duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, rogerfal said:

In any case I feel this is all about pleasing sponsors and has little regard for the rules.

If Jack refer this correctly:

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

We don't know the details attached to the RC's Protest or reference to the IJ.

.... which means the RC has protested the situation, and the IJ rejected the protest, how can their be a hidden intention of pleasing the sponsors?

 

But I don't know if Jack refer this correctly, as I haven't seen a reference to any protest from the RC.

I only know the statement, quoted in Francis' post above, saying that:

The Jury advises that Race Control’s action did not result in a breach of rule 41 by SHK Scallywag. SHK Scallywag did receive help from an outside source, in this case the Race Control.

However, the help given is permitted under rule 41(d). The information was not requested by SHK Scallywag so it was unsolicited information. The source, in this case a member of the Race Control, was a disinterested source for the purposes of rule 41 because he had no personal or other interest in the position of SHK Scallywag relative to other boats in the race. Nor would he gain or lose in any way as a result of the position of SHK Scallywag in the race.

Notice once again the sentence: Nor would he gain or lose in any way as a result of the position of SHK Scallywag in the race ... which is totally consistant with the definition: "Significant advantage" means the boat has advanced in distance, time or a number of places, compared to the rest of the fleet, as a direct result of the help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commenting on my own posting - always a very bad sign.....

But I realised that there was a second critical point in the IJ's ruling:

The source was an employee of Volvo Ocean Race who, as a member of Race Control, has a responsibility for the safety of all competitors. Asking the question he did was therefore a proper action for him to take.

This addresses the question of redress. If the assistance is a proper action, there are no grounds for other boats to seek redress due to an improper action by the RC. Very clear, watertight, and clarifies things for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made just about every mistake there is to make at the start . . 

But I have not (yet) snagged the pin (Dongfeng at Guangzhou.) 

Pretty embarrassing in front of the home crowd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andalay said:

I still maintain a large part of the problem is the 'modern' habit of staring at screens instead of keeping a solid lookout. Vestas is 2 for 2 on that score.

So here is a possible solution:

http://www.flir.com/cores/content/?id=66257&collectionid=1566&col=74406

With this gadget at the top of the mast V11 would have spotted the fishing boat in plenty of time to avoid them.

It might possibly also be useful to look for growlers in the Southern Ocean.

Idea Pat Pending Andalay LLC.

Interesting. Anyone here had any experience in a marine environment with this technology?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Grinning Ape said:

You should really spend more time in China. 

be careful what you wish for ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andalay said:

With this gadget at the top of the mast

best wishes convincing racers to put more weight on top of the mast :o

you are talking to folks who weigh windex's .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Interesting. Anyone here had any experience in a marine environment with this technology?

littlechay

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

best wishes convincing racers to put more weight on top of the mast :o

you are talking to folks who weigh windex's .

The FLIR unit would be moving about so much you wouldn’t be able to make anything out. It’d be like watching an acid trip whilst on acid. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lepton has a very low resolution 160 x 120, progressive scan. 8 frames/second. That's like mid 70's Pong. Correction:  Pong was 852 x 852!

FLIR has much more capable units that could be hand held or deck mounted and would be better for spotting fishing boats. The Ocean Scout for one. Handheld monocular. http://flir.ca/marine/oceanscout/

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The FLIR unit would be moving about so much you wouldn’t be able to make anything out. It’d be like watching an acid trip whilst on acid. 

Good point.

Maybe the picture can be stabilized electronically as a phone camera is? I don't know. I have no experience of watching my acid trips while on acid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Lepton has a very low resolution 160 x 120, progressive scan. 8 frames/second. That's like mid 70's Pong. Correction:  Pong was 852 x 852!

FLIR has much more capable units that could be hand held or deck mounted and would be better for spotting fishing boats. The Ocean Scout for one. Handheld monocular. http://flir.ca/marine/oceanscout/

 

 

Maybe something mounted on the stern instrument masts?

I don't know. Would it see through the sails?

It needs to be permanently mounted and displayed on the nav screens below or in the cockpit. Otherwise no one will look at it.

 

Share this post


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

Only if it has a super wide lens and they stabilise the equivalent of a high powered telephoto lens section of the image.

One of the Lepton units has a 50 degree FOV. That may not be enough if it is mast mounted cause of the movement.

Whatever, they clearly need to investigate some sort of NV technology to help prevent similar accidents. Or maybe just caution sailors to keep a better lookout in coastal waters. Hard to do with exhausted crew who stare at screens rather than looking over the bow. Even harder when the boat is moving at 20 kn plus.

Share this post


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

Good point.

Maybe the picture can be stabilized electronically as a phone camera is? I don't know. I have no experience of watching my acid trips while on acid.

Might be a 'tab' scary. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

best wishes convincing racers to put more weight on top of the mast :o

you are talking to folks who weigh windex's .

If it works and isn’t ridiculously heavy or power hungry, I’m sure organisations like the Volvo in the one design situation would be happy to look at the option. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't need to be ridiculously heavy , maths and geometry take care of that .

Share this post


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

The Lepton has a very low resolution 160 x 120, progressive scan. 8 frames/second. That's like mid 70's Pong. Correction:  Pong was 852 x 852!

FLIR has much more capable units that could be hand held or deck mounted and would be better for spotting fishing boats. The Ocean Scout for one. Handheld monocular. http://flir.ca/marine/oceanscout/

 

 

That’s impressive, if I was nav on one these boats, I’d buy my own if the team didn’t!!  

Surprised they haven’t something for all the tricky harbour finishes they have. Anybody know??

Share this post


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

Will this thread please just go away and die........

The leg finished weeks ago, the so called "leg 5" has been run, Vestas has left Honkers on a ship, the IJ's decision has been made on Scally and there is deefening silence about the Vestas collision.

Time to move on, get a life and wait for leg 6 to start.

 

Now is the time for...

 

Thanks for adding to post count, rather than just ignoring it. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems this thread is now officially closed ;) :unsure: :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Interesting. Anyone here had any experience in a marine environment with this technology?

Yes. It is of some, limited, use parking in a marina or coming in through a mooring field. At sea even the stabilised versions are pretty useless. The unstabilised versions are a total crock of shit. As for spotting growlers with them forget it. There is not enough temperature differential between the water and water washing over the growler so a thermal camera is blind to the difference. 

I'm not sure where you would put it on a VOR. Too much movement, and probably shock loading, at the top of the mast; two would be required  on the spreaders one each side and then they could both be blinded depending on the sail configuration I guess; They wouldn't last a leg on the pulpit.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

They wouldn't last a leg on the pulpit.

Why not? The other electronics survive. They'd have to be marinized, in some sort of waterproof and solid housing. One on each quarter mounted about 8 or 10 feet up would give pretty good coverage. 

They do it with their onboard cameras, which look to have NV capability anyway, although I think  (from looking at footage) that it is image intensifier rather than IR.

I have no argument with any of your other points.

Share this post


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

One on each quarter mounted about 8 or 10 feet up would give pretty good coverage.

You mean duct tape them to broomsticks? 

Anyway North's are probably working on headsails with built-in Wireless FLIR cameras as we speak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't going to be an off the shelf installation that is for sure. But that should not be an impediment. 

Possibly a big problem with FLIR systems is that the good ones are DOC export controlled as dual use systems. If you want a high frame rate - ie one that isn't just a blur when the boat is moving you need an export license - for anything over 9 Hz. Want high resolution? Same problem. (Actually you need an export license for 9 Hz as well, but so long as you are not selling to any of the usual terrorist suspects there isn't a problem getting one. Higher resolutions and frame rates are a much harder problem.) I will guess this is why commercial systems for use on boats are so limited in capability.

There are almost certainly off the shelf military FLIR systems that would be perfect. Obtaining them, and at an affordable price, is another matter. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is not gone die yet:

It's quite a campaign that AkzoNobel got going actually:

https://www.akzonobel.com/for-media/media-releases-and-features/akzonobel-and-masterpeace-complete-100-lets-colour-walls-0

AkzoNobel and global peace movement MasterPeace have reached a milestone of creating 100 “walls of connection” in more than 30 cities this year. The 100th mural was painted this week at the AkzoNobel education center in Badshahpur, Gurgaon, India.

Share this post


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

Why not? The other electronics survive. They'd have to be marinized, in some sort of waterproof and solid housing. One on each quarter mounted about 8 or 10 feet up would give pretty good coverage. 

They do it with their onboard cameras, which look to have NV capability anyway, although I think  (from looking at footage) that it is image intensifier rather than IR.

I have no argument with any of your other points.

I said "pulpit" the one at the front, not "pushpit" the one at the back. I know from experience they don't last in ocean conditions back there either. Moving parts and salt and heating on the lens window all add up to kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for fun I had a look at FLIR's marine offerings. There is a dramatically wide variation in capability - easily 10:1, with the higher end systems providing quite remarkable capability. No doubt the price varies just as much. 

The serious systems are mostly directed at large vessels. Catalogue here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why not? The other electronics survive. They'd have to be marinized, in some sort of waterproof and solid housing. One on each quarter mounted about 8 or 10 feet up would give pretty good coverage. 

 

They really don't. The marinised, waterproofed cameras last less than a week up there. In fact, I think they have given up on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, littlechay said:

I said "pulpit" the one at the front, not "pushpit" the one at the back. I know from experience they don't last in ocean conditions back there either. Moving parts and salt and heating on the lens window all add up to kill them.

Brain fart, sorry. I'm old.

Nav lights and load cells survive at the bow of the boat. Why not a suitably hardened and marinized IR camera?

Answer, I don't know. Their other electronics survive on the pushpit.

Francis has posted some eminently sensible comments.

I have carried night vision and even gyro stabilized 7 X 50 binos back in the day (they cost the O over GBP 3500 in the 80s - but hell it was Irvine Laidlaw and he could afford it even back then). They were both useful but I agree your comments in general about using them in a serious seaway. 

And of course, any handheld device is subject to the same limitations that modern offshore racers have with keeping a good bow lookout - someone has to actually be looking.

No, IMHO they need a permanently mounted system displaying on the screens below that the naviguesser is watching.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Potter said:

They really don't. The marinised, waterproofed cameras last less than a week up there. In fact, I think they have given up on them.

At the top of the mast or on a mounting off the pushpit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushpit - Would not solve the problem of seeing past the sails.

Masthead - Weight would be an argument against, but you could counter with the One Design argument.  I actually think the biggest issue would be the shaking and movement that occurs at the masthead.

A little like the concept of looking for objects in the water, or for icebergs. By the time you see anything it will probably be too late.

 

Some of the teams do have handheld night vision monoculars, but they are more for confirming a sighting than a constant lookout. The batteries do not last long enough for constant use.

I am sure the technology will get there, but then like AIS, it relies upon people to use it...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This thread sure is circular

And the Flir "discussion" a (Chinees) circle jerk.

 

Image result for circle jerk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Potter said:

I am sure the technology will get there, but then like AIS, it relies upon people to use it...

In my view AIS, while eminently useful, can be a distraction. I did a delivery back from Subic to HK a couple of years ago and the skipper and the other crew (who was only on his second China Sea crossing) spent all of their time staring at the AIS and obsessing about cargo ships 60 miles away which would cross us in 3 hours several miles away. And neither of them ever stood up to look over the bow.

This is part of the reason I am so against the modern generation of yachties who simply stare at a screen. Hence Vestas hits a reef last time around for failure to zoom in on the chart (and that is IMHO a failure of the GPS chart plotter makers for designing a machine which is too user friendly so that it omits hazard details if you are zoomed out too far), and hits a fishing boat this time around. 

Maybe it was failure to keep a good lookout? Maybe it was too much reliance on insufficient technology (radar?).

I don't know.

My main point is that modern IR technology provides a way to reduce the risk of this sort of accident. I don't know how and why (all previous posts are speculative) or how much it would cost to apply, but I sure as shit hope that the discussion here will push the sponsors to investigate and maybe make changes and maybe prevent some poor Chinese (or otherwise) fisherman losing his life for being in the wrong place.

Someone needs to be keeping a lookout and if the crew aren't prepared to do so physically then we (I mean the whole offshore community) need to add some way of putting forward surveillance onto the screens that the modern kiddies spend their time staring at.

Share this post


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

Francis has posted some eminently sensible comments.

Agree though tempered with the fact Francis has absolutely no experience with virtualy all the stuff he writes about that keeps many enthralled.

That said I read everyone of Francis's posts with interest as I suspect his brain or at least research time is greater than mine and afterall this is the internet bar and all are welcome for a drink and and to yarn with ...well until they they have one gulp too many.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Andalay said:

Someone needs to be keeping a lookout and if the crew aren't prepared to do so physically..

Where do you people come from?

tenor.gif

Share this post


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

Where do you people come from?

tenor.gif

You people? I come from more than 50,000 miles at sea, Ocean racing and on delivery over 36 years in 2 Oceans (Pacific and Southern) and 4 Seas ( China, Andaman. Mediterranean and Caribbean) and one Great Lake (Ontario) on my first passage and on which I - blush - admit we got lost. The first Ocean delivery I did as navigator I used a sextant and RDF.

I note that it is a regrettable tendency for many modern sailors, especially those who think of themselves as navigators because of their computer skills, to spend their time staring at screens instead of looking around.

Nyaah nyaah, nyaah nyaaah nyaah.

Share this post


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

You people? I come from more than 50,000 miles at sea, Ocean racing and on delivery over 36 years in 2 Oceans and 4 Seas. The first delivery I did as navigator I used a sextant and RDF. I note that it is a regrettable tendency for many modern sailors, especially those who think of themselves as navigators because of their computer skills, to spend their time staring at screens instead of looking around.

Nyaah nyaah, nyaah nyaaah nyaah.

Thats great mate but I will raise you if you want to go there.

You got the "headless chimney" by saying as you did:

2 hours ago, Andalay said:

Someone needs to be keeping a lookout and if the crew aren't prepared to do so physically

Think about that brain explosion, then give yourself an uppercut.

Share this post


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

You people? I come from more than 50,000 miles at sea, Ocean racing and on delivery over 36 years in 2 Oceans and 4 Seas. The first delivery I did as navigator I used a sextant and RDF. I note that it is a regrettable tendency for many modern sailors, especially those who think of themselves as navigators because of their computer skills, to spend their time staring at screens instead of looking around.

Nyaah nyaah, nyaah nyaaah nyaah.

Good for you. I believe that the VOR boats have people on deck at all times, so of course they "look around". I've never been on a boat where navigation was done purely by what the computer said. I think you mean cruisers....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good for you. I believe that the VOR boats have people on deck at all times, so of course they "look around". I've never been on a boat where navigation was done purely by what the computer said. I think you mean cruisers....

Of course they do, but it is very difficult to keep a visual lookout when the boat is moving at 20 kn plus and spray is everywhere. Plus they don't stack people on the rail where the guy in front is expected to keep an eyeball forward.

Obviously the driver and whoever is on deck are looking but they are concentrating on jobs other than looking for hazards.

Vestas on the reef three years ago is a good example of over-reliance on technology (and stupid programming of GPS plotters). I don't know if a good lookout would have helped but if you watch the footage of the crash there is nobody looking forward other than the helm.

Four years ago on a race in HK waters the guest guesser, staring at the screen instead of looking at the compass and the windex, overstood us at the final gybe mark by 800 m and lost us the race. We were sailing at 140 true angle (so expect to gybe through 80) and by the time he called the gybe the mark was 120 degrees off the port bow - we overstood by 40 degrees.

All I am saying is you can't rely on the damn screens.

 

Share this post


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

All I am saying is you can't rely on the damn screens.

Hey! Show a little love for the autopilots and the Vendee :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Obviously the driver and whoever is on deck are looking but they are concentrating on jobs other than looking for hazards.

Obviously the answer is having boats crewed by owls?

images (73).jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le Figaro interview with DFRT's Marie Riou, mostly about Leg 3 and watching the tracker for Leg 4. Probably belongs with the crew change topic in Leg 6 (will move it there if requested).

Quote

By Guillaume Loisy

Updated on the 01/02/2018 at 08h38 - Published on 01/02/2018 at 08h23

Four-time world champion in Olympic sailing (Nacra catamaran), Marie Riou participates in her first Volvo Ocean Race aboard Dongfeng. La Française evokes for Le Figaro the difficulty of the crewed world tour.

Interviewed in Hong Kong,

After a break at the 4 th stage Melboune-Hong Kong, you're back with Dongfeng ... 
Marie Riou: Yes, here we go again! I am happy to be back but also to have a break because the stage in the South (Cape Town-Melbourne) was hard. I returned to France where I was able to enjoy my family and friends even though I was on the tracker, morning, noon and night to see how the boat was going (laughs). 

Did you think the Volvo Ocean Race was so difficult? 
The Lisbon-Cape Town stage had been long but top. I had never gone more than seven days at sea before participating in this world tour. And there, 20 days it was spent nickel. But the next step in the Great South was harder. I knew it would not be easy but still ... And we're not halfway through the race yet (smile).

What is the hardest on board? 
Those tons of water that come on deck and mow you! You may be back to the maximum, when the boat crashes, you take full face. You have to find little tricks, you put your head first, you cling where you can and you do not move! You spend a lot of energy just trying to stay up.

Are you scared? 
When you have difficult conditions and you go out to take your shift, you sometimes have the ball in your stomach. It's hard but you live with it. You really have to be careful, have a clinging hand to not fly in the boat. In the South, we are harnessed 100% of the time. We have a lanyard hooked to our lifejacket and that we clip on two lines of life. Inside, there is also a net in the middle to avoid getting thrown from one side to the other.

"After what happened on Scallywag, we will take even more precautions" 

Have you hurt yourself? 
No, luckily I did not have a bobo until then (note, she bends down to touch the wooden deck of DongfengPavilion ). But there were a lot of injuries on all the boats. And after what happened on Scallywag (editor's note, a crewman fell into the water before being fished alive), we think we'll take even more precautions. Sometimes we are a little too quiet when conditions are good or there is no wind at all. But the danger is permanent.

How do you manage to recharge the batteries between two steps? 
We are lucky to have a great team. Everything is very well organized around us, we are pampered. We have a coach (Neil McLean-Martin) who deals with both dietetics and our physiotherapist. We have recovery sessions after each step and physio if needed. We also work with a mental coach (Alexis Landais) with whom we check regularly to know what state of mind we are. It avoids something that rises in us and ends up exploding on the boat (smile).

per gtrans http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/voile/volvo-ocean-race/actualite/marie-riou-quand-tu-sors-prendre-ton-quart-tu-as-parfois-la-boule-au-ventre-894981

Share this post


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

Obviously the answer is having boats crewed by owls?

images (73).jpeg

In my experience owls are rather averse to getting wet.B)

Share this post


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

Thats great mate but I will raise you if you want to go there.

You got the "headless chimney" by saying as you did:

7 hours ago, Andalay said:

Someone needs to be keeping a lookout and if the crew aren't prepared to do so physically

Think about that brain explosion, then give yourself an uppercut.

Raise away, I bow to anyone (and there are plenty) with more miles and years of experience than I have.

I still don't get the headless chimney as regards my remark about not keeping a proper lookout, which has also been suggested by others on this thread.

As I said to Norbowgirl, I admit it is very difficult under the conditions that VOR boats sail in (speed, limited crew, high apparent wind speeds and therefore lots of spray and limited visibility), and as per my original suggestion about FLIR, perhaps (only perhaps) technology can find an answer?

I don't know, I'm just an over the hill old fart banging on a keyboard.

I don't like to be rude to people unless they are rude to me which is one reason I have been a lurker here for so long rather than getting into polemics. 

I don't want to insult anyone or piss people off. Perhaps I should just STFU and go back to lurking since it seems this is an unusual attitude for SA.

I look forward to the first post of 'suck it up buttercup'.

:)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Andalay said:

 

As I said to Norbowgirl, I admit it is very difficult under the conditions that VOR boats sail in (speed, limited crew, high apparent wind speeds and therefore lots of spray and limited visibility), and as per my original suggestion about FLIR, perhaps (only perhaps) technology can find an answer?

 

 

Both accidents with boats named Vestas, happened in pitch dark. 

How do you suggest to organize a lookout for reefs and boats without lanterns (or poorly lit) in the dark? And other unlit objects...

I’m sure you will remember how little you can see in the dark, and how you mostly have to trust your......

 

 

....instruments ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andalay said:

In my view AIS, while eminently useful, can be a distraction. I did a delivery back from Subic to HK a couple of years ago and the skipper and the other crew (who was only on his second China Sea crossing) spent all of their time staring at the AIS and obsessing about cargo ships 60 miles away which would cross us in 3 hours several miles away. And neither of them ever stood up to look over the bow.

This is part of the reason I am so against the modern generation of yachties who simply stare at a screen. Hence Vestas hits a reef last time around for failure to zoom in on the chart (and that is IMHO a failure of the GPS chart plotter makers for designing a machine which is too user friendly so that it omits hazard details if you are zoomed out too far), and hits a fishing boat this time around. 

Maybe it was failure to keep a good lookout? Maybe it was too much reliance on insufficient technology (radar?).

I don't know.

My main point is that modern IR technology provides a way to reduce the risk of this sort of accident. I don't know how and why (all previous posts are speculative) or how much it would cost to apply, but I sure as shit hope that the discussion here will push the sponsors to investigate and maybe make changes and maybe prevent some poor Chinese (or otherwise) fisherman losing his life for being in the wrong place.

Someone needs to be keeping a lookout and if the crew aren't prepared to do so physically then we (I mean the whole offshore community) need to add some way of putting forward surveillance onto the screens that the modern kiddies spend their time staring at.

Hang on Andalay, isn't your argument for MORE electronics (FLIR, for example) counter to the one above - that more electronics encourages sailors to rely less on keeping a proper lookout?

Or am I confused (again)? ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Hang on Andalay, isn't your argument for MORE electronics (FLIR, for example) counter to the one above - that more electronics encourages sailors to rely less on keeping a proper lookout?

Or am I confused (again)? ;)

Personally, the older I get the more confused I get.

If the VOR is going to sail 65 footers at 20 knots nine up (at most) with no one on the rail keeping a sharp lookout then they need to find a way to put the forward NV IR view on the screen where the only person (the nav) watching where they are can see it. No contradiction.

Somebody needs to keep a better lookout - otherwise there wouldn't have been a fatal collision and a boat on a reef, whether it is a guy on the rail (already noted as difficult) or technology it seems clear to me the current system is lacking and needs to be improved.

That's my bottom line.

Whatever future decisions are taken by the organizers I hope this debate (which I have no doubt some of them are following) helps their deliberations.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, just a fair number of offshore miles and a lot of memories of scary moments in the dark on boats (some of which were) going a lot slower.  Plus a desire to see things made safer for all concerned.

 

Share this post


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

Personally, the older I get the more confused I get.

If the VOR is going to sail 65 footers at 20 knots nine up (at most) with no one on the rail keeping a sharp lookout then they need to find a way to put the forward NV IR view on the screen where the only person (the nav) watching where they are can see it. No contradiction.

Somebody needs to keep a better lookout - otherwise there wouldn't have been a fatal collision and a boat on a reef, whether it is a guy on the rail (already noted as difficult) or technology it seems clear to me the current system is lacking and needs to be improved.

That's my bottom line.

Whatever future decisions are taken by the organizers I hope this debate (which I have no doubt some of them are following) helps their deliberations.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, just a fair number of offshore miles and a lot of memories of scary moments in the dark on boats (some of which were) going a lot slower.  Plus a desire to see things made safer for all concerned.

 

That's fair enough. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

walk away from the keyboard mid ......................

Share this post


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

walk away from the keyboard mid ......................

Just say it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some context,  from a Clean Innerview with Knut Frostad almost 10 years ago:

Quote

SA: And what's the big danger there? [Malacca Straits]

KF: There are huge fishing fleets, especially close to the Southeast coast of China where they have all these old wooden 40-50foot boats without proper nav lights, no radios, nothing – trawling around the coastline. So that's going to be a challenge. 

SA: And obviously something that not only could hurt either a sailor or a fisherman, but the race itself. That biodiesel motor boat that killed the Guatemalan fisherman a few years back was not only a tragedy, but a PR fiasco for the boat and its sponsors, and the skipper even ended up in jail for a little while. What extra equipment will the boats have to deal with this?

KF: All the boats are carrying an AIS now, but they mostly use them to receive, because they don't want to transmit their position to the other Volvo boats. Part of this leg they will be required to transmit via AIS, which will help with the commercial shipping at least. As for the fisherman, radar is getting better and better – the radars in use now do a much better job of identifying objects then they did even three years ago. We are also working very closely with the governments to identify exactly where the highest densities of fisherman are – we could actually end up putting waypoints in to keep the race boats away from the bulk of the fleets.

SA: What about night vision/infrared devices?

KF: We haven't put it in the rules, but quite a few teams have them that I know of. I'd always be carrying it myself on a race like this – even a little light on a fishing boat stands out with the proper equipment.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/82028-vor-innerview/

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Some context,  from a Clean Innerview with Knut Frostad almost 10 years ago:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/82028-vor-innerview/

Great find, particularly on the infrared/ night vision equipment. A self-fulfilling prophecy really... 

Wondering if teams actually considered that this time round given that quite a few of them were in the 2008/09 race - Chuny and Mutter from Vestas for instance. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, k-f-u said:

Great find, particularly on the infrared/ night vision equipment. A self-fulfilling prophecy really... 

Wondering if teams actually considered that this time round given that quite a few of them were in the 2008/09 race - Chuny and Mutter from Vestas for instance. 

Serendipity--wasn't looking for it. That whole thread is great reading, and so much applicable to this edition. You're right about so many of the current names--Bouwe in particular also.

Share this post


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

Some context,  from a Clean Innerview with Knut Frostad almost 10 years ago:

Wasn't that interesting ...and boy doesn't 10 years slip by so quickly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Andalay said:

I still don't get the headless chimney as regards my remark about not keeping a proper lookout, which has also been suggested by others on this thread.

Simple you and others are jumping to the conclusion that Vestas was not keeping a proper lookout and Vestas shares a large slab of responsibility for this incident. 

However you went even further indicating they were not up to keeping a proper lookout physically, inferring they were shirking that responsibility.  That is just plain wrong.

Hence the chimney.

Other than that what you said was an interesting read and befitting your extensive experience, though and like many, still only concentrating on  Vestas to argue cause and solutions. 

There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect.

Rant over.

Share this post


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

So you think that if the RO had informed Beijing and they issued an NtM, the fishermen would have read it, been better prepared and this accident would never have happened?

I guess you still believe that Santa Claus, UFO's, easter bunny, tooth fairy and honest politicians exist.

I know of the communication practises adopted by commercial fisherman in that area for a variety of things incl NtM's. YOU DON'T.

Did I say or infer this accident would never have happened if a NtM had been issued. NO I DIDN'T.

I don't believe in those things you have listed. However if you had added, Is Hoppy being a cockhead today? I would say YES.

Share this post


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

I guess you still believe that Santa Claus, UFO's, easter bunny, tooth fairy and honest politicians exist.

I believe in UFO's. I've seen them on the dinghy anarchy page! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I found a bit odd when looking at the Hong Kong notices, was that they had notices for the Round Island Race, and for today's start. But no notice for the arrivals. One would guess they felt that with a spread out fleet arriving there was no value - but it did strike me as odd. I would hope there is a revision of this in the future.

http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/notices/notices.html

And, the VOR have stuffed up. There is nothing amending the start time in the published notices. The VOR have unilaterally changed the start and the value of the notice is wiped out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jethrow said:

I believe in UFO's. I've seen them on the dinghy anarchy page! ;)

And they have foils which are very dangerous to sail which also explains this new increase in sailing injuries.... or so I read somewhere

Hang on .... I'm on the wrong thread.... I'll get my blazer...

Share this post


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

Simple you and others are jumping to the conclusion that Vestas was not keeping a proper lookout and Vestas shares a large slab of responsibility for this incident. 

However you went even further indicating they were not up to keeping a proper lookout physically, inferring they were shirking that responsibility.  That is just plain wrong.

Hence the chimney.

Other than that what you said was an interesting read and befitting your extensive experience, though and like many, still only concentrating on  Vestas to argue cause and solutions. 

There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect.

Rant over.

By definition, if you hit a reef that is clearly shown on charts because you didn't zoom in far enough it is operator error and your fault.

By definition, if you hit something you would have seen had you been looking in the right direction you are not keeping a proper lookout. It seems to me that clearly Vestas has to share some of the responsibility at least.

Not up to me to say legally whether or not the crew was shirking their responsibility - I am sure that will be addressed in the enquiry/inquiry, if anyone ever hears about it.

I am not trying to lay blame on these guys - they face enormous challenges and I am sure they were exhausted at the time, pushing hard for the finish.

And indeed, the fishing boats do not make it any easier, with incorrect lights and a considerable disregard for other traffic.

Many years ago coming back to HK from a highly entertaining fishing expedition to Pratas Reef (when there was a lot less action out there) sailing on Starboard at night and looking under the foresail occasionally, one of the three other people on board suddenly panicked and crash tacked the boat.

We watched in amazement as a 70 foot wooden sailing junk on Port passed right through where we would have been without the tack. Their green sidelight may have been a ten watt bulb - we could barely see it from a boat length away.

To suggest that a NOTAM would have made any difference to the fishermen's habits is laughable as anyone who has sailed in Asia would appreciate. The fishing fleets, especially squidders, often operate in vast flotillas, some of the bigger vessels (motherships) carrying AIS, but lots of the smaller boats not. If and I say IF,  it was a squidder they  hit then either the squidder was running dark (and should have seen the yacht) or they missed seeing a boat lit up so brightly it can be seen on satellite photos. I don't know.

Trawlers can have 10 men crews as well, but they are much bigger, mostly steel hulled boats these days and if Vestas had hit one of them at 20 knots it would have destroyed the yacht - and they all have AIS.

If it was a tender to a purse seiner it would have not had ten guys on board.

I am not concentrating on Vestas to argue causes and solutions and I look forward to reading an official report if it ever sees the light of day.

I am simply speculating - isn't that what a of of SA is about - other than being quick at unnecessarily insulting others of course.:P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be rude but all of what you have written has been canvassed over and over and over again up thread.

Find a new topic in another thread.

Share this post


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

....There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect......

+100. A properly conducted inquiry won’t apportion blame just between Vestas and the fishing boat. VOR and HK maritime authorities will cop some too. More than you might think..... Hence all the silence about the whole thing.

What special measures did they take for the seven rocket propelled missiles, some/possibly most arriving at night? None that I know of, and even if they did, they were clearly inadequate, as was the lookout on both boats party to the incident.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep this thread going for the remainder of the race so all of this bull shit has a place to land.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sidecar said:

+100. A properly conducted inquiry won’t apportion blame ...

Actually the sentence can be cut here.

Properly conducted inquiries don't apportion blame. They will find facts, and make recommendations. What happens after that is a different problem, and blame may well be part of later action. But the investigation's result might not even have any part to play in that.

If you look at the US National Transport Safety Board, its terms of reference on accident investigation are very clear:

To ensure that Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety, the Board's analysis of factual information and its determination of probable cause cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law.

The Australian authority, the ATSB is the same. Investigations are no-blame.

The Australian Transport Council recognised the value of no-blame safety investigations at its May 2011 meeting. It agreed that no-blame safety investigations are an integral part of an effective national maritime safety system,

In Hong Kong it is the same again: It is not the purpose of the investigation or the report to apportion blame or to take disciplinary action.

The grandfather clause is this - from the International Marine Organisation, Casualty Investigation Code

25.4 Where it is permitted by the national laws of the State preparing the marine safety investigation report, the draft and final report should be prevented from being admissible in evidence in proceedings related to the marine casualty or marine incident that may lead to disciplinary measures, criminal conviction or the determination of civil liability.

I don't know if China adheres to this or not. I would be really interested if someone with a knowledge of Chinese law - or who can just find read and translate the appropriate information - could enlighten us.

But the IMO is pretty clear about what a properly conducted investigation is - and it isn't about blame - it is about preventing further accidents. They take the responsibility of determining causation of an accident sufficiently seriously, and thus the ability to reach a valuable conclusion of causality and make recommendations to prevent accidents, that they request that any participants are protected for further action that might result from the report. This is not a trivial thing. It is retribution and punishment versus the future safety of other mariners. The IMO prefers future safety, and most countries agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect.

Rant over.

:blink:

Share this post


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

Peter Rusch, tweeting!

 

Fortune Cat is known as Maneki Neko in Japanese, which means “beckoning cat.” The cat has its paw raised as if it’s waving in good fortune for its owners. Other common monikers include Lucky Cat, Money Cat and Welcoming Cat.

There’s actually a meaning behind which paw the cat is holding up. If it’s the left paw, this is supposed to attract customers. If the right paw is raised, this invites good fortune and money.

They both sound pretty good to me, which is why sometimes you can find a Fortune Cat with both of its paws in the air. Two paws up can also represent protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have watched the raw after all. 
Anyone got a copy? If so it will be fun to compare the next version. A bit too high profile to kill of the program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fortune Cat is known as Maneki Neko in Japanese, which means “beckoning cat.” The cat has its paw raised as if it’s waving in good fortune for its owners. Other common monikers include Lucky Cat, Money Cat and Welcoming Cat.

There’s actually a meaning behind which paw the cat is holding up. If it’s the left paw, this is supposed to attract customers. If the right paw is raised, this invites good fortune and money.

They both sound pretty good to me, which is why sometimes you can find a Fortune Cat with both of its paws in the air. Two paws up can also represent protection.

Thanks--didn't know that. From here? http://www.catster.com/lifestyle/maneki-neko-fortune-cat-5-interesting-facts

(aside: just for you https://twitter.com/AlexNeveAmnesty/status/961711290329784322 ) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAW show is back:

 

No idea how (or if at all) the edit changed. 10 second mention of the collision, just that it happened and that they retired.

 

Wonder if there will be a boatfeed episode.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chasm. Some new stuff here (from memory), but can't comment on differences from the RAW taken-down.

--Had't seen the AKZO team meeting in Melbourne;

--the SHKS on-board decisions about the reef (no mention of the RC email) were more detailed

--MOB footage is also more detailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now