Mid

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

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Rail Meat said:

Blockchain is bigger than bitcoin.  It has a lot of the weirdo, conspiracy theory fringe folks who gravitate to Bitcoin circling around in the space, but the reality is that blockchain itself as a software concept is powerful and is going to crop up in more and more applications.

That's why it's unfortunate Bitcoin keeps using Blockchain to bolster it's own value.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

@Mid I criticised your starting this thread. However you must have known something. After only 4 days this thread is approaching half the size of main thread that started 11 months ago. That is a lot of opinions.

Indeed and that would have completely fucked that thread.

Nice deflection @Mid

4 hours ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

Because I think people are completely overreacting and it's turning to a lynch mob my opinion is as valid as yours. I think you should all chill out and enjoy the race yes the Ais was off but in my opinion it's not sinister and Oats sailed a better race 

In your own words "the AIS was off". You are funny sweety.

3 hours ago, frant said:

Randumb

Seems that you have a limited comprehension of life. Rules are designed to govern how we play the game, whether that be tax rules or rules of tiddlywinks. The rules should serve a purpose, in this case the rule that AIS should be on an Tx & Rx appears to be safety related but has  a perhaps unintended competitor tactical element. 

Leaving saide the current WOXI debate there is a very real need to discuss whether a Tx Rx at all times is technically acceptable given the fallability of the equipment. IF the WOXI story were true and they had noted this in their declaration ( and I am not suggesting that it is true) then would it be reasonable to dismiss the technical rule breach. Say for example one of the small Corinthian entries took a wave that soaked all the electrics?

Further, if you keep bashing and abusing those that have opinions different to yours it depreciates your own argument.( whatever that is)

Dub, I have discovered in the last few days you are far more interesting when you are not cock swording with Jack. He similarly is far more entertaining when he is not meat joisting with you.
Maybe you can build on that?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, EddyAllTime said:

 

Trial by media? Nah, it's more like trial by Saling Anarchy. 

 

MR provided a reasonable explanation, but you faggots cannot help but pile on.

Let it go. WOXI won. Move on. It's 2019 now.

Said like a true Trump supporter.
Dissagree=Faggot.
Mate, you picked the perfect handle.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a misconception by some that AIS in transceiver mode is just for tactical considerations.

An AIS receiver is a passive safety instrument in that YOU can see other vessels. A Transceiver is an active safety instrument in that OTHER vessels can see you (Hello, I'm here). The argument that an AIS transmitter is only useful for tactical reasons is ENTIRELY flawed. It is kind of like crossing the road and the difference between you seeing the truck and the truck NOT seeing you.

The next time you have to call up a containership using his MMSI and wake up the officer or the watch or drag him away from his latest copy of Playboy to draw his attention to the fact you are that AIS contact fine on his port bow and could he please NOT run you down you might just discover that fact.

Also the comments about late finshers not seeing WOXI on their AIS and protesting that fact is also flawed in that AIS is VHF dependant and therefore limited to VHF range so of course the late finshers wouldn't see those yacht 100+ miles in front of them.

Up close & personal (VHF range may only be 10-12 miles and a container ship can do 20+ kts) it can be a very useful collision avoidance tool especially in the likes of off Hong Kong or in the English Channel. 

Anyone who has the capability yet switches off that capability is reducing the safety margins of his/her vessel. Not a good look at the subsequent enquiry. IRPCAS Rule 5

 

 

Share this post


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

Mate all Class B (2w) transceivers ever built all comply with a international communications standard (IEC62287). They are not periodic by nature but do have a reporting rate depending on the dynamic conditions of the reporting vessel and whether Class A or Class B. Once that data is recieved it doesn't dissappear. For example for a  Class B (2w) transceiver the update rate is <2kts = 3 minutes, >2kts = 30 seconds. By comparison a Class A will transmit based on speed and course changes with a rate as short as 2 seconds.. The only way to alter rates in a AIS is to turn the TX function off.

 AIS is a one way data device only. HF is a two way voice device. If HF DSC a two way voice and two way data device. Scheds while they may appear superflous with trackers and AIS, they are not just for reporting position but are a regular check that two voice communication is working.In this race the default is HF with sat phone for redundancy.     

 

1 hour ago, sfigone said:

By all means check two way comms, but once before start and then again at a few points along the course as you call in. Checking it 4 times per day is ridiculous.

Even once a day would be better and they could say "we can/can't see you on AIS".

Remembering that your radio operator while licensed, probably gets too much practice with it and may or may not be familiar with your set on board. That means transmission times night and day V frequencies V propagation issues etc and skills for dealing with them are for many rediscovered say once a year.

Now as a hypothetical imagine you are in the middle of Bass Strait, for some inexplicable reason the VHF is not working (maybe sailing past WOXI at the start as they did their media uplink also fried your splitter?), it is blowing 30kts+, middle of the night,  pitch black and raining.You are going down hill surfing at 20kts+ which around 1/3 of a nautical mile every 60 seconds. You can see in the distance nav lights of some other boats doing exactly the same thing. Now you have come on watch and have gone to take a piss over the back when PFD unclipped and with your pants down, the boat wipes out putting you in the drink.

QUESTION: Which boat would you rather be on as you try and get your pants up and clip that PFD together, treading water in a washing machine and watching a stern light disappear at 10 metres per second??

BOAT 1. The one where religiously your radio operator has been dialing up the Radio Relay vessel 4 times a day since the start yesterday, night and day and after an initial relearning curve is now up to speed on getting good fast contact via HF.

BOAT 2. The one where your radio operator has dialed up the Radio Relay Vessel only twice since the start yesterday and still on an initial relearning curve for making good fast contact via HF.

 PS. I forgot to mention you close your eyes every time you watch Jaws.      

Share this post


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

In waters where commercial vessels comply with the laws and transmit on AIS, there is less of a benefit to safety. 

That is an interesting new concept

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Jack do you sit down to piss?  I stay tethered on, unzip jacket from bottom, down zip pants and have a dick long enough to find one handed so hang on to the back stay. If I was misfortunate enough to go over I would hope that the first response would not be an HF radio distress! Better still to have an AIS MOB device. I often singlehand offshore so it wouldn’t be worth much and when singlehanded I piss in a bottle.

Putting aside this hypothetical was used to counter the thought AIS replaces position reporting via HF scheds, no one has ever taken a piss untethered and your large dick is not what caused you to topple in the first place, what is the first communication response you prefer if not HF in this race and for contact with other vessels??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Liquid Assett NZ said:

Because I think people are completely overreacting and it's turning to a lynch mob my opinion is as valid as yours. I think you should all chill out and enjoy the race yes the Ais was off but in my opinion it's not sinister and Oats sailed a better race 

Mate you’re like a bloke on the rail saying they’re doing better or we’re going the wrong way. 

No explanation no reasoning. No appraising the details that refuse to add up.

 I think the issue now afte all the thrashing it around is how the SIs should be rewritten to avoid this situation again. 

Oats sailed a great race but the AIS thing was an advantage to them ; intended or not.

 

 

Share this post


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

Mate you’re like a bloke on the rail saying they’re doing better or we’re going the wrong way. 

No explanation no reasoning. No appraising the details that refuse to add up.

 I think the issue now afte all the thrashing it around is how the SIs should be rewritten to avoid this situation again. 

Oats sailed a great race but the AIS thing was an advantage to them ; intended or not.

 

 

You don’t think BJ had internet & the tracker? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

You don’t think BJ had internet & the tracker? 

Yes but tracker far inferior to AIS in real time boat speed course and position 

Share this post


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

Would go with VHF which either a/ will have had the emergency antennae connected or b/ used one of the handhelds. If no one in handheld range that’s not much that they could do for the MOB anyway. If he was lost and the AIS on vessel defunct along with that VHF then I would reckon that Satphonestore contact with AMSA going to be best hope for recovery. Ie get them to relay his GPS cords from his PLB.

No longer hypothetically what AIS mob devices are available and when will they become mandated.

That is great but it was hypothethical with VHF cooked. You are now making up a different hypothetical. Then think other than vessel he fell off who is best place to recover and who are they contacted by??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, savoir said:

 

Reasonable explanation ?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Well doctor, I just came out of the shower and I noticed that a screw in the shelf was loose so I took the screwdriver, still naked, and then I slipped and fell and the handle somehow went into my anus. Really. Now could you get it out please? And don’t tell my wife. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That was the splitter that was fried. The Special regs require a spare VHF antennae and a waterproof handheld. So unless that frying had just taken place these hypothetically available .

Read Frant, Didn't say it was a splitter problem. Stick to hypothetical at hand, not a new one.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Now as a hypothetical imagine you are in the middle of Bass Strait, for some inexplicable reason the VHF is not working (maybe sailing past WOXI at the start as they did their media uplink also fried your splitter?)

Share this post


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

Trouble reading your own post jack,? Read the next few words after your highlight and report back what you said.

 

The ones after maybe and connected to maybe

Share this post


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

Ok hypothetically did the splitter get fried or not?

Dunno I said maybe. What I said is they had no fixed VHF comms full stop, so spare antenna, fuses etc irrelevant.. And I said middle of Bass Strait so forget your mobile phone. Stick to the script.

Share this post


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

Fuck I’d simply Channel you on the tinfoil hat phone jack and get you to save my sorry arse

 

I would have to question you for an hour first to make sure it was real and not a hypothetical

Share this post


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

Jack do you sit down to piss?  

.....like all men should, anyway...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There seems to be a misconception by some that AIS in transceiver mode is just for tactical considerations.

An AIS receiver is a passive safety instrument in that YOU can see other vessels. A Transceiver is an active safety instrument in that OTHER vessels can see you (Hello, I'm here). The argument that an AIS transmitter is only useful for tactical reasons is ENTIRELY flawed. It is kind of like crossing the road and the difference between you seeing the truck and the truck NOT seeing you.

The next time you have to call up a containership using his MMSI and wake up the officer or the watch or drag him away from his latest copy of Playboy to draw his attention to the fact you are that AIS contact fine on his port bow and could he please NOT run you down you might just discover that fact.

Also the comments about late finshers not seeing WOXI on their AIS and protesting that fact is also flawed in that AIS is VHF dependant and therefore limited to VHF range so of course the late finshers wouldn't see those yacht 100+ miles in front of them.

Up close & personal (VHF range may only be 10-12 miles and a container ship can do 20+ kts) it can be a very useful collision avoidance tool especially in the likes of off Hong Kong or in the English Channel. 

Anyone who has the capability yet switches off that capability is reducing the safety margins of his/her vessel. Not a good look at the subsequent enquiry. IRPCAS Rule 5

 

 

 

On the other hand an AIS transmitter with the transmit function turned off can give a truly magnificent tactical advantage. " entirely flawed " ?  It isn't even partially flawed.

Share this post


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

I think the consensus is that AIS transmit is turned off for tactical purposes ie to avoid giving others a tactical break, otherwise everyone would Tx for reasons you have outlined

I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, was just highlighting the additional safety of a transceiver and the relative stupidity of switching off a functioning feature of a piece of safety equipment.

The fact that it has a use in yacht racing tactics is purely a spin off from the Offshore Special Regulations (OSR) standpoint. In fact according to the OSRs an AIS transponder is mandatory for  Offshore Category 2 and above.

In fact OSR 3.29.12 stipulates an AIS Class A so all the above arguments about the Class B being weaker are totally irrelevant as the yachts should be equipped with a class A

I think that the need to put in SIs that is should be switched on shows how moronic some skippers are.

 

Share this post


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

 

On the other hand an AIS transmitter with the transmit function turned off can give a truly magnificent tactical advantage.

Of course! That is why everyone switches it off when racing unless they think a big ship or a bunch of fishermen are about to run em down! Not everyone who races has AIS and most SIs don't require it to be on, and policing it properly would be "very difficult" to say the least.

But if the SIs require your transmit function to be on and it wasn't, somewhat obviously, you can't win the race!

Talk about organisers shooting themselves in the feet!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Talk about organisers shooting themselves in the feet!

Organisers are to blame are they?

Share this post


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

 

On the other hand an AIS transmitter with the transmit function turned off can give a truly magnificent tactical advantage. " entirely flawed " ?  It isn't even partially flawed.

There are some idiots this site who clearly lack the ability to read what is written.

What is written in my post above is "The argument that an AIS transmitter is only useful for tactical reasons is ENTIRELY flawed."

There you go savoir, I've even put the word you declined to read in bold for you so you don't miss it this time.

At no point in my post did I say AIS was not useful as a tactical tool. Having been involved in a couple of 'Volvos' I know how much a racing yacht brains trust loves when they dip out of AIS range and will often delay a radical move until that happens.

Your statement that  "It isn't even partially flawed" shows a complete lack of knowledge of a) the original and real reason for the Automatic Identification System (just in case you didn't even know what AIS meant) and b) have never seen the benefit of that real reason in a live situation and therefore  c) just why it is mandatory in all vessels over 300 tons and that's an IMO regulation.

8 minutes ago, staysail said:

Of course! That is why everyone switches it off when racing unless they think a big ship or a bunch of fishermen are about to run em down! Not everyone who races has AIS and most SIs don't require it to be on, and policing it properly would be "very difficult" to say the least.

But if the SIs require your transmit function to be on and it wasn't, somewhat obviously, you can't win the race!

Talk about organisers shooting themselves in the feet!

Not organisers Staysail, it is and has been (I'll probably got this wrong) I think, been in the Offshore Special Regulations for 2-3 years, perhaps longer.

EDIT - Just checked, my copy of the OSR was revised in March 2016 and showing WS still in Southampton so at least 2 1/2 years 

Cant remember offhand what Category of Offshore Race the RSHYC is but I think it is a Cat 1 although I am more than willing to stand corrected.

 

Share this post


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

Organisers are to blame are they?

Guess partly so if they go with rules which for whatever reason don't get properly applied and as a result the first prize gets accepted by a skipper who has not fairly won the race. Of course that skipper will know what he should have done

 

11 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

Not organisers Staysail, it is and has been (I'll probably got this wrong) I think, been in the Offshore Special Regulations for 2-3 years, perhaps longer.

EDIT - Just checked, my copy of the OSR was revised in March 2016 and showing WS still in Southampton so at least 2 1/2 years 

 

Well the OSR I just looked at says SIs may require AIS to be on, i.e. the version 2017 which I quickly looked at seems to have it as optional, but sure the document does seem to mandate loads of gear not carried by many boats I race with.

Guess I am old fashioned but I prefer the simple life and for the skipper of each boat (the guy who the buck sticks with when things go pear shaped) to be the one who decides what safety gear should be carried.

Share this post


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

 

In waters where commercial vessels comply with the laws and transmit on AIS, there is less of a benefit to safety. 

 

 

2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

That is an interesting new concept

 

39 minutes ago, hoppy said:

It take's 2 boats to collide...

If the race yacht is watching their AIS, they are going to be seeing commercial shipping from 30 nm out, although for a 100 footer, they might see ships 60nm away. Even if WOIX is doing 30 knots and the ship 20, WOIX has 30+ min to spot the ship and change course if needed. Smaller boats might have an hour. 

In a situation where a racer is becalmed and a ship is coming straight for them, then you could turn on your AIS TX (hopefully not at the last minute) so that the ship will hopefully change course. If that does not work, make a DSC call to them and if all else fails, motor out the way. I assume the S2H has similar rules to the ORCV races where you can motor to avoid collision and then return to the same spot to resume racing. 

This AIS discussion is a bit like solo sailing threads where posters quote the colregs on maintaining a proper watch warring about being run down by a solo sailor, forgetting about their own responsibility to maintain watch. 

I have read that explanation 3 times and still haven't a clue what you mean by; " In waters where commercial vessels comply with the laws and transmit on AIS, there is less of a benefit to safety". presumably with reference to TX.

If it means AIS is safer if TX is turned off, by having less benefit to safety when turned on, which it seems to say, then you are off your fucking rocker

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Guess partly so if they go with rules which for whatever reason don't get properly applied and as a result the first prize gets accepted by a skipper who has not fairly won the race.

That's bullshit.  WO apologist bullshit.

There are no excuses for not conforming to the rules they signed on for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, staysail said:

Guess partly so if they go with rules which for whatever reason don't get properly applied and as a result the first prize gets accepted by a skipper who has not fairly won the race. Of course that skipper will know what he should have done

 

Well the OSR I just looked at says SIs may require AIS to be on, i.e. the version 2017 which I quickly looked at seems to have it as optional, but sure the document does seem to mandate loads of gear not carried by many boats I race with.

Guess I am old fashioned but I prefer the simple life and for the skipper of each boat (the guy who the buck sticks with when things go pear shaped) to be the one who decides what safety gear should be carried.

I'm with you on that Staysail. When I was an RNLI SEACheck Adviser I made sure my boat was "Offshore Gold Standard". I took the advice of those who knew better (the RNLI) and made sure my boat was safer than it needed to be but that is just me.  However I cannot understand a skipper who has safety gear on board and decide not to use it. It is kind of like not switching on the RADAR in fog.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have read that explanation 3 times and still haven't a clue what you mean by; " In waters where commercial vessels comply with the laws and transmit on AIS, there is less of a benefit to safety". presumably with reference to TX.

I figure it is like driving at night without your headlights on. If you are the only one out there without them on, it is less of an improvement in safety if you turn yours on, relative to the case where the truckers are drunk and don't have lights. 

This is of course a fallacy even without rat arsed truckers. If you are the only car on the road without lights, your safety depends upon everyone else having lights on. Everyone. Not just the commercial traffic, but every other car, bike, rickshaw, whatever. And it depends upon you avoiding them, and never once getting yourself into a position where you can't see what is happening. Once other cars on the road adopt the idea that it is safe without lights on, because everyone else has them, it all goes to shit. hoppy can turn his AIS off in a crowded seaway full of cargo carriers and tankers, but he shouldn't cry when he gets run over by a local fishing boat racing back with their night's catch. Or be surprised when a massive maneuvering carrier is unable to stop in time because hoppy didn't realise the ship's course was altering and would plow into him when the course change was completed. 

Years ago I was taking a taxi from JFK to my hotel late at night. I was horrified when the taxi driver simply ran a red light. "My brother and I do this all the time" he said. "Never had any trouble." And on he went, driving madly, and running red lights. Then suddenly the lights went green in front of us. He slammed on the brakes, and the taxi same to a screaming halt. "What the hell!" says I. "What's the matter? The lights are green!" "You crazy?" says the driver. "My brother is out driving tonight, you want to get us killed?"

Share this post


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

Putting aside this hypothetical was used to counter the thought AIS replaces position reporting via HF scheds, 

That's not what I was saying exactly. I said that IF a key reason for keeping HF scheds is to justify having an escort vessel, then doing AIS checks could now be a better reason to have an escort vessel.

I like having an escort vessel, but I hate HF scheds (either doing them or listening to them or for the extra load put in crew mates), so keep the escort, have it check the AIS and do a lot less HF scheds.

Plus if I went over the back, then the HF skills of my crew mates would be the least of my concerns. I'd be pushing the DSC alarm on my pocket VHF and then talking to them on 16 saying "I'm over gurgle here cough splutter no you sailed past me gasp.. no you can't eat my last brownie....".  My PLB would alert AMSA who would be putting a sat phone call too my boat. HF might alert the fleet, but up to 6 hours later and I'd be long past caring by then. DSC will alert all the boats near enough to do anything and that is something never checked and many crew will never have seen one on their radio or plotter, so JBW should do some test DSC alarms as well. If I didn't have any beacons on me, then I'm probably dead anyway unless my crew mates are really on it.

So I'd much rather have all my crew mates a little less sleep deprived than have 1 crew mate who was really good at HF.

 

Share this post


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

You can get Aid to Navigation approval for AIS devices like fishing stuff. In parts of Asia because of lax regulation and they can source hardware so cheaply, the pricks just use devises designed for vessels. 

Having been on a sportfisher that ran down an unmarked gillnet and wound it up in both wheels, something is better than nothing.

Share this post


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

In fact OSR 3.29.12 stipulates an AIS Class A so all the above arguments about the Class B being weaker are totally irrelevant as the yachts should be equipped with a class A.

Class A AIS is required only for Category 0 multihull races.  Monohulls, even in CAT 0 races, are only required to carry an AIS transponder, Class B AIS is acceptable,   in CAT 0-2 races.  See OSR 3.29.13:

Mo0,1,2 Mu1,2   3.29.13 an AIS Transponder which either:  

Share this post


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

No, it guarantees that the AIS is connected, but it still lights up when only in RX mode. I had a splitter on my boat but it was hidden away and only visible if I unscrewed a wooden panel. My AIS would have also been hidden they if it did not have a USB connection which I used to get nmea data into my laptop. 

No, there's four indicator LEDS on the (all?) splitter(s), which (AMEC CUBO-162 splitter example):

LED INDICATION

 One Power Indicator (Green)

 One Error Indicator (Red) "The built-in test function gives a simple diagnosis in the event of an antenna problem."

 One VHF Radio Transmission Indicator (Green)

 One AIS Transponder Transmission Indicator (Green)

 If the green power LED is on, the green AIS transmission LED is blinking every 30 seconds when underway and the red  Error LED is not lit  I'd say you can be 95% sure your AIS is  transmitting properly.

I'd suggest you cut a small window in your wooden panel so you can monitor the splitter's status LEDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since most (all) of the boats capable of line honors were crewed by Pro sailors I wonder if there is a bonus offered to the first to finish crew on top of their pay?

Share this post


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

Since most (all) of the boats capable of line honors were crewed by Pro sailors I wonder if there is a bonus offered to the first to finish crew on top of their pay?

I’m sure there are bonuses, just depends if they get reported to the IRS etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to confirm that Vesper, B & G, Simrad, Sitex and GME antenna splitters are all fitted with transmit lights. Testing one of those is quite easy especially on a stripped out racer. It seems fair to assume that WOs electronics and instruments are all out in the open rather than hidden away in a locker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

.....like all men should, anyway...

Well I suppose if they want to keep in touch with their feminine side . . . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of the allegation AIS is not reliable.

 I'm looking at why WoXI' unit died as a mater of personal selfish interest, ie: lessons learnt..

WoXi unit I assume is not a passive splitter with 3db loss. It will most likely be an amplifier and a splitter. Mine is, and its a commercial grade potentially lower than WoXI..

To blow up your AIS transmsision path from a TV camera suggest overpowering of something.

 

So, I'm currently looking at the peak, or maximum, power that the interfaces on my splitter can handle.

My AIS input max 12.5 watts,

my VHF input max is 25W.

What the fuck was the cameraman holding? Did he mistake his camera for a F111 Sparkvark? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

It seems fair to assume that WOs electronics and instruments are all out in the open rather than hidden away in a locker.

That would not be fair. Nav station is a pod on the centreline behind engine and companionway where everything is concealed unless it has a dial or a screen. 

Share this post


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

On the topic of the allegation AIS is not reliable.

 I'm looking at why WoXI' unit died as a mater of personal selfish interest, ie: lessons learnt..

WoXi unit I assume is not a passive splitter with 3db loss. It will most likely be an amplifier and a splitter. Mine is, and its a commercial grade potentially lower than WoXI..

To blow up your AIS transmsision path from a TV camera suggest overpowering of something.

 

So, I'm currently looking at the peak, or maximum, power that the interfaces on my splitter can handle.

My AIS input max 12.5 watts,

my VHF input max is 25W.

What the fuck was the cameraman holding? Did he mistake his camera for a F111 Sparkvark? 

We would all learn a lot from WOXI’s detailed technical explanation........

Share this post


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

That would not be fair. Nav station is a pod on the centreline behind engine and companionway where everything is concealed unless it has a dial or a screen. 

I was curious too, and found this:

https://www.sportsailingphotography.com/Other/BoatInteriors/i-jPbm43W/A

 

Scroll right to get Comanche's, which seems a bit better than WOXI's, which is a bit ... not my cup of tea (I know I know, when I buy a 100-footer I can have whatever I want).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to see the indicator lights on any subsystem is a must for my personal comfort level.

Hence why electronics and indicator lights should be 'clustered' into strategic spots around the boat. 

Not everything may be visible to the naked eye, but they are all visible by opening a door.  And they're all checked as part of my watch cycle in a race.

Nothing should be screwed shut over an indicator led. If you cant support external leds, move the unit with the leds on it..

That's a really bad practice that is begging to be a stepping stone to a major fuckup.

Boats are becoming ever more electronic, we need to manage that change to stop things from escalating to a big fubar like, I don't know... not knowing your AIS TX is fucked?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoppy, turning it off by mistake should still be detected. Thats my point.

Why didn't they know it was off?

Shoddy practice, or process.

 

Share this post


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

What the fuck was the cameraman holding? Did he mistake his camera for a F111 Sparkvark? 

The description of the failure is a bit more complex - it wasn't the cameraman's gear that was the issue. It was the transmitter on the relay helicopter. That will be reasonably high power, it's job is to get the signal back to the studio in the city. (A nice description of a much more complex coverage - that of the Tour de France can be seen here.) 

 As I noted earlier - the splitter is a complex device - and whilst it probably has an amplifier to avoid loss on the receive side, it needs to select between transmitters, and will always give priority to the VHF transmitter. If it glitches into a state where it thinks the VHF is transmitting it will effectively prevent the AIS from transmitting. Hardware systems can glitch and latch-up, without further damage. One would need to see the schematic of the splitter to know if this is a reasonable explanation, but I can easily imagine designs where this is possible. (There are also some issues with the explanation, but without knowing the exact design of the splitter it is hard to know the real answer.)

Hardening systems against high power RF interference is not trivial. Because microwave wavelengths are so short energy leaks in in the most unexpected ways, and the most trivial things can behave almost magically. Car manufacturers get very good at this - they really really don't want someone driving past an airport to suddenly have their car systems misbehave. Back in the dark ages of car systems, it was known for instance, that truckers could use their CB radio to kill the fuel injection systems of certain brands of car. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The description of the failure is a bit more complex - it wasn't the cameraman's gear that was the issue. It was the transmitter on the relay helicopter. That will be reasonably high power, it's job is to get the signal back to the studio in the city. (A nice description of a much more complex coverage - that of the Tour de France can be seen here.) 

 As I noted earlier - the splitter is a complex device - and whilst it probably has an amplifier to avoid loss on the receive side, it needs to select between transmitters, and will always give priority to the VHF transmitter. If it glitches into a state where it thinks the VHF is transmitting it will effectively prevent the AIS from transmitting. Hardware systems can glitch and latch-up, without further damage. One would need to see the schematic of the splitter to know if this is a reasonable explanation, but I can easily imagine designs where this is possible. (There are also some issues with the explanation, but without knowing the exact design of the splitter it is hard to know the real answer.)

Hardening systems against high power RF interference is not trivial. Because microwave wavelengths are so short energy leaks in in the most unexpected ways, and the most trivial things can behave almost magically. Car manufacturers get very good at this - they really really don't want someone driving past an airport to suddenly have their car systems misbehave. Back in the dark ages of car systems, it was known for instance, that truckers could use their CB radio to kill the fuel injection systems of certain brands of car. 

Thanks Francis, that makes a lot of sense. I agree on the splitter complexity, but complexity also means you normally have data indication when something fails. I've deployed video to aircraft to multi ground station systems and the DVB freq they transmitted on are high power, I just haven't witnessed this level of interference. 

I'm always learning though.

 

Share this post


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

It was turned off either deliberately or by mistake. To believe otherwise is naive... 

To believe that MR's explanation is impossible is also naive. From a technical point of view it is credible. IMHO credible enough that in the balance between deliberate, mistake, glitched AIS, the balance moves away from deliberate. Enough that continual focussing on WOXI as having deliberately cheated is now the province of the obsessive, and the conversation should have long since moved on to other questions.

Now I get obsessive about things like system glitches and failures. Part of this comes from my day job.  

Share this post


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

I don't think there is an easy answer here. AIS for pleasure craft has crept up. Mandating AIS transmission for the S2H is a great idea on paper, but in doing so it made a jump in expectations about the technology that was probably not warranted. It isn't fault of the SI's, rather I think it is one of imagining your average class-B transceiver installation in a pleasure craft would intrinsically operate to the level of reliability expected of a class A system installed in a commercial vessel.  Install and forget black boxes, where none of the status lights are visible once installed, are not the right answer. 

This kind of nails it for me.  I think that the race over-reached what the AIS technology could deliver.  Never even mind that these sensitive electronics are installed by amateurs with various skill levels, using the cheapest parts they can find in an electrolyte rich marine environment.  AIS intended for recreational boaters are not that robust or reliable.  I could go so far as to say S2H dodged a bullet a bit that this new/expanded convention didn't blow the race up.  It sounds like there were all kinds of AIS irregularities across the fleet that would need consideration.  It is not just that WOXI or the others Racers who experienced AIS deficiencies didn't meet the standards of the SI. It's that the whole techonlogy is not reliable or bulletproof enough to make that grade.

I do understand the position of those who say they were not seen on the net therefore they were not compliant - regardless the excuses.  Why they were not seen and how other boats without the UHF burst excuse were not seen remains a mystery to me.

I bet by next year we see a different approach by the race as to how they integrate AIS into the instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, this is partly us as sailors not doing our part.

Is our maintenance cycle post-emptive or pre-emptive? 

If the sub-system has a visible indicator warning of, or notification of, a failure and it not being visible, and is not being detected as part of your maintenance checks, it just seems like a pretty piss poor excuse to explain in court one day over a tragic 'accident'.

Its a good subject worth gnawing at, we have a bit to learn.

Edit: An example of this. In my Cat 2 and 1 compliance, there is nothing that covers off on any requirements for s critical fault to be visually or audibly  identifiable. Seems wrong to me, unless you're a technical guru, that is the whole purpose of having simple led indicators.

We should be able to see them easily, that's our first part.

 

.

 

Share this post


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

The description of the failure is a bit more complex - it wasn't the cameraman's gear that was the issue. It was the transmitter on the relay helicopter. That will be reasonably high power, it's job is to get the signal back to the studio in the city. (A nice description of a much more complex coverage - that of the Tour de France can be seen here.) 

 As I noted earlier - the splitter is a complex device - and whilst it probably has an amplifier to avoid loss on the receive side, it needs to select between transmitters, and will always give priority to the VHF transmitter. If it glitches into a state where it thinks the VHF is transmitting it will effectively prevent the AIS from transmitting. Hardware systems can glitch and latch-up, without further damage. One would need to see the schematic of the splitter to know if this is a reasonable explanation, but I can easily imagine designs where this is possible. (There are also some issues with the explanation, but without knowing the exact design of the splitter it is hard to know the real answer.)

Hardening systems against high power RF interference is not trivial. Because microwave wavelengths are so short energy leaks in in the most unexpected ways, and the most trivial things can behave almost magically. Car manufacturers get very good at this - they really really don't want someone driving past an airport to suddenly have their car systems misbehave. Back in the dark ages of car systems, it was known for instance, that truckers could use their CB radio to kill the fuel injection systems of certain brands of car. 

I never realised that this was the first time that a media helicopter flew close to WOXI...... Or did  WOXI’s VHF/AIS fry every other time too?

Share this post


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

Class A AIS is required only for Category 0 multihull races.  Monohulls, even in CAT 0 races, are only required to carry an AIS transponder, Class B AIS is acceptable,   in CAT 0-2 races.  See OSR 3.29.13:

Mo0,1,2 Mu1,2   3.29.13 an AIS Transponder which either:  

I stand corrected. Apologies, completely misread the regs. My Bad

Share this post


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

I never realised that this was the first time that a media helicopter flew close to WOXI...... Or did  WOXI’s VHF/AIS fry every other time too?

Sigh, it is never this simple. Arguments like this to try to prove it wasn't so don't work. Unless you have some professional knowledge of electronic and microwave systems you really wouldn't appreciate just how messy and difficult to predict these things can be. Not only that, you are assuming, apriori, that nothing on WOXI, or the media helicopter had changed since last year.  Like I said, this is now the province of the obsessive. It isn't reasoned.

Share this post


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

What that means is that I, along no doubt many others could have concocted a similar story  hoping no one would question the holes.

Sure, there is nothing to say it wasn't carefully concocted in the intervening time. But that isn't to say it isn't credible. Going down this rat-hole just gets nuts. Time to let go.

Share this post


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

Yes his explanation is possible, but often the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Occam's razor. Indeed. And the simple explanation is that they fucked up. I'll go with that one above all others. 

Share this post


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

Yes his explanation is possible, but often the simplest explanation is the correct one.

It is interesting if the TV  transmitter could fry an AIS. Your explanation that it would be the Choppers and not the cameras transmitter makes sense to me. I have a drone that I once flew 5km away from me and I was getting a pretty decent video signal for much of that distance. It was not so powerful, 5.8ghz 600mwh. The ch7 chopper was probably only a few hundred meters from WOIX

Out of techincal interest, the backhaul in my experience from fixed and rotary winged aircraft  was DVB-T which is  45-860mhz.

Satellite uplinks use DVB-S, which is 950-2150mhz.

Share this post


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

Sure, there is nothing to say it wasn't carefully concocted in the intervening time. But that isn't to say it isn't credible. Going down this rat-hole just gets nuts. Time to let go.

And it wasn't that "carefully concocted".  Which in an odd way gives it more credibility.  You know what sometimes happens to the sailor who talks too fast?  Sometimes he will say something that he has not thought of yet!

Share this post


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

How does the ignore function work? I just restarted my iPad and Hoppy disappeared and back on ignore.

Client side filtering? That would be my guess. Your iPad glitched :ph34r: :D

Share this post


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

Now that’s interesting, all the old posts have disappeared but this one came up with a banner “ you have chosen to ignore posts by Hoppy” bloody Jack and his tinfoil hat!

There is a bug in the forum code that if you hit the "show new posts" dialogue that appears, it shows all the new posts, and doesn't filter them. Only when you reload the page does the filtering work.

Share this post


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

It's easy to detect, but only if you look for it...

Remember, for WOIX the normal race status is that the light  indicating the TX is off, so the AIS status would look normal to the race crew

Actually not correct. WOXI normally AIS TX in all races, irrespective of AIS SI's.

Share this post


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

I never realised that this was the first time that a media helicopter flew close to WOXI...... Or did  WOXI’s VHF/AIS fry every other time too?

 

1 hour ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Sigh, it is never this simple. Arguments like this to try to prove it wasn't so don't work. Unless you have some professional knowledge of electronic and microwave systems you really wouldn't appreciate just how messy and difficult to predict these things can be. Not only that, you are assuming, apriori, that nothing on WOXI, or the media helicopter had changed since last year.  Like I said, this is now the province of the obsessive. It isn't reasoned.

So was it a freak  accident because the helicopter didn’t fry up any other boats in the starting area?

What happens in sailing obsessed media mad France with all their aerial coverage? Massive fry ups?

Maybe it was a sneaky drone doing a sabotage job? You never know with all those jealous WOXI haters out there.... So unfair!

 

Share this post


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

To believe that MR's explanation is impossible is also naive. From a technical point of view it is credible. IMHO credible enough that in the balance between deliberate, mistake, glitched AIS, the balance moves away from deliberate. 

They found the issue was with the splitter upon arriving in Hobart. The next step was to investigate the cause, particularly as the boat was heading back to Sydney the next day.

Starting from the ground up where a splitter is probably one of the more robust pieces of electronic  equipment on board, you would start with a list of possible causes to go through, starting with the integrity of the splitters power supply, a high priority maintenance item on boats of this ilk. At the bottom of that list, if making it at all, would be external interference strong enough to fry it. 

"As soon as we went around Bradley's Head the Channel 7 TV guys started live streaming from the helicopter. The instant they started streaming, we lost all our instrumentation. We lost our wifi, and a lot of instrumentation went down on the boat." "The cameraman told us "sorry guys that is probably from the download".

A live stream starting at 11.11am nearly an hour and a half before TV coverage started? A cameraman who it seems knew upon the electronics going down, it was the microwave helo link. He must be a very gifted fellow.

However of all the possible causes none had a public benefit attached to it that would assist sell their failure message being outside their control . That was:

"We do the right thing for the club and the spectators, and every year we carry a cameraman aboard the boat', says Richards. 

It took WOXI over 3 days to compile this response. As shown by this thread the supposed cause being outside their control and having a public benefit has diverted attention away from the prime subject.

That being they travelled the entire race course with no AIS TX, and that is in breach of the SI's and RRS and they got off scott free.

https://www.sail-world.com/news/213456/Wild-Oats-XIs-skipper-answers-critics-on-S2H-row

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" We did the right thing " which of course has nothing to do with the big 7 that has been on their mainsails for years. Was that doing the right thing or was it part of a fat sponsorship deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good that the public (and prob many sailors) have learnt more about AIS now ...

... but the whole thing is a shemozzle for high profile sailing

 

Enjoy the year all, ... and may all your AIS units be switched to TX (... whether intended or otherwise)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geezz this thread is making the banking royal commission blush. AIS science bitcoin blah blah. 

Time for the jury to retire. Is WOXI guilty of a breach of the sailing rules:

- failed to have a mandatory AIS operating?

- lodged a false declaration?

- any other breaches?

what say Ye and if guilty what penalties?

the gutless CYCA RC have left the Court so let the muppets in here speak or shut the fuck up

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“As soon as we went around Bradley's Head the Channel 7 TV guys started live streaming from the helicopter. The instant they started streaming, we lost all our instrumentation. We lost our wifi, and a lot of instrumentation went down on the boat." "Thecameraman told us "sorry guys that is probably fromthe download".

Funny, Comanche had a 7 camera on board which also streamed live to the chopper or wherever, without a fry-up.  And they had one last year too, so they must at least be as big hearted as Oats. 

Share this post


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

Randumb gets as much satisfaction from people telling him he is on the ignore list as he does from people being provoked by his crap. Best to either ignore him the old fashioned way or at least quietly putting him on ignore.

giphy.gif

Share this post


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

Geezz this thread is making the banking royal commission blush. AIS science bitcoin blah blah. 

Time for the jury to retire. Is WOXI guilty of a breach of the sailing rules:

- failed to have a mandatory AIS operating?

- lodged a false declaration?

- any other breaches?

what say Ye and if guilty what penalties?

the gutless CYCA RC have left the Court so let the muppets in here speak or shut the fuck up

 

Any boat that didn't complete the race within the rules  and didn't notify or declare   nature of the problem gets 20% time penalty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As shown by this thread the supposed cause being outside their control and having a public benefit has diverted attention away from the prime subject.

I tend to agree. I'm just wittering on about the technical side because that is something I know about. As we see, there is no end of commentators who have no idea about the technical issues who still keep saying that if it happening this time it should always happen to all the other boats. (Hint guys, it is a lot more complex than you have any idea of.) It is past time to forget the technical question of how or why the AIS was not transmitting. It isn't the question, and really never has been.

And indeed, the real issue has never gone away, and it isn't just WOXI. Between the behavior of WOXI, BJ, and the RC, I'm not even sure that WOXI is the worst offender. None of this has a good smell to it. 

The class act would have been for WOXI to RAF. It really would. If MR had done that I would have forgiven every previous and future sin. But realistically, no-one ever expected that he would. Which is sad. But if WOXI were to RAF, IMHO BJ should fall on their sword as well, for basically being dicks. They didn't break any precise rule, but they ran along the border, and in many ways left a bigger smell behind than WOXI. As to the RC, I have no words. I cannot believe, that even if it was never openly discussed, that all the members didn't know that what they were doing was nothing but a token gesture to try to defuse the situation, and that they never had any intent to pursue the matter of AIS non-compliance with any boat. They just wanted it to go away.

The loser is the sport. 

I'm sure most of us know the feeling, when it has been a shit day, you have been spat out the back door of the fleet, and to top it off you hit a mark. Nobody can see that you hit it, but you miserably do your turns none-the-less and get on with things. None of WOXI, BJ, or the RC are exactly encouraging this spirit. This is not a good thing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

 

I have read that explanation 3 times and still haven't a clue what you mean by; " In waters where commercial vessels comply with the laws and transmit on AIS, there is less of a benefit to safety". presumably with reference to TX.

If it means AIS is safer if TX is turned off, by having less benefit to safety when turned on, which it seems to say, then you are off your fucking rocker

 

I also think that Hoppy's range assumptions are way too 'hopeful'. VHF is line of sight. Couldn't find anything definitive in the Reeds Nautical Almanac but using the "Lights - Distance off" table (VHF and light are both line of sight elecro-magnetic radiations )Then assuming the average 50 footer (not all of us can afford to sail on a 100 footer) has a mast height (inc Aerial)of say 20m and a ship has an aerial height of 30m then the radio line of sight would produce a effective range of around 20 miles if I have got my calculations correct or around 1/3 of what Hoppy has assumed. And that assumes clear conditions with no atmospheric degradation of the signal.

Of course I could be wrong with my assumptions but I always understood VHF station to station comms of any sort (and AIS depends on VHF to operate) relies on line of sight which is why here in Asia with much fewer coastal stations we have to learn HF as well as VHF.

As I say I could be wrong.

 

Share this post


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

... what say Ye and if guilty what penalties?

Crucifixion, that is how all the great ones go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, savoir said:

Well I suppose if they want to keep in touch with their feminine side . . . . . 

Or just realise the stupidity of pissing all over the floor?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 11:30 AM, Grrr... said:

I absolutely love this imbecilic attitude.  So tell us all, what other rules should we simply ignore in sailboat racing because you feel they are "chickenshit".  Perhaps rule 2?

Ricco gets himself into trouble every time he opens his mouth. He stated AIS was not mandatory. That implies that Ricco had AIS turned off IMO. So that's a loss last year and a win this year but with controversy. I would like the Oatley hierarchy  to give him some guidelines as to how they would like their boats sailed. That's off course if Sandy doesn't like the term "Cheats" used alongside their race wins? That being said that's twice they have beaten Comanche over the line in the last 2 Hobarts. Comanche must be feeling the pinch as when it comes to Hobarts and a light and flukey Derwent river lurking it's making their task hard. 

Share this post


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

then the radio line of sight would produce a effective range of around 20 miles if I have got my calculations correct

You could reasonably expect a little bit more - say 30nm, as the air is a bit refractive, and weirdly, the Earth looks a bit flatter to the wave than it actually is. A common number is 4/3 bigger. There are all sorts of really weird things that can occur, and you will hear reports of anomalous very long distance propagation under just the right conditions. You can get ducts through the sky that transport VHF, scattering effects, and other oddities. Years ago (and maybe even now) there was a ham radio sport for long range VHF communication by bouncing the waves off meteor trails. Not something one could rely on. SImilarly, you can have issues where propagation is reduced. Even sea state can have an effect. But 20-30nm is a pretty good start.

Share this post


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

I would like the Oatley hierarchy  

Randumb would like a bigger dick. Neither are gunna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites