• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Diva39 said:

90.000 cars are passing Ma Wan Bridge every day. They just have to turn their eyes slightly to the south, to see whether VS11 is still on her stand on HUD, to know whether she is shipped away or whether there is any kind of progress.

Don't know when you last passed over Ma Wan bridge but you sure as shit can't see what's on the hard at HUD from there.

Share this post


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

Don't know when you last passed over Ma Wan bridge but you sure as shit can't see what's on the hard at HUD from there.

I don't know if he/she meant that litterally.
But already hours after the incident we had numerous pictures from the site. Now it seems to be a black hole, from which even light cant escape.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But its irrelevant and not the one that matters, no?  

Depends.  If the boat and the crew are gone, MSA might not have much to say regardless of the outcome of their investigation.

If I were VOR, I'd like a proper investigation uncomplicated by Chinese politics or the influence of important Chinese interests or people.  There is no question that the folks at VOR are taking this seriously - it's just they are completely clueless on how to communicate it.  Kind of odd, really.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Don't know when you last passed over Ma Wan bridge but you sure as shit can't see what's on the hard at HUD from there.

Google streetview from the bridge. Distance around 400 m. The red arrow is the exact position of the stand, if it is still there.

5a77708b83334_ViewfromBridge.thumb.jpg.a8ac5ece9e7df4795b7d19be347070cd.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

I don't think americans are leading any inquiry in Hong Kong, if this is what you mean.

I don’t mean anything, just pointing you in the direction of the question you asked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American lead enquiry in China ain't worth diddly squat .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the VOR owes it to certain interested parties why and how the accident occurred and what can be done to prevent it in the future etc.  

Share this post


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

So far no investigation or enquiry or inquiry.

Inquiry

This is favoured in British English only when talking of investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

it's just they are completely clueless on how to communicate it.  Kind of odd, really.

Not odd when VOR management is Swedish and it's hard to put a positive spin on a fatal accident. So they go to ground..

 

head%20in%20the%20sand%2003.jpg?t=151697

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

American lead enquiry in China ain't worth diddly squat .

^^^Correct. 

Remember there can be a multitude of Inquires. The RO (VOR), marine incident investigation unit from flag country, HK's Marine Department's MAISSPB and the People's Republic of China's MSA. Any of them can conduct an investigation with either their own resources or appoint outside parties or combination of both. 

In this case where the incident involves a Chinese vessel and in Chinese waters the investigation that counts, is the one conducted by China's MSA or their appointee. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Depends.  If the boat and the crew are gone, MSA might not have much to say regardless of the outcome of their investigation.

If I were VOR, I'd like a proper investigation uncomplicated by Chinese politics or the influence of important Chinese interests or people.  There is no question that the folks at VOR are taking this seriously - it's just they are completely clueless on how to communicate it.  Kind of odd, really.

I've seen it all now

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no doubt the VOR should perform some form of investigation, they need to inform themselves, and take advice in the context of the VOR. So one would imagine a report much like the one done for the reef grounding of Vestas. The difficulty is that the grounding accident was a one party accident, and the investigator had access to all the available information. Here we have a two party accident, and there will be much unknown. None the less, the VOR should commission a report, and take the recommendations very seriously.

But the idea that such a report has any standing or impact outside the VOR is silly. It may be a valuable document, and of use to other race organisers and the like. But it has no standing.

There will be a report from the appropriate marine accident investigators, and it will have its own recommendations. I would assume that any VOR commissioned report will take a lot of notice of this accident report. This report will include further information I doubt any VOR inquiry would have direct access to.

All of this is going to be independent of questions of legal or criminal proceedings. Although any such proceedings will need to wait on the official report. Assuming the incident is investigated by the mainland, which seems the most logical, I don't think anyone here has any clue about the timeliness of the investigation completing, or of the flavour of the reports produced. Those that are conducted by the Hong Hong authority seem to take almost exactly a year, are quite terse, and generally lay blame equally - neither boat maintaining adequate lookout.

One thing we can be sure any official mainland inquiry will have access to that we currently don't are simple things like - exactly what the fishing boat was, what it was they generally did - what did they fish for - did they tend to fish illegally - do such boats generally properly light up - etc etc. And of course they will interview the surviving fishermen. 

A VOR commissioned report might return some unexpected and even unwelcome recommendations in terms of the race. It will be interesting to see if it has an opinion that impacts on such dangers as dali-foils in crowded waters. The report might make very strong recommendations about all manner of aspects of race management and boat equipment. Re-reading the Vestas grounding incident report might be worthwhile for anyone interested.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Depends.  If the boat and the crew are gone, MSA might not have much to say regardless of the outcome of their investigation.

If I were VOR, I'd like a proper investigation uncomplicated by Chinese politics or the influence of important Chinese interests or people.  There is no question that the folks at VOR are taking this seriously - it's just they are completely clueless on how to communicate it.  Kind of odd, really.

Speaking of clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If I were VOR, I'd like a proper investigation uncomplicated by Chinese politics or the influence of important Chinese interests or people. 

You should really spend more time in China. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If I were VOR, I'd like a proper investigation uncomplicated by Chinese politics or the influence of important Chinese interests or people.  There is no question that the folks at VOR are taking this seriously -

Marine incident involving foreign flagged and crewed vessel, a Chinese mainland vessel and crew with one killed in Peoples Republic of China waters.

Clean if VOR are taking it seriously, then I hope someone there is not of same mind as you about what constitutes a proper and recognised investigation with regard to the politics between HK and Beijing, in particular.

Access to Chinese stopovers and therefore imputas for a Chinese VOR team(s) could all disappear in the blink of an eye if someone at VOR fucks up in the political assessment arena.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Marine incident involving foreign flagged and crewed vessel, a Chinese mainland vessel and crew with one killed in Peoples Republic of China waters.

Clean if VOR are taking it seriously, then I hope someone there is not of same mind as you about what constitutes a proper and recognised investigation with regard to the politics between HK and Beijing, in particular.

Access to Chinese stopovers and therefore imputas for a Chinese VOR team(s) could all disappear in the blink of an eye if someone at VOR fucks up in the political assessment arena.

Words of wisdom and common sense Jack. I find it very 'American' to think that anyone has any rights to interfere in the internal dealings of a sovereign country.

In fact your response beat me to my response which would have been almost identical to yours.

SS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, boomer said:


VO65 has left Hong Kong for Auckland via sea freight. Bow section being built at Persico Marine to join the rest of the boat in Auckland.

Goal is to return for Leg 7 from Auckland, New Zealand, to Itajaí, Brazil

 

Vestas 11th Hour Racing shipped to NEW ZEALAND for repairs

They certainly don't believe in putting out rocket propelled media releases....what happens if they win a leg..go silent for a fortnight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

In fact your response beat me to my response which would have been almost identical to yours.

If you are chanelling me Shang it is time for concern on your behalf. :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Words of wisdom and common sense Jack. I find it very 'American' to think that anyone has any rights to interfere in the internal dealings of a sovereign country.

In fact your response beat me to my response which would have been almost identical to yours.

SS

Shang, you are just wrong, matter of reading comprehension. Calm down and read again what Clean and Jack said.

And so should DtM and Ape, for that matter.

Share this post


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

Shang, you are just wrong, matter of reading comprehension. Calm down and read again what Clean and Jack said.

And so should DtM and Ape, for that matter.

Shang backgrounded exactly my reply to Clean and DtM and Ape are on the money....maybe the comprehension problem is yours?

Share this post


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

Shang backgrounded exactly my reply to Clean and DtM and Ape are on the money....maybe the comprehension problem is yours?

Jack, I copied all the relevant posts in a new Evernote, and read them again before posting.

So tell me, where did YOU say anything like "I find it very 'American' to think that anyone has any rights to interfere in the internal dealings of a sovereign country."

And where did Clean infer that the inquiry would do anything like that.

Share this post


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

Jack, I copied all the relevant posts in a new Evernote, and read them again before posting.

So tell me, where did YOU say anything like "I find it very 'American' to think that anyone has any rights to interfere in the internal dealings of a sovereign country."

And where did Clean infer that the inquiry would do anything like that.

I'm pretty confident China and Russia won't let America have a monopoly on that kind of imperious behaviour.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair - Clean did say an American was leading the VOR investigation, and that he hoped this would mean the conclusions would not be tainted by Chinese influence or politics. Not the same as the US influencing the internal investigation of a sovereign country,  but the undercurrent of the comment is that the Chinese investigation is not to be trusted, and that the involvement of an American means that the VOR one can.

Without strong evidence to the contrary, I tend to err on the side of assuming everyone is behaving honourably. So, from the point of view of the VOR any marine enquiry will not be enough. They need to take a very clear look at how the entire race is run and how the accident affects that. The Chinese enquiry won't do that, nor should it. Someone died, and the most important thing that can be done in the aftermath is to at least progress in the direction of reducing the chance of it happening again. That is the usual goal of accident inquiries. Blame making is a different problem and to be kept well separated from the rest.

Finger pointing and accusations of inherent bias or corruption are corrosive to the best interests of all concerned. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So tell me, where did YOU say anything like "I find it very 'American' to think that anyone has any rights to interfere in the internal dealings of a sovereign country."

Try the word "inferred" or the  words "reading between the lines" to comprehend sometimes?

Share this post


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

Not the same as the US influencing the internal investigation of a sovereign country,  but the undercurrent of the comment is that the Chinese investigation is not to be trusted.

Clean said 

9 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If I were VOR, I'd like a proper investigation uncomplicated by Chinese politics or the influence of important Chinese interests or people. 

That is not an undercurrent, that is a rip going at 10k.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Clean said 

That is not an undercurrent, that is a rip going at 10k.

I was being understated. Agree, that is significantly more nasty and unforgivable than I was allowing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Try the word "inferred" or the  words "reading between the lines" to comprehend sometimes?

Look up the word "interfere" and read what Clean said, again.

Share this post


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

Look up the word "interfere" and read what Clean said, again.

I did and it said a common practice in Fiji utilising farm animals. Sorry but I'm none the wiser about where you are heading, unless it is stroll down to the paddock to check out the goats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I did and it said a common practice in Fiji utilising farm animals. Sorry but I'm none the wiser about where you are heading, unless it is stroll down to the paddock to check out the goats.

Wrong again, wrong about the goats anyway, as my girlfriend is the prettiest piglet in the pig stable.

image.jpeg.9fcf74764dd138e39053c7670fb8f268.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Diva39 said:

Google streetview from the bridge. Distance around 400 m. The red arrow is the exact position of the stand, if it is still there.

5a77708b83334_ViewfromBridge.thumb.jpg.a8ac5ece9e7df4795b7d19be347070cd.jpg

Diva

You're right and I'm wrong. It happens.

However, I reckon you would have to be sitting on the upper deck of a bus and might be able to see the area for 15 to 20 seconds. From a car or a cab I stand by my view that you would see squat.

Share this post


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


VO65 has left Hong Kong for Auckland via sea freight. Bow section being built at Persico Marine to join the rest of the boat in Auckland.

Goal is to return for Leg 7 from Auckland, New Zealand, to Itajaí, Brazil

 

Vestas 11th Hour Racing shipped to NEW ZEALAND for repairs

Apparently it was reported last Tuesday on a livecast put up by 'Sailing Illustrated'.

https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2018/02/04/VOR-Credibility-gap-grows?fb_action_ids=10210649666748133&fb_action_types=og.comments

So I guess I can stop patting myself on the back for a global scoop?

But perhaps the chatter here caused the Vestas people to wake up and extract the digit? The timing of the press release looks pretty suspicious.

Why didn't they react to the Sailing Illustrated livecast? Perhaps, like me (and apparently everyone else here except maybe Terrorvision) they missed it.

Interestingly enough, the SI story linked above was only posted this morning.

Again, I postulate - perhaps in reaction to the debate here?

Anarchy is power!!!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Sailing Illustrated has the same take on the Scallywag leg win, and the same degree of confidence in the VOR International Jury as I do! Quote from the article linked above.

"Then we learn, a week after the finish, that the eventual race winner Scallywag received an an email from VOR Race Control that they were heading for a reef, which prompted them to significantly alter their course and avoid it. Outside assistance contrary to the racing rules? No, said the VOR International Jury which, of course, is paid by Volvo."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you Stay but I agree with the Jury.

There was no material advantage to Witty and crew other than keeping the boat afloat. It's a safety issue and that has to trump (a bad word I know), any other consideration.

As far as I am concerned, all technology and intervention are justified if it helps keep everyone safe.

And putting myself in the naviguesser's position, that message must have come as a hugely debillitating shock and thrown whatever plan they had into turmoil.

Where is the material advantage in that? Other than that the boat didn't hit the reef.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Diva

You're right and I'm wrong. It happens.

However, I reckon you would have to be sitting on the upper deck of a bus and might be able to see the area for 15 to 20 seconds. From a car or a cab I stand by my view that you would see squat.

:)

 

5a7837e8508a1_ViewfromBridge4.thumb.jpg.2dba4d98f538d1a14ac521810461362b.jpg

You can see almost the whole place of HUD, from you are on the entry ramp from Tsing Yi North Coastal Rd. until you pass the middel of the bridge, or at least (if you are in a sedan) from the pylon to the middle of the bridge.

I only knew it, because I have been sitting so many times on the back seat of a cap (never in a bus), on my way to the airport from my home in Tsuen Wan.

But I admit, it's now 10 years ago since I lived in Hong Kong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Apparently it was reported last Tuesday on a livecast put up by 'Sailing Illustrated'.

It has been "reportet" several times in different media, but it was never anything else but rumors or speculations, because it was never officially stated by even VS11 or VOR, or anyhow documented, until the statement today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Apparently it was reported last Tuesday on a livecast put up by 'Sailing Illustrated'.

https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2018/02/04/VOR-Credibility-gap-grows?fb_action_ids=10210649666748133&fb_action_types=og.comments

So I guess I can stop patting myself on the back for a global scoop?

But perhaps the chatter here caused the Vestas people to wake up and extract the digit? The timing of the press release looks pretty suspicious.

Why didn't they react to the Sailing Illustrated livecast? Perhaps, like me (and apparently everyone else here except maybe Terrorvision) they missed it.

Interestingly enough, the SI story linked above was only posted this morning.

Again, I postulate - perhaps in reaction to the debate here?

Anarchy is power!!!

 

 

The link you provide is for VOR: Credibility gap grows,  as you say of this morning, Monday, February 5, 2018.  

And did you actually listen to last weeks podcast? I did not because I'am not gone listen to a mumbling TE for 48 min., and anyway, I doubt that Vestas was shipped a week ago and that he knew. So, since you apparently did listen to it, please tell me where he says so, to the minute please.

So stop patting yourself on the back, no scoop for you at all, and stop spewing so much bullshit, about Flyr for instance. And read the thread first before barging in !

And finally you must mean Sailing Anarchy is power!!!, you got that right, almost:)

 

 

Edited by Fiji Bitter
almost

Share this post


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

 

Where is the material advantage in that? Other than that the boat didn't hit the reef.

You can ask Chris Nicholson if I he would've considered it an advantage to get such an email the last time around....
It was never about wether it should be sent or not, but if it should be seen as an advantage and therefore compensated.
Anyway with the non-haul no-rig-haul circus in Melbourne etc. I think it is safe to say that there really are no rules left in VOR.
It is all flapping around in the wind, and a lot of people are loosing interest.
I suspect this is the last edition of the race, so enjoy...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

You still don't know whether VS11 actually did see the fishing boat well in time. But if the fisher totally understated the speed of VS11, who came with 21 knots an ROW, but thought they had plenty of time to pass in front of them with only 8-10 knots.

The fisher has probably never heard about VOR, and never seen a sailing vessel going 2-3 times as fast as his own top speed - especially not after midnight - so that could easily be the reason.

.... just another guess!

Share this post


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

I hear you Stay but I agree with the Jury.

There was no material advantage to Witty and crew other than keeping the boat afloat. It's a safety issue and that has to trump (a bad word I know), any other consideration.

As far as I am concerned, all technology and intervention are justified if it helps keep everyone safe.

And putting myself in the naviguesser's position, that message must have come as a hugely debillitating shock and thrown whatever plan they had into turmoil.

Where is the material advantage in that? Other than that the boat didn't hit the reef.

Not parking your boat on a reef doing 15 plus knots is always an advantage when trying to finish and win a race. ;):P

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not parking your boat on a reef doing 15 plus knots is always an advantage

RRS, rule 41:

OUTSIDE HELP

A boat shall not receive help from any outside source, except
(a) help for a crew member who is ill, injured or in danger;
(b) after a collision, help from the crew of the other vessel to get clear;
(c) help in the form of information freely available to all boats;
(d) unsolicited information from a disinterested source, which may be another boat in the same race.
However, a boat that gains a significant advantage in the race from help received under rule 41(a) may be protested and penalised; any penalty may be less than disqualification.
 
I have tried many times, including different documentation, to explain what "significant advantage" means, when defined in the racing rules, but some posters resist to understand - so let's try a last time step by step:
 
1) If a help doesn't result in one or another kind og advantage, how can it be a help ?
2) If a help can only be an advantage, what is the point of the exceptions (a) to (d) ?
3) Now you probably understand the RRS definition doesn't cover anything defined in your fantasy as "advantage".
4) With this understanding; try to figure the logics of WHICH kind of advantage the rules are talking about, as there should be only one left:
 
"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.
 
It is really that simple!
 
BTW; the addition about significant advantage is only relevant to excemption 41(a). VS11 received outside help according to 41(d), as it was "unsolicited information from a disinterested source".

Share this post


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

The link you provide is for VOR: Credibility gap grows,  as you say of this morning, Monday, February 5, 2018.  

And did you actually listen to last weeks podcast? I did not because I'am not gone listen to a mumbling TE for 48 min., and anyway, I doubt that Vestas was shipped a week ago and that he knew. So, since you apparently did listen to it, please tell me where he says so, to the minute please.

So stop patting yourself on the back, no scoop for you at all, and stop spewing so much bullshit, about Flyr for instance. And read the thread first before barging in !

And finally you must mean Sailing Anarchy is power!!!, you got that right, almost:)

 

 

Hey man, chill. No I didn't listen to it, I agree I won't listen to that sort of crap either. I was just trying to correct the facts as I got them.

According to the SI post he stated it last Tuesday.

My source says the boat was shipped last Sunday and he never gets it wrong, unlike me.

What don't you like about the FLIR idea? If it had been on their screens they probably would have avoided a collision.

Technically it's not FLIR anyway, it's only IR night vision but still...

 

Share this post


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

Outside assistance contrary to the racing rules? No, said the VOR International Jury which, of course, is paid by Volvo."

 

2 hours ago, Andalay said:

I hear you Stay but I agree with the Jury.

There was no material advantage to Witty and crew other than keeping the boat afloat. It's a safety issue and that has to trump (a bad word I know), any other consideration.....Where is the material advantage in that? Other than that the boat didn't hit the reef.

Andalay first we have also Modern Viking and Mad joining Staysail in giving you a heads up as follows.

1 hour ago, mad said:

Not parking your boat on a reef doing 15 plus knots is always an advantage when trying to finish and win a race. ;):P

 

1 hour ago, ModernViking said:

You can ask Chris Nicholson if I he would've considered it an advantage to get such an email the last time around....
It was never about wether it should be sent or not, but if it should be seen as an advantage and therefore compensated.

Now my two bobs worth.

We don't know the details attached to the RC's Protest or reference to the IJ. However if it was only to rule on a Safety Communication for the benefit of one vessel being deemed Outside Assistance or not, then there is little surprise in the IJ's decision.

In other words the RC made no request of the IJ at all to rule on the communication being deemed as giving a significant advantage and sought no penalty ruling in the event it was deemed so. 

Furthermore no attempt was made by the RC to have the IJ rule on Scally not ending up on a reef equating to an advance in distance, time or a number of places, compared to the rest of the fleet, as a direct result of that help.

That is called a "cooked job", at least to those who reside on planet earth.

Share this post


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

Outside assistance contrary to the racing rules? No, said the VOR International Jury which, of course, is paid by Volvo."

 

2 hours ago, Andalay said:

I hear you Stay but I agree with the Jury.

There was no material advantage to Witty and crew other than keeping the boat afloat. It's a safety issue and that has to trump (a bad word I know), any other consideration.....Where is the material advantage in that? Other than that the boat didn't hit the reef.

Andalay first we have also Modern Viking and Mad giving you a heads up as follows.

1 hour ago, mad said:

Not parking your boat on a reef doing 15 plus knots is always an advantage when trying to finish and win a race. ;):P

 

1 hour ago, ModernViking said:

You can ask Chris Nicholson if I he would've considered it an advantage to get such an email the last time around....
It was never about wether it should be sent or not, but if it should be seen as an advantage and therefore compensated.

We don't know the details attached to the RC's Protest or reference to the IJ. However if it was only to rule on a Safety Communication for the benefit of one vessel being deemed Outside Assistance or not, then there is little surprise in the IJ's decision.

In other words the RC made no request of the IJ at all to rule on the communication being deemed as giving a material advantage and sought no penalty ruling in the event it was deemed so.

That is called a cooked job, at least to those who reside on planet earth.

Geez, you guys are simply spoiling for a fight.

I'm not in the mood.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Diva39 said:

"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.

I thought we'd gone beyond this but apparently not. So I'm throwing  this previous post back into the mix.

It would be really worthwhile to hear from the jury so as to provide understanding.

Previous post starts below.

Here is a quote from the RYA guidance which addresses RRS41.

The race committee will need to consider the consequences of providing the help described in the shaded areas.  Other actions such as towing off a boat that has gone aground remain proper and necessary actions when required for reasons of safety but the boat will usually gain a significant advantage; therefore if she fails to retire she should be protested and penalised.

I'm wondering if preventing a boat from running aground falls into the same category.

For full text see Diva 39 link below.

  On 1/31/2018 at 5:58 PM, Diva39 said:

Share this post


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

Geez, you guys are simply spoiling for a fight.

I'm not in the mood.

 

 

 

Well you have to admit, not planting it on the bricks definitely helps.:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Geez, you guys are simply spoiling for a fight.

I'm not in the mood.

 

You must be smart, only dumb people keep on fighting as they have nothing to lose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder about the IJ ruling - it said this:

Question from Race Director Phil Lawrence Regarding Rule 41:

“On Leg 4 Race Control noticed that SHK Scallywag was on collision course with a reef and sent the boat the e-mail below:

Hi Libby/Dave:

Just so I can relax a bit here in Race Control, tell me you are happy with you course in relation to Nerues Reef on Landsdown Bank. The Australian Charts have the Reef extending to 160 35E which is further east than the C-Map charts show.

-Rick Tomlinson, Race Control

Race Control did not give SHK Scallywag any further navigation advice.  SHK Scallywag lost 50 miles whilst the crew worked out a way around the reef.

Does this constitute outside assistance under RRS 41 as the crew were in danger? Please would you consider and advise.”

Answer:

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.

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.

-International Jury, Hong Kong

25 January 2018

 

It is worth reading very carefully. 

The question from Race Director, Phil Lawrence, included "as the crew were in danger?"  Clearly he thought that any rule issue was in relation to 41(a). The IJ simply ignored 41(a), and replied that 41(d) was all that was needed to avoid any issue. Thus they did a number of things. They make any penalty irrelevant as they didn't rule under 41(a). They set a clear precedent - race control may intervene if the information is unsolicited. Questions relating of the wording of the rule are pretty clear as well. (disinterested and interest for a start.)

What is interesting is that no ruling about 41(a) was made at all. They avoided the question by looking at 41(d). Once 41(d) was in effect the entirety of rule 41 was not breached.

Share this post


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

What is interesting is that no ruling about 41(a) was made at all. They avoided the question by looking at 41(d). Once 41(d) was in effect the entirety of rule 41 was not breached.

Agree - in the absence of further information from the jury it appears VOR are playing fast and loose with the RRS and their own SI's - further evidenced by the goings on in Melborne.

Share this post


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

I'm wondering if preventing a boat from running aground falls into the same category.

I believe it doesn't, because the boat has not advanced (in distance, time or a number of places) just because you prevent it to run aground.

In best case, the boat has just not disadvanced after such prevention.

Towing a boat means you force the boat to advance in the direction it has to move, to reach the finish line, using another force than wind, waves or current.

This way you helped the boat to advance in distance, which means the boat has to retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Diva39 said:

Towing a boat means you force the boat to advance in the direction it has to move

Not necessarily - the boat could be towed away from the finish direction.

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

I'm out on this subject now and am looking forward to leg 6.

Share this post


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

Well you have to admit, not planting it on the bricks definitely helps.:D

Yes - but the help is allowed according to 41(a) - 41(d). Advantage is not!

As you just confused "advantage" with "help", you gained a significant advantage on the way to understand the rule. :D

Share this post


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

Not necessarily - the boat could be towed away from the finish direction.

Yes, but as it is the direction you have to go, to get off the ground, it is an advantage on the way to the finish line.

Share this post


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

The race committee will need to consider the consequences of providing the help described in the shaded areas.  Other actions such as towing off a boat that has gone aground remain proper and necessary actions when required for reasons of safety but the boat will usually gain a significant advantage; therefore if she fails to retire she should be protested and penalised.

I'm wondering if preventing a boat from running aground falls into the same category.

I would be inclined to read this as saying that preventing an accident is not giving a significant advantage - that is why they specifically have to talk about towing a grounded boat off as a clearly seperate action. Once the accident has happened things are different. Note also the phrase "will usually gain" - that is very different to "is defined to have gained." It is clear that a boat being towed off might not actually gain anything, only that they usually do. (I'm not sure how, but there it is - they usually gain). So even here a boat that had been towed off is not automatically subject to a penalty, but rather the specifics of the incident and the nature of any advantage need to be considered. Just being towed is not the advantage.

Read the entire advice, and look at the general tenor. For instance the advice says that telling a boat they are OCS before a start is OK. Yet they are clearly helping that boat make a better start, or avoid a penalty. The advice is also very clear on the question of use of information via rule 41(d). A boat may use and act on unsolicited advice without penalty. If the advice does indeed give the boat an advantage - which in the examples given means an on course advantage - such as advance notice of a mark being moved, or that they are sailing to the wrong mark - other boats may seek redress due to the advantage given to that boat. But the boat receiving the advice is not penalised.

The meaning of advantage in the advice seems pretty clear. Gaining an advantage is exactly as noted above - if a boat gains position on the course through the outside assistance there is scope for penalty or redress. Advice that simply prevents them losing position is not the same thing. There are a lot of examples of outside assistance where no advantage is considered to have been gained - for instance a crew member separated from a boat may be picked up and returned to the boat - so long as the boat has not made significant progress up the course. Yet clearly picking up the crew member has advantaged the boat in that they didn't have to. And so on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Diva39 said:
47 minutes ago, mad said:

well you have to admit, not planting it on the bricks definitely helps has its advantages :D

Yes - but the help is allowed according to 41(a) - 41(d). Advantage is not!

As you just confused "advantage" with "help", you gained a significant advantage on the way to understand the rule. :D

Is that better?:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

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

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
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