Mid

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Maw said:

If you implement something, you must be able to measure/monitor it, or it will die.

 

The measure/monitor for AIS transmission compliance can only consistently be done on the water. 

So this means us. We're a self policing sport, so all good. 

But stop right there. This. means . us. I think we need to get our heads in the game that it really is us. By not protesting, the default position for nearly everyone who sails, we're blowing off the responsibility of self policing. 

No regulation and enforcement? Then the concept of racing under rules will die. 

 

Looking forward regards monitoring AIS, I'm sitting here thinking:

  • How the fuck do I determine when a boat has broken the rule? (Without a WoXI full length of race instance) Is the decision threshold when it's Intermittent? Or 10 mins? An hour? In total?  Should it be cumulatiive? 
  • How do I know without watching the tracker all the time? 
  • Will I wait for some other boat on the water to protest so I don't go to the room, or have to look bad?
  • Do we need to add some clarification of expectations to the meagre one line mandatory requirement in the SI's? 
  • What about distance? Will another boat 5nm away protest me for going silent when it's  because I''ve got a little mast?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the marker for going forwards is that for offshore the RC needs to give themselves the right to protest competitors for situations like this irrespective of reports from competitors - this really needs to be on the RC to monitor.

Share this post


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

So we wont have your company over here in oz we can cope and S2H will still be regarded as best short offshore event, fastnet is a good race but lacks quality at the pointy end of the field bit like Transpac.

A bit of thread drift perhaps but I will go with it.

Have you ever sailed or even read anything about sailing north of the equator (or even outside Australia)?

The last Fastnet entry (over 330 boats which was almost 4 times this year's RSHYC) The entry filled less than 10 minutes after it opened and included 7 round the world racers, a smattering of IMOCA 60s - how many in the S2H history have there been ANY IMOCAs - and even forward thinking enough to allow multihulls to race the course instead of just thinking about  it.

Lacks quality? A race where the coverage is dominated by a 10 year old race boat with more face lifts than an aging Hollywood starlet is hardly "Pointy end", the saddest thing for me with the media focus on the 100 footers is that the contenders for the true Sydney Hobart prize, the Tatersall Cup tend to get lost or missed  in the backwash.

Well done the two RP66's; Alive and the ladies on Wild Oats 10.

Anyway, I am off to meet with a bunch of young Topper sailors this afternoon. That's the "pointy end" for the future of our sport.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think the marker for going forwards is that for offshore the RC needs to give themselves the right to protest competitors for situations like this irrespective of reports from competitors - this really needs to be on the RC to monitor.

 

The RC has every right to protest WO today for lodging a false declaration. There is no time limit for doing this. See SI 27'7

Share this post


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

 

The RC has every right to protest WO today for lodging a false declaration. There is no time limit for doing this. See SI 27'7

YeAh I get that but somehow I think the bar is higher for a protest based on wilful dishonesty rather than simple non compliance with the SIs - I’m suggesting that for issues other than boat on boat breaches, the technicality that WO got off on be eliminated.

Share this post


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

YeAh I get that but somehow I think the bar is higher for a protest based on wilful dishonesty rather than simple non compliance with the SIs - I’m suggesting that for issues other than boat on boat breaches, the technicality that WO got off on be eliminated.

Yup.  The IJ did for a lack of a better term, 'ducked for cover.'  Oatley should act like a man/woman and do the right thing.  This is not their father's legacy.  

Share this post


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

But you have to prove wilful dishonesty

At that point we quit using the word Corinthian.  If I'm on a boat that cheated and it came to my knowledge, I wouldn't think twice about reporting it.  I think Sledracr said it best, this is the sport I love but I don't love what it has become if this stands (my voice after the comma).  The Oatley family should be ashamed by this whole fiasco.  I'm sure they're fine in an ivory tower somewhere, but , there dad must be rolling over in his grave.  Shameful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting reading.  No-one comes out well - Wild Oats IX, Black Jack, the Race Committee, the list goes on. 

If the AIS was added as a mandatory piece of safety equipment that is an important tool to help locate boats, especially in the event of really tough weather conditions, the failure by race management to monitor and alert boats seems a major failing.  Or get rid of this requirement.  

Pity this issue has overshadowed all the great stories - Wild Oats 10, the race for the Tattersal Cup, TP52s, etc.  Maybe the Oatleys ought to give Wild Oats IX to the women - damn fine racers who ran a solid race plus alot better PR than the current crew.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If the AIS was added as a mandatory piece of safety equipment that is an important tool to help locate boats, especially in the event of really tough weather conditions, the failure by race management to monitor and alert boats seems a major failing.  Or get rid of this requirement. 

It is not an important tool to help locate boats, it is an anti collision device.  i think you are getting mixed up with the tracker.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to know the AIS on Oats is working now. Providing a nice safety net as they poddle off home, north up the Tasmanian coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

AIS fried prior to race start would mean that WOXI was NOT fit to race. The post race declaration would be a falsified statement by the "fried" statement in itself! It'll be like saying that the engine dies before the race, but we won't need it anyway!?! WTF's going on with the RC???

That it could receive but not transmit and that no one noticed for the whole race gets a bit hard to swallow alright but we didn't hear the arguments.  In that Facebook post quoted here earlier I think it was said that they didn't know it was "fried' until they got to Hobart.

Share this post


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

It's nice to know the AIS on Oats is working now. Providing a nice safety net as they poddle off home, north up the Tasmanian coast.

Yeah obviously in an emergency AIS is totally useless, completely reliable trackers are so much better. (Should have looked about for that sarcasm font thing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

TrT, you call it butthurt.

I call it expecting accountability.

We shall agree to disagree I fear.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

James Lyden. 

So much for your guarantees.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cap't Billy said:

That it could receive but not transmit and that no one noticed for the whole race gets a bit hard to swallow alright but we didn't hear the arguments.  In that Facebook post quoted here earlier I think it was said that they didn't know it was "fried' until they got to Hobart.

If it really was " fried " then how did they manage to fix it one hour after finishing ? Don't forget that during that hour they were kind of busy docking and spraying champagne and talking to reporters and stuff.

Multiskilling presumably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

I don't have enough facts to conclusively determine if one or more people on WOXI cheated. Frankly, the facts that are available don't paint a very pretty picture. However,  it is far from conclusive. 

What is conclusive and indisputable is that they failed to meet their obligations under the SI to transmit AIS. And that failure gave them a advantage. 

That failure should have resulted in some form of penalty.  Probably enough to cost them the victory given the tight racing.  And any other boat that failed to transmit should also be penalized.  Not necessarily dsq, but penalized in some way. 

Winning under these circumstances is a tarnished victory, and lacks honor. 

And I would be happy to tell that to anyone in the crew or the Oatleys that. In person or email. 

Michael Hennessy

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

If it really was " fried " then how did they manage to fix it one hour after finishing ? Don't forget that during that hour they were kind of busy docking and spraying champagne and talking to reporters and stuff.

Multiskilling presumably.

Ed Zachary!  Another thing that makes the story harder to believe.  Someone above suggested that maybe all it needed was a cold boot (you know computer talk for stopping and restarting it - not that thing on the end of your leg).  I'd like to know the whole story and I don't think anyone here knows it.  it's just that I've been embarrassed before going off half cocked with half the facts when the rest of a story emerged.  But SA is not where you go for any benefit of the doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

My bold edit..... You first, and your relationship to WOXI. Happy to give you mine by return. PM me if you are shy.

I don’t care why the AIS wasn’t on during the race, WOXI’s signed declaration effectively says that it was, which we all know, including RO, PC and IJ, to be incorrect. Additionally, intended or not, WOXI may have benefitted from being AIS invisible.

The RO, PC and IJ have not done their job.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My bold edit..... You first, and your relationship to WOXI. Happy to give you mine by return. PM me if you are shy.

I don’t care why the AIS wasn’t on during the race, WOXI’s signed declaration effectively says that it was, which we all know, including RO, PC and IJ, to be incorrect. Additionally, intended or not, WOXI may have benefitted from being AIS invisible.

The RO, PC and IJ have not done their job.

 

And bingo was his name.  Couldn't agree more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

WTF:  The boys don't even sail on "their" boat, at least the old man was a sailor.

Share this post


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

 WOXI’s signed declaration effectively says that it was

I did not realise that the document was in the public domain

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

What is shameful is that a professional crew sailing the Oatley businesses floating advertising platform accepted the spoils of a victory that was not theirs.

Either....

The AIS got fried in Sydney prior to the race in which case they were not entitled to start and filed a false post race declaration.

Or...

They deliberately switched off the transmit function then lied about it.


Feel free to print this and pass it on to the family, I have previously told Mr Richards in person my thoughts on his behavior.

Tony Papworth.

And your name is?

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

I don't have enough facts to conclusively determine if one or more people on WOXI cheated. Frankly, the facts that are available don't paint a very pretty picture. However,  it is far from conclusive. 

What is conclusive and indisputable is that they failed to meet their obligations under the SI to transmit AIS. And that failure gave them a advantage. 

That failure should have resulted in some form of penalty.  Probably enough to cost them the victory given the tight racing.  And any other boat that failed to transmit should also be penalized.  Not necessarily dsq, but penalized in some way. 

Winning under these circumstances is a tarnished victory, and lacks honor. 

And I would be happy to tell that to anyone in the crew or the Oatleys that. In person or email. 

Michael Hennessy

Mike, can't send you a PM, if you are up to it, please PM me an email address.  I'm not selling life insurance just an offer to help.  Jim 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, trt131 said:

I did not realise that the document was in the public domain

Well I will bet you 100 bucks it would be if it backed up ONE of their stories.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, paps49 said:

What is shameful is that a professional crew sailing the Oatley businesses floating advertising platform accepted the spoils of a victory that was not theirs.

Either....

The AIS got fried in Sydney prior to the race in which case they were not entitled to start and filed a false post race declaration.

Or...

They deliberately switched off the transmit function then lied about it.


Feel free to print this and pass it on to the family, I have previously told Mr Richards in person my thoughts on his behavior.

Tony Papworth.

And your name is?

It was post 797 about a FaceBook from a WOXI crew where we first get the idea that the AIS got fried in Sydney somehow when the cameraman fired up.  It goes on to say that they didn't know it wasn't working properly until they got to Hobart. 

I don't know what they declared - apparently Sidecar does somehow but he isn't posting it here that I have seen.

It kind of starts to line up for me.  You're MR and you arrive in Hobart after a couple of days with not much sleep looking at what you think is a satisfying result.  You've had a Champagne shower and probably shotgunned a couple of beers by the time someone with a camera comes up to you and after saying: "did you know your AIS wasn't transmitting" pokes a mike in your face.  His ill considered comments make more sense in that light.  First he's heard of it.  Maybe they handed in the finish report still not even knowing that the thing wasn't working.  We don't know that because there never was a hearing.

I just have trouble imagining that they would turn the thing off for the whole race on purpose.  I think if they had known it was cooked from the start that cat would be out of the bag by now too.  They would have had to know that they were going to be caught at that.  If you are crooked I can see an advantage to going dark for a few hours while you slip away from the competition.  But for the whole race?  There isn't enough in it to justify breaking the rules for the whole course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trt131 said:

I did not realise that the document was in the public domain

I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter, if WOXI actually declared that they didn’t have AIS on during the race,, then the RO, PC and IJ still didn’t do their job.... It actually makes it worse for the reputation of the race itself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't see why BJ comes out bad from this.........Expect the CYCA to either drop the rule or add clauses about it's use to allow it to be off at the skippers except in certain circumstances...

Agree re BJ. The other option for the CYCA if they regard AIS as so important to safety is to work out how to police and enforce the rule they already have. No exceptions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't see why BJ comes out bad from this.

Basically because they went moaning to the media. That is a dick move if you don't follow it up with a protest. 

The SI's have rules about talking to the media they start with:

Quote

33.2  Skippers and crew members of boats may speak to, and provide material to, accredited members of any media prior to, during and after the race, regarding the race and the prospects, performance or strategy of boats entered or participating in the race, subject to:

  • any comments and material supplied not undermining or interfering with, or having a detrimental impact on, the Organising Authority and its officers and employees, the Race Committee, the International Jury, Measurers or Rolex SA;

and so on. Currently publicly accusing your opponents of cheating is not considered bad behaviour. But it is hard to make a case that it isn't. They get awfully close to the edge of some of the above.

They basically made a public accusation of cheating, and then hid behind a false spirit of "we don't protest." Which is essentially translated as, "we feel free to make accusations, but we won't provide the accused a forum to exonerate themselves." Just leave it in the media with the hanging doubt that the win was deserved. 

Share this post


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

In an emergency, it's the EPIRB, VHF DSC , HF DSC and HF DSC that is used. AIS is only for collision avoidance (not the only way to avoid collisions) and allowing your competitors snoop on you. For MOB you only need an AIS receiver.

For avoiding collisions with shipping, an AIS transmitter is not useful for modern large racers. Naviguesses I believe spend a lot of time below at their computer and will be watching for shipping and will plot courses accordingly. The transmitter is more useful for slow moving cruisers and solo racers giving the shipping a chance to change course in advance.

I wonder why the CYCA decided to mandate using AIS transmitters? 

You really do show your lack of knowledge in all your posts.

AIS is by far the best equipment technology to be available to yachts at a reasonable price in the last 10 years. Based on all the yachts in the hobart race and shipping traffic avoiding collisions is a high priority. I hope I am never in any yacht race against your yacht either in Port Phillip Bay or in the ocean. Please stay at the Squadron and do not sail with any other clubs in Melbourne.

please think before you post any more shit and try taking in the experience of the other posts!

ps the orcv has made AIS mandatory for a while in their ocean races.

 

Share this post


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

I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter, if WOXI actually declared that they didn’t have AIS on during the race,, then the RO, PC and IJ still didn’t do their job.... It actually makes it worse for the reputation of the race itself.

There is a further possibility: they handed in the form saying they were compliant before they knew that the AIS transmitter had been off during the race.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I wonder why the CYCA decided to mandate using AIS transmitters?"

Gee, I dunno..... maybe to stop peeps getting run over by tankers with no one on the bridge at night? Just guessercising from the boon docks, I figured you blokes in the big smoke new stuff.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

In an emergency, it's the EPIRB, VHF DSC , HF DSC and HF DSC that is used. AIS is only for collision avoidance (not the only way to avoid collisions) and allowing your competitors snoop on you. For MOB you only need an AIS receiver.

For avoiding collisions with shipping, an AIS transmitter is not useful for modern large racers. Naviguesses I believe spend a lot of time below at their computer and will be watching for shipping and will plot courses accordingly. The transmitter is more useful for slow moving cruisers and solo racers giving the shipping a chance to change course in advance.

I wonder why the CYCA decided to mandate using AIS transmitters? 

Yeah I will have to grant all that, & admit it was somewhat of a dick post, however earlier this evening I went upstairs to talk to a neighbor lady who visits my wife once a week (to be frank sh'e actually proselyting but I let it slide, because tolerance & all that) like myself she is a non sailor but when I explained this situation to her she was as outraged as I & some on this thread are, I guess the point here is depending on how one's filter is set, this is bullshit.

Don Halvorson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes it pisses me off to no end that I have to share 1st names with POTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dash34 said:

There is a further possibility: they handed in the form saying they were compliant before they knew that the AIS transmitter had been off during the race.  

That would require an international professional navigator to be more stupid than me.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Thanks, below explains BJ's action

 

They could not be critical of the CYCA for the inclusion of the AIS rule and did not want to win because of a rule they are against. So moaning about WOIX was their best option to bring up the topic and get the rule fixed.

Hoppy, step away from the keyboard.

So now you are suggesting BJ was complaining about the inclusion of AIS in the SI's???

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, paps49 said:

That would require an international professional navigator to be more stupid than me.

"Where's Wouter?"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cap't Billy said:

There isn't enough in it to justify breaking the rules for the whole course. 

What's that saying? Ignorance and stupidity VS malice and all that?

Share this post


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

So how does work if there is no one on the bridge??? Please please explain!!!!! LOL

No-one on the bridge is basically a hanging offense. Any master/captain with his ship such would never work again, once he got out of the pokey. 

This doesn't mean AIS is a foolproof way of not being run over by a some immense vessel, people forget how constrained they are in ability to navigate, especially close to shore. So you can't be stupid. But in open ocean, letting ships have some idea you are around might avoid a sad little newspaper notice a few weeks after you fail to return home.

Share this post


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

In an emergency, it's the EPIRB, VHF DSC , HF DSC and HF DSC that is used. AIS is only for collision avoidance (not the only way to avoid collisions) and allowing your competitors snoop on you. For MOB you only need an AIS receiver.

For avoiding collisions with shipping, an AIS transmitter is not useful for modern large racers. Naviguesses I believe spend a lot of time below at their computer and will be watching for shipping and will plot courses accordingly. The transmitter is more useful for slow moving cruisers and solo racers giving the shipping a chance to change course in advance.

I wonder why the CYCA decided to mandate using AIS transmitters? 

On what technical basis did you form that opinion?

Share this post


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

So how does work if there is no one on the bridge??? Please please explain!!!!! LOL

I'd rather have a naviguesser keeping an eye on the tankers rather than hoping the tankers spot me.

Errr, I'm going for a smoke so I'll set the collision alarm.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

No-one on the bridge is basically a hanging offense. Any master/captain with his ship such would never work again, once he got out of the pokey. 

This doesn't mean AIS is a foolproof way of not being run over by a some immense vessel, people forget how constrained they are in ability to navigate, especially close to shore. So you can't be stupid. But in open ocean, letting ships have some idea you are around might avoid a sad little newspaper notice a few weeks after you fail to return home.

Hopefully these days you are correct Francis. Crossing the North Pacific in 1980, pre GPS we hailed every commercial vessel we had visuals on via CH 16 for a time and position check (I was a nervous newby navigator) about 20% were non responsive.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dash34 said:

There is a further possibility: they handed in the form saying they were compliant before they knew that the AIS transmitter had been off during the race.  

That is very likely as the form is done electronically and is usually completed by the nav within a couple of minutes of crossing the finish line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer.

The RRS run over the four year cycle of the Olympic Games and the Special Regs attached to the back of them comes into force from July so that you don't have a change to the Special Regs half way through the sailing season in Australia.

The Special Regs that came into force in July 2013 were reviewed in late 2011. A decision was made to replace an imperfect piece of equipment being a radar reflector with a far superior piece of technology called an AIS. The fitting of AIS was mandated for Cat 1 Races from 2015 to allow a phase in period and recommended for Cat 2 races.

Prior to 2015, if you wanted to track your competitors, who all had mandated radar reflectors, the purpose of which was to make them more visible to commercial shipping, you could fit a radar to your racing yacht, as did most of the Whitbread 60's. With some knowledge of relative motion and a plotting sheet you could determine the course and speed of your competitors or any other traffic by plotting them.

AIS is part of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System and was considered a worthwhile addition to yachts racing in Cat 1 and Cat 2 races. I notice that in the Sydney to Hobart Notices to Competitors that AIS Man Overboard devices are being promoted. Again, another worthwhile piece of safety equipment because a yacht cannot receive a PLB signal without advice from a shoreside receiver. Clearly you cannot track a MOB if your AIS is switched off!

The side effect that AIS could be used as a tactical tool was discussed and discounted due to the far greater benefits for SOLAS and collision avoidance with commercial traffic. Yachts are horrendously poor radar targets.

To say that AIS is only a requirement this year is wrong, it has been in force for the last three editions of the Sydney to Hobart. the Special Regs only require it to be operational, the S.I's require it to be functioning at all times. I would expect that whoever did the Safety Audit of WOXI would have determined that the equipment was functioning correctly.

BTW VHF DSC and MF/HF DSC were also added to the Special Regs in that same review.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Believe it or not, it takes 2 boats to have a collision. However it only takes the watch on one of those two boats to avoid the collision, assuming they spot the possibility in sufficient time.

If you work on the assumption that the race boat has a navigator regularly monitoring their navigation tools, which will include  receiving AIS prositions from commercial shipping and other vessels that legally must transmit. Then the race boat will be aware of the ship 20-60 nm out. If the racer is moving, they can adjust their course if necessary, turn on their AIS TX to make sure the ship sees them or make a radio call. 

You said that an AIS is not useful for collision avoidance, that is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dash34 said:

"Where's Wouter?"

You don't know?   LOL

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, trt131 said:

That is very likely as the form is done electronically and is usually completed by the nav within a couple of minutes of crossing the finish line.

In which case, my post #942 applies. Ignorance or inadvertentness does not absolve responsibility.

Share this post


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

Further if you sign a declaration then it must be correct or did an amended declaration get submitted with a mea culpa when the error was discovered?

I dont know the answer to that and neither do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, trt131 said:

But the protest would likely be invalid as they have to inform the protested boat as soon as they knew there was an issue.  You cant come ashore have a discussion with other people and then lodge a protest (I guess you can but it would be invalid)

What would actually be required for a protest to be valid in a case where a boat finishing days after WOXI files a protest? Certainly they have no allowed means to inform WOXI until they are at the harbour and even then it may take some time to reach the crew.

What about the protest flag? Is this something they must find out while still racing and thus need to have a protest flag up before finishing? I don't think so. Flag is required only for "an

incident

in the racing area that she

wa

s involved in or s

aw". It is not even required when protesting about not sailing the course.

Would it even be possible to make a valid protest after seeing the protest by RC in the harbour and then filing an own protest based on that within the six hours from finishing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, trt131 said:

I dont know the answer to that and neither do you.

Irrelevant.... If WOXI were smart and they did declare no AIS, even by amendment,  that would largely absolve themselves and prove that the RO etc. didn’t do their job.

If they amended their declaration now to say no AIS, what do you think the outcome should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only collisions I’ve heard of in a Hobart race is at the start and AIS wouldn’t have helped.

and during the race there are more crew on deck than a super tanker. Collision avoidance not a major problem really 

Share this post


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

You don't know?   LOL

 

Yup, I know.  Point is, even the best make mistakes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Joakim said:

What would actually be required for a protest to be valid in a case where a boat finishing days after WOXI files a protest? Certainly they have no allowed means to inform WOXI until they are at the harbour and even then it may take some time to reach the crew.

What about the protest flag? Is this something they must find out while still racing and thus need to have a protest flag up before finishing? I don't think so. Flag is required only for "an

 

incident

 

in the racing area that she

 

wa

 

s involved in or s

 

aw". It is not even required when protesting about not sailing the course.

 

Would it even be possible to make a valid protest after seeing the protest by RC in the harbour and then filing an own protest based on that within the six hours from finishing?

 

Of course it would. The last boat to finish has every right to file a protest and 6 hours from finishing within which to do it.

Don't hold your breath.

On top of that the RC has unlimited time to file a rule 69 protest based around a false declaration by WO.

Share this post


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

 

Of course it would. The last boat to finish has every right to file a protest and 6 hours from finishing within which to do it.

Don't hold your breath.

Of course they have their right to file a protest, but that doesn't necessary mean it will be valid. E.g. if they had seen a boat touch a start mark, it would be only valid if they hailed protest (if within hailing distance) and had the protest flag up for the whole race. I'm just wondering is not transmitting AIS something you are allowed to find out after you have finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MelbourneA31 said:

Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer.

 

 

On behalf of myself and all the other dumbfuckers here on SA I extend my gratitude .

How lucky are we boys and girls to have MelbourneA31 both in our presence AND dispensing his wisdom at the same time ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trt131 said:

It is not an important tool to help locate boats, it is an anti collision device.  i think you are getting mixed up with the tracker.

If you really don't know that AIS is now an invaluable boat locating tool in offshore yacht racing you should not be posting on this forum.

Share this post


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

Yeah I will have to grant all that, & admit it was somewhat of a dick post, however earlier this evening I went upstairs to talk to a neighbor lady who visits my wife once a week (to be frank sh'e actually proselyting but I let it slide, because tolerance & all that) like myself she is a non sailor but when I explained this situation to her she was as outraged as I & some on this thread are, I guess the point here is depending on how one's filter is set, this is bullshit.

Don Halvorson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes it pisses me off to no end that I have to share 1st names with POTUS. 

It could be worse, your last name could be Trunt....

Share this post


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

Of course they have their right to file a protest, but that doesn't necessary mean it will be valid. E.g. if they had seen a boat touch a start mark, it would be only valid if they hailed protest (if within hailing distance) and had the protest flag up for the whole race. I'm just wondering is not transmitting AIS something you are allowed to find out after you have finished.

 

Fuck me Joakim, maybe you should quit SA and get back to feeding the reindeer. Before you go could you fix the layout of that earlier post of yours., ? It was a total pain in the arse to read.

Why on earth would the poor shmucks on the smaller boats pay attention to the WO AIS transmission when it was 100 miles and more ahead ?

 

Share this post


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

So how does work if there is no one on the bridge??? Please please explain!!!!! LOL

I'd rather have a naviguesser keeping an eye on the tankers rather than hoping the tankers spot me.

 

No one on the bridge ? That isn't tankers that's the US navy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Fuck me Joakim, maybe you should quit SA and get back to feeding the reindeer. Before you go could you fix the layout of that earlier post of yours., ? It was a total pain in the arse to read.

Why on earth would the poor shmucks on the smaller boats pay attention to the WO AIS transmission when it was 100 miles and more ahead ?

 

Sorry about that layout. I cut and pasted from the RRS pdf. Thought I fixed it before sending, but doesn't appear so. Now it's too late since you quoted it without fixing it.

I'm just wondering how the RRS would work, if they would protest. I'm not expecting them to protest. They may have looked at marinetraffic, this forum or the RC protest at S2H site. So they may know that WOXI wasn't trasmitting AIS even before they finish and surely they will know at the harbour within six hours.

Share this post


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

 

On behalf of myself and all the other dumbfuckers here on SA I extend my gratitude .

How lucky are we boys and girls to have MelbourneA31 both in our presence AND dispensing his wisdom at the same time ?

Go fuck yourself dickhead - I sat on the sub-committee that did the re-write. Got a smart arse answer to that arsehole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

I wouldn’t put much money on that one, plenty of people would be happy to point out the situation to them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MelbourneA31 said:

Go fuck yourself dickhead - I sat on the sub-committee that did the re-write. Got a smart arse answer to that arsehole?

 

What did you re write - Richo's winning acceptance ?

Share this post


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

The only collisions I’ve heard of in a Hobart race is at the start and AIS wouldn’t have helped.

and during the race there are more crew on deck than a super tanker. Collision avoidance not a major problem really 

Collision avoidance is not a big problem after the start I agree.

But I have had some big cargo vessels change course to avoid us 10 miles or so away when racing - I recall a couple in Bass Strait. It is rather nice to not have to worry about avoiding big ships when  you are trying to race. 

Yes, we would not have bumped into them. But having them spot us on AIS and go around meant we didn't need to take avoiding action and hence lose time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Joakim said:

Sorry about that layout. I cut and pasted from the RRS pdf. Thought I fixed it before sending, but doesn't appear so. Now it's too late since you quoted it without fixing it.

I'm just wondering how the RRS would work, if they would protest. I'm not expecting them to protest. They may have looked at marinetraffic, this forum or the RC protest at S2H site. So they may know that WOXI wasn't trasmitting AIS even before they finish and surely they will know at the harbour within six hours.

 

It would be most unlikely for any of the smaller boats to be carrying internet capabilities beyond a weather service.

On top of that there would be no reason for any of them to monitor the AIS transmission of any of the maxis.

Now don't you forget to keep feeding those reindeer. A visit to Rovaniemi is on my bucket list and I also want to buy a Marrtiini knife while I'm there. Some things must be earned..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trt131 said:

That is very likely as the form is done electronically and is usually completed by the nav within a couple of minutes of crossing the finish line.

WOXI bot.

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

No-one on the bridge is basically a hanging offense. Any master/captain with his ship such would never work again, once he got out of the pokey. 

This doesn't mean AIS is a foolproof way of not being run over by a some immense vessel, people forget how constrained they are in ability to navigate, especially close to shore. So you can't be stupid. But in open ocean, letting ships have some idea you are around might avoid a sad little newspaper notice a few weeks after you fail to return home.

Seen way more than one empty bridge over years, so I doubt the hanging offence. And seen bridges with people on that were no better either! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MelbourneA31 said:

Ok, so I've bit my tongue for the past couple of days but there is so much ignorant crap flying around that I can't stand it for a second longer.

The RRS run over the four year cycle of the Olympic Games and the Special Regs attached to the back of them comes into force from July so that you don't have a change to the Special Regs half way through the sailing season in Australia.

The Special Regs that came into force in July 2013 were reviewed in late 2011. A decision was made to replace an imperfect piece of equipment being a radar reflector with a far superior piece of technology called an AIS. The fitting of AIS was mandated for Cat 1 Races from 2015 to allow a phase in period and recommended for Cat 2 races.

Prior to 2015, if you wanted to track your competitors, who all had mandated radar reflectors, the purpose of which was to make them more visible to commercial shipping, you could fit a radar to your racing yacht, as did most of the Whitbread 60's. With some knowledge of relative motion and a plotting sheet you could determine the course and speed of your competitors or any other traffic by plotting them.

AIS is part of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System and was considered a worthwhile addition to yachts racing in Cat 1 and Cat 2 races. I notice that in the Sydney to Hobart Notices to Competitors that AIS Man Overboard devices are being promoted. Again, another worthwhile piece of safety equipment because a yacht cannot receive a PLB signal without advice from a shoreside receiver. Clearly you cannot track a MOB if your AIS is switched off!

The side effect that AIS could be used as a tactical tool was discussed and discounted due to the far greater benefits for SOLAS and collision avoidance with commercial traffic. Yachts are horrendously poor radar targets.

To say that AIS is only a requirement this year is wrong, it has been in force for the last three editions of the Sydney to Hobart. the Special Regs only require it to be operational, the S.I's require it to be functioning at all times. I would expect that whoever did the Safety Audit of WOXI would have determined that the equipment was functioning correctly.

BTW VHF DSC and MF/HF DSC were also added to the Special Regs in that same review.

Word.

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Maybe my wording was bad, but if you have a regular AIS watch then the racers will avoid collisions with commercial ships

I believe that an AIS RX/TX should be mandatory for the race boats (and cruisers offshore) but transmission should be optional, for when conditions dictate. 

AIS receiving should always be on, for MOB and to keep an eye on shipping.

I repeat Hoppy, move away from the keyboard.

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trt131 said:

That is very likely as the form is done electronically and is usually completed by the nav within a couple of minutes of crossing the finish line.

Except by their own admission they knew about it BEFORE they started and still chose to start knowing full well that they were non-compliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, trt131 said:

It is shameful that there are so many on this forum that desperately wanted WO DSQed and are really butthurt that it didn't happen.  Now they are attacking the Oatley family without knowing them and their values.  Bob would be upset, but upset at the loathsome sledgers' on this site suggesting the family were cheats, particularly those from outside of Australia who only know of the family by what is written by faceless idiots on a sailing website.  I guarantee none of those people would have balls to say those statements to their face or even by email and sign your real name.

Send me little Oatley’s email and I’ll tell him he should withdraw from this race.

Share this post


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

Believe it or not, it takes 2 boats to have a collision. However it only takes the watch on one of those two boats to avoid the collision, assuming they spot the possibility in sufficient time.

If you work on the assumption that the race boat has a navigator regularly monitoring their navigation tools, which will include  receiving AIS prositions from commercial shipping and other vessels that legally must transmit. Then the race boat will be aware of the ship 20-60 nm out. If the racer is moving, they can adjust their course if necessary, turn on their AIS TX to make sure the ship sees them or make a radio call. 

Try that in the English Channel with some of the fishing boats, well known for turning AIS off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept that it’s pretty sad that the RC has no right to protest a competitor (or a number of them perhaps) for rule breaches, and that leads to the even sadder bit for the race and the sport that the Oats machine can continue on its merry way year after arrogant year. 

However, taking a Machiavellin approach, there are shitloads of rules or requirements in the SIs that are at odds with goal of minimising unnecessary bureaucracy while maximising safety. For example, why does the RSHYR still have radio skeds when the RC can see everyone on the YB trackers? Further, all the boats have the ability to access the raw data about EVERY boat from the Yellowbrick tracker site via their sat phones which gives them anything they might like to know. So who gives a shit about whether the AIS blip of another boat pops up on your laptop or plotter? 

Blackjack says he was disadvantaged by not seeing the Oats AIS blip on his plotter, but Cooney went to print and TV saying the info about any boat is easily accessed as in the para above and so he wasn’t fussed about whether WOXI’s AIS was transmitting or not. Also noted that he diplomatically  pointed out that there could be many reasons why a signal is not received, including receivers antenna etc. I’m sure he’s smart enough to know exactly what happened, but at least he doesn’t come across as red flag happy  

So, other than an arrogant prick having his snout smacked with a big spoon (like he was last year) by someone who is more intelligent, does the non-transmission of the AIS blip have a bearing on the actual sailing race? 

Share this post


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

What would actually be required for a protest to be valid in a case where a boat finishing days after WOXI files a protest? Certainly they have no allowed means to inform WOXI until they are at the harbour and even then it may take some time to reach the crew.

What about the protest flag? Is this something they must find out while still racing and thus need to have a protest flag up before finishing? I don't think so. Flag is required only for "an

 

incident

 

in the racing area that she

 

wa

 

s involved in or s

 

aw". It is not even required when protesting about not sailing the course.

 

Would it even be possible to make a valid protest after seeing the protest by RC in the harbour and then filing an own protest based on that within the six hours from finishing?

Paragraphs aside that is the gist of the argument.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites