duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

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

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
30 minutes 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.

I suspect strongly that the fishing fleet (the small boats) would not have a clue what a "Notice to Mariners" is and that they certainly would not have seen the notice, had it been issued. I will also guess that even if they had seen it, probably would not have changed where or how they fished and not maintained their watch any differently and would have only been more interested in staying out of the way of large commercial vessels.

Whether or not Beijing was informed, the outcome would be no different.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You got those bits right at least.

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.

  • Like 2

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
1 hour 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.

If you call it a contributing factor, then you 

32 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

infer this accident would might never have happened if a NtM had been issued. 

Do share...

33 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I know of the communication practises adopted by commercial fisherman in that area for a variety of things incl NtM's.

This thread has become a desperate witch hunt

burn-at-stake.jpg

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
5 hours ago, Sidecar said:

+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.

I thought that it happened in Chinese waters controlled from Beijing, not HK, so HK won't cop anything.

I would not be surprised if Beijing is not interested in a witch hunt as VOR is a prestigious international event visiting their shores. Accidents in the fishing fleets is probably a regular occurrence and maybe behind the scenes VOR has forked up cash for the victims family and the boats owner and it's case closed. This might also be why there was going to be an American inquiry to keep the world outside of China happy.  

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