to satisfy themselves that the damage occurred through no fault on the part of Vestas before they could consider giving redress.

As we keep saying we do not know the full facts.

 

Does anyone know if they even crossed the finish line?? As soon as the RET, they were gone from the tracker and from what I gathered, sent to another marina/boat yard.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the tracker and approximate location of the crash, it appears that Vestas was well clear of any Traffic Separation scheme.

And there are lots of countries in the world that don't publish sailing directions, pilots, or hydrographic charts contrary to Slug's assertion. They rely on other country's charting for example and pilots simple don't exist except for US DMA.

boom.jpg.dedf837033a0ba32667127043451b5b6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samc99us said:

My point was, if there was damage to the chainplates (I wouldn't be trusting much in the bow region) then why risk a really bad situation becoming life threatening by hoisting sail and trying to finish the race? Plus they were pretty clearly directed elsewhere by the emergency services.

How do you know who they were directed there by ?

Maybe it was VOR given that there was the correct cradle there straight away

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, southerncross said:

At risk of further damaging the boat as to delay the repair even more?

Not to mention that if they sailed they would have been on a starboard tack as all the racers were on the last run to the finish.

Even if they somehow fothered a sail over the opening the chances of sinking the boat would be high. And that's without knowing if the watertight bulkhead was in fact still watertight.

How much rig tension could the damaged hull support?

It would have been insane to sail considering the condition of the boat and the wind and sea state.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, mad said:

Some idiot is bound to come up with something, Randumb most likely, but as most have him on we’ve probably missed a few gems. 

He is not just "Some" he is THE IDIOT...

I can't be bothered blocking anyone, even Randumb. When you understand his MO it's easy enough to ignore his comments although sometimes it's fun to come out to play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hoppy said:

He is not just "Some" he is THE IDIOT...

I can't be bothered blocking anyone, even Randumb. When you understand his MO it's easy enough to ignore his comments although sometimes it's fun to come out to play.

It got very boring quite quickly, he’s just a troll, and not a very good one either.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mad said:

It got very boring quite quickly, he’s just a troll, and not a very good one either.  

A good troll gets in and out of a thread without being detected. He lingers far too long that everyone gets to work him out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sidecar said:

+100.....COLREGS  require all parties to avoid collision. Even if the facts and official investigation find  that fault lies 99.9% with the unlit, illegally fishing and  overcrowded leaking hulk. Vestas still own 0.1% fault and therefore no redress.

Sidecar do you actually know your statement to be true?

I'm no rules expert but based on what rogerfal posted a few hours ago (copied below) I would have thought that in fact in your scenario Vestas would be in a position to request redress. I suppose that depends on the interpretation of "through no fault of her own"...I suppose .1% is greater than “no fault”.

3 hours ago, rogerfal said:

Hmm - Have just come in from work and read from where I left off. My overriding impression is that no new information has been released and all that's going on is the same arguments just keep going round and around.

The only thing I have to offer is a suggestion that some would benefit from reading the rules pertaining to redress. It's clear that some people are posting their view of what they think is right rather than reading the rules and engaging the brain before posting.

Before any rules can be applied the facts need first to be found. RIGHT NOW WE DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS.

 

For your benefit here is the text of RRS 62.  Please read all of it slowly and understand. I've highlighted some of the text.

 

62 REDRESS

62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by

(a) an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee, organizing authority or technical committee for the event, but not by a protest committee decision when the boat was a party to the hearing;

(b) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

(c) giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with rule 1.1; or

(d) an action of a boat, or a member of her crew, that resulted in a penalty under rule 2 or a penalty or warning under rule 69.2(h).

62.2 A request shall be in writing and identify the reason for making it. If the request is based on an incident in the racing area, it shall be delivered to the race office within the protest time limit or two hours after the incident, whichever is later. Other requests shall be delivered as soon as reasonably possible after learning of the reasons for making the request. The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so. No red flag is required.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Sidecar do you actually know your statement to be true?

I'm no rules expert but based on what rogerfal posted a few hours ago (copied below) I would have thought that in fact in your scenario Vestas would be in a position to request redress. I suppose that depends on the interpretation of "through no fault of her own"...I suppose .1% is greater than “no fault”.

You have answered your own question.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Your Mom said:

 why did they motor to HK instead of jury rigging a repair and sailing to the finish from the location of the incident?

 

23 knots of wind from  starboard, 1sqm hole on port side.... What could go wrong?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several posts mention the "fishing boat" was twenty feet. Others also mention it was wooden.

Other than a large number of local boats matching those parameters are there any known facts regarding the type of fishing boat involved. I did see earlier a photo of a ramshackle junk style boat posted but I assumed that was posted as part of the typical tasteless humor common here.

Has there been any official description of the vessel published?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, no official description of the fishing boat has been posted to my knowledge. Even the wooden bit is speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, samc99us said:

Nope, no official description of the fishing boat has been posted to my knowledge. Even the wooden bit is speculation.

As I suspected.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, familysailor said:

Several posts mention the "fishing boat" was twenty feet. Others also mention it was wooden.

Other than a large number of local boats matching those parameters are there any known facts regarding the type of fishing boat involved. I did see earlier a photo of a ramshackle junk style boat posted but I assumed that was posted as part of the typical tasteless humor common here.

Has there been any official description of the vessel published?

Not relevant... The whole purpose and intent  of COLREGS and RRS is to avoid collisions and the risk of damage, injury and worse case, death. In this incident, we got it all, and by a miracle, only one death. No Investigation, Jury or Court in the world would assign 100% blame in these circumstances.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frogman56 said:

SC,

What are we then to do with, for exaple, the hk to hainan race. Downhill, trade wind, 600 miles of fishing fleet?

At night, every form of light weirdness  and net traps imaginable.

Admittedly on this one the bigger boats are wider, but the obstacles extend out to about 100 miles in some density......

Not participate?

If someone holds a 50 yard dash a cross 6 lanes of freeway traffic are you in? 

My second point, how fast are the boats in the HK to Hainan race? There is a big difference between "hammering along" at 10 knots and 20-25 knots of a Volvo 65. Things that were reasonable when boats went half as fast are not as reasonable now.

Finally, I am not talking about all boats all the time.  I don't think there has to be one solution for all situations, judgment and management is necessary.

SHC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoppy said:

Seeking redress for a collision that killed someone would be the dumbest thing the Vestas team could do and the same applies to VOR management if they considered it.

I suspect that the thought of a redress never crossed the minds of either party.

 

The idea that some people here are seriously discussing the possibility has got to be one of the dumbest discussions ever on SA...

 

Morality or rules?

And whilst on about it discuss the morality of the human race.

PS has anybody come across the NOR for this particular race.............................................................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Herman said:

FIFY

Leg Abu Dhabi - Sanya was 2014/15.

Actually Herman, Panoramix is also correct - 2 editions went Abu Dhabi - Sanya

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, familysailor said:

Has there been any official description of the vessel published?

Small fishing boats from mainland China near HK like most places come in all different shapes and sizes. 

However of the size mentioned, people on board and distance off the coast a reasonable guess apart from being definitely timber is open deck except for a covered section aft, low freeboard and flat bottom. The latter feature is for minimum draft and sitting in the mud at low tide. 

The next size up tend to have dog houses and dericks and get to tie up to jetty type structures and travel longer distances so don't have flat bottoms.

Nav lighting on smaller craft is virtually non existent and so rely on deck lighting for visability if at all.

images (57).jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, hoppy said:

I'm pretty sure I saw Vestas on Aussie news sites that did not normally cover the VOR.

It would be more of an issue it Team Vestas was called Team Navionics. Then it would be a marketing disaster.

Maybe at the time of the accident there were some company CEO's, farmers, town mayors who were comparing bids for wind generators who saw the accident image. They might have gone with Vestas thinking they may need the money and support now ;)

Marketing has very little to do with Vestas' sponsorship, it's all about the image of wind energy. That's also why they were happy to team up with 11th Hour Racing  ("This time, their campaign is being run in full partnership with 11th Hour Racing, a programme of The Schmidt Family Foundation working to implement real change on marine health.")

There are considerable environmental and associated legislative issues with wind power,  and not just on a local scale. Governments are  very involved and lobbying is the name of the game. And don't forget this is big business, very very big indeed. And guess where the most wind power is produced, probably with less legislative issues and lobbying involved though. 

Do your own research if you like, or perhaps Prof. Francis can lecture us a bit, but it's not really a subject for this thread.

What is of importance now is the image of Vestas, Volvo, Dong Feng, and other sponsors, and whatever some here are saying, that will greatly influence their handling of this tragic incident. Their CEO's have been busy this weekend, they were in Hong Kong to have some fun, but had to work hard instead. And the money bag will rattle but we may never hear that. We may never hear anything at all, all will be forgotten soon, and the show will go on.

And here is a first for SA,  a picture of the new CEO single-handily doing the donkey work:

Image result for "money bag"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Steve Clark said:

My second point, how fast are the boats in the HK to Hainan race? There is a big difference between "hammering along" at 10 knots and 20-25 knots of a Volvo 65. Things that were reasonable when boats went half as fast are not as reasonable now.

The race record is held by Scallywag, the faster than a V65 maxi 100 version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

Not relevant... The whole purpose and intent  of COLREGS and RRS is to avoid collisions and the risk of damage, injury and worse case, death. In this incident, we got it all, and by a miracle, only one death. No Investigation, Jury or Court in the world would assign 100% blame in these circumstances.

I didn't ask for your opinion about fault or Colregs. I asked if anyone had seen a description of the actual fishing boat involved.

You start with," Not relevant..."  To whom? You? If so then don't respond.

I asked the question because I would like to know, Who the fuck are you to tell me it's "Not Relevant..."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Small fishing boats from mainland China near HK like most places come in all different shapes and sizes. 

However of the size mentioned, people on board and distance off the coast a reasonable guess apart from being definitely timber is open deck except for a covered section aft and flat bottom. The latter feature is for minimum draft and sitting in the mud at low tide. 

The next size up tend to have dog houses and dericks and get to tie up to jetty type structures and travel longer distances so don't have flat bottoms.

Nav lighting is virtually non existent and so rely on deck lighting for visability.

images (57).jpeg

So the boat could have been anything from small to large likely wooden but possibly not. We don't even know what port it calls home...

No facts yet just guesses.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Marketing has very little to do with Vestas' sponsorship, it's all about the image of wind energy.

Wow, in one sentence you totally contradicted yourself LOL

The whole "image of wind energy" is all about marketing. Get people thinking about sustainability, thinking about wind power generation, thinking that maybe they should support the government/companies plan to build a wind farm and guess who supplies the win generator...

Even if there was a boat call "Microsoft turn the tide on plastic" that will be good marketing for helping to add to BG's net wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jack_sparrow said:

As I say "a reasonable guess".

Yup.

And several people here are creating scenarios about what happened to whom and why it's the fault of of one boat or another or the race organizers etc. All based on very few reasonable guesses, several WAGs and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

It was probably caused by Godzilla erupting out of the sea and distracting all involved. Pretty reasonable guess based on known facts. Ya think?

Fixed the N in the original post.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hoppy said:

The race record is held by Scallywag, the faster than a V65 maxi 100 version

A race where you thread your way through other boats - that's pretty much heaven for Witty. 

Exhibit A. 

Exhibit B. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Wow, in one sentence you totally contradicted yourself LOL

The whole "image of wind energy" is all about marketing. Get people thinking about sustainability, thinking about wind power generation, thinking that maybe they should support the government/companies plan to build a wind farm and guess who supplies the win generator...

Even if there was a boat call "Microsoft turn the tide on plastic" that will be good marketing for helping to add to BG's net wealth.

I knew you might say that...   You clearly talked about marketing of a product, I am not.

Now you change tack, or should I say clarify yourself, and yes that's a part of it. Government and regulatory bodies are possibly more important, and that is called lobbying. Yes, you can call that marketing if you like, ok?  

 

 

Edited by Fiji Bitter
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

I knew you might say that...   You clearly talked about marketing of a product, I am not.

It does not matter if a company is marketing a product, a corporate identity or principle. It all attempts to lead back to one thing, increased sales.

These images sent around the world would have made more people aware of their name. It is not necessarily a bad thing being seen on an environmentally friendly mode of transport that has gone wrong. Much better than having the name seen on the side of an oil tanker that has run aground causing an oil slick.

vestasmort.01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

A race where you thread your way through other boats - that's pretty much heaven for Witty. 

Skiff sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, familysailor said:

Yup.

And several people here are creating scenarios about what happened to whom and why it's the fault of of one boat or another or the race organizers etc. All based on very few reasonable guesses, several WAGs and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

It was probably caused by Godzilla erupting out of the sea and distracting all involved. Pretty reasonable guess based on known facts. Ya think?

Fixed the N in the original post.

 

2 hours ago, familysailor said:

Has there been any official description of the vessel published?

Your the one that asked the wearabouts or otherwise of an official description of the fishing vessel when it is sitting at the bottom of the Sth China Sea and when there is a complete blackout on everything pertaining to the incident. Why ask?

However seeing you asked I gave a description for your benefit based upon my knowledge of the area and called it a "reasonable guess". 

Therefore your sarcastic responses are not appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hoppy said:

These images sent around the world would have made more people aware of their name. It is not necessarily a bad thing being seen on an environmentally friendly mode of transport that has gone wrong. Much better than having the name seen on the side of an oil tanker that has run aground causing an oil slick.

So long as the spin stays on topic.  So long as circumstance beyond their control don't take over the narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A horrible thing happened.

 

From reading the posts of Francis (and maybe Jack) the horrible thing is not an infrequent occurrence, it just doesn't usually involve racing sailing boats. ( gents put me right if I have this wrong)

We have a choice.

Discuss the human race and all that entails - 1st, 2nd & 3rd world - poverty, capitalism, socialism, communism, nationalism, tribalism etc etc not forgetting we are one of 10000 or more species, maybe billions - who knows we might discover a new paradigm - though not sure I'd have anything useful to contribute....... However, never been there but I'm afeared we may be overrun by PA or are they too busy trumping the pros n cons - who knows..

Attempt to have a pragmatic conversation about how best to avoid collision and death whilst providing for highly competitive yacht racing. Clearly that won't be easy.

Or maybe simply consider the strategic and tactical moves that played out during during leg 4.

I'm sure there are more possibilities.

Or shall we just leave it there?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rogerfal said:

I'm sure there are more possibilities.

Talk about the bottle of wine/whine I just opened, or not talk at all, just watch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rogerfal said:

A horrible thing happened.

From reading the posts of Francis (and maybe Jack) the horrible thing is not an infrequent occurrence, it just doesn't usually involve racing sailing boats. ( gents put me right if I have this wrong)

Yes Roger this incident is unfortunately a dime a dozen in this part of the world. 

However in this case as soon as the word "racing" is placed in front of the word "boat" and incorporates competitors from around the planet with their respective followers, it becomes a completely different box of monkeys from everyone's perspective.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

Your the one that asked the whereabouts or otherwise of an official description of the fishing vessel when it is sitting at the bottom of the Sth China Sea and when there is a complete blackout on everything pertaining to the incident. Why ask?

However seeing you asked I gave a description for your benefit based upon my knowledge of the area and called it a "reasonable guess". 

Therefore your sarcastic responses are not appreciated.

My response was meant to spray sarcasm on the thread in general not you specifically. You can take it personally if you want...:blink:

The reason I asked is because the "twenty foot" fishing boat was being increasingly repeated in posts here, and seemingly treated as a fact by some. I thought maybe I'd missed some official pronouncement. Apparently I had not. So my response to the first person that simply answered my question,

2 hours ago, samc99us said:

Nope, no official description of the fishing boat has been posted to my knowledge. Even the wooden bit is speculation.

"As I suspected"

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because to have the ability to race one needs plata - 1st world dilemmas....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

However in this case as soon as the word "racing" is placed in front of the word "boat" and incorporates competitors from around the planet with their respective followers, it becomes a completely different box of monkeys from everyone's perspective.

Outrageous!  Are you saying the life of a fisherman is ah ... the rules.  Um, rule 92?  Or was it 69?  What about the hole?  Was it wood?  

Never mind.  I thought I'd give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Jack, @ familysailor @ Southern

Guess I's wondering if we could move towards something positive - troubled though, all sounds a bit Swedish n to make matters worse I need to sleep......:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any word on the repair-turn-around time? I saw on Farr's facebook page that they had a team on their way to HK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, familysailor said:

My response was meant to spray sarcasm on the thread in general not you specifically. You can take it personally if you want...:blink:

Not me specifically and in 2 replies to me?..crap. Try reading what you write.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

As I say "a reasonable guess".

 

1 hour ago, familysailor said:

It was probably caused by Godzilla erupting out of the sea and distracting all involved. Pretty reasonable guess based on known facts. Ya think?

If you felt compelled to respond, a simple thank you would have sufficed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites