Mid

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

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, frant said:

And I might remind you that BJ would be in no position to produce any evidence as to the power loss in WOXI’s AIS antennae which is undisputably located at the masthead.

The amount of money you sent me boss was worth way more than the info I provided that a blind spastic living in a dungeon in Chile trussed up in duct tape getting waterboarded with a poor internet connection could have provided more quickly than I.

So with that credit I will provide a tip with two questions in mind if I was on BJ wanting to prosecute a bona fide protest about WOXI's AIS TX. 

1. Why do I BJ give two fucks about WOXI's supposed AIS power transmission loss. That is their problem and to present to the IJ with evidence to defend the protest and convince the IJ.

2. I BJ only have to produce enough evidence that I did not receive WOXI AIS TX to convince the RC and PC that a IJ hearing should be convened with regard to my protest. Apart from crew declarations there is a truckload of external evidence available to both the RC and PC to declare the protest as valid and convene a IJ. I also might add be successful in full under the RSS and SI's by any objective interpretation.

You and Randumb should run off together and start a new civilisation. Your legacy will be to future generations who have managed to keep hold of a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hoppy

What I really have difficulty with, even if one accepts the AIS black hole between Sydney and Hobart, and that there was genuinely a “problem”, is that the AIS signal fixed itself remarkably quickly after the finish. If the “problem” was so easily fixed, the explanation for it should be equally easily confirmed and checked. It wasn’t.

Here we are 10 days later, after multiple variations of the explanation regarding the “problem” we are still  no closer to a credible explanation. Never mind the indignation, abuse of and demands for an apology from CYCA in the process. This now goes well beyond the possible transgression of an SI. What do you get in any other sport for abusing the promoter and referee?

This is a thread about one particular boat, but similar comments and actions should apply to all known transgressors of the AIS SI..... It hasn’t happened. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Were I your lawyer jack ( I know I know, perish the thought ), I would arm you with a few Marinetraffic screenshots from the race showing BJ and no WO anywhere around. Quality evidence.

Share this post


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

Thanks but we operate under the Australian Special Regs https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/piano.revolutionise.com.au/site/dmmqegh5tpkojlb4.pdf

No such stipulation in Australian Special Regs or Audit Form..

Paypal account refund applied for as services were not supplied as advertised.

PayPal computer says "No". Also said go have a look at parts you have missed in linking up AS and WS then applying the SI's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if someone had said, "fuck the thing wasn't working my bad, I kicked it in my sleep" ? This thread would have died in the arse, sadly because honesty is not always rewarded as news.
 

I never considered myself a WOXI hater, I followed their progress with great interest for years. I vaguely know a few people in that area of our sport and following their antics gives me great pleasure. However, in recent years the atmosphere in that area (prof sailing) has become more and more toxic as we all know.

Whether they like it or not the Oatley campaign has now become a poster boy for what might be changing our sport for the worse.

Big money, sponsors and TV networks calling the shots.

MR till this point has has done them no favours but maybe that's a good thing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need that laugh out fucking loud key.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Were I your lawyer jack ( I know I know, perish the thought ), I would arm you with a few Marinetraffic screenshots from the race showing BJ and no WO anywhere around. Quality evidence.

What's this chopped liver? WOXI teleported with or without wheels between Sydney.and Hobart with both terrestrial and sat evidence is not enough?

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

Share this post


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

Well I am still waiting for the HF requirement to be dropped for Satcomms

What I'm still waiting for is a good Samaritan to push you in front of the next bus..and then if that doesn't work choke you to death while pretending to give CPR.

Share this post


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

What's this chopped liver? WOXI teleported  with or without wheels between Sydney.and Hobart is not enough?

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

Settle mate, collateral damage, convert to pink font.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

What I'm still waiting for is a good Samaritan to push you in front of the next bus..and then if that doesn't work choke you to death while pretending to give CPR.

Which protocol of CPR Jack? He needs to know.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Think very carefully now Jack. Should an IJ make a decision on supposition or not. Unless you can show me an amendment to Australian Special Regs then those are what the IJ must use. WOXI have provided an alibi for their low or null transmission. Like it or not that is the way that it is.

I think you miss spelled suppository. Frant you are in quicksand, stop kicking.......

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Think very carefully now Jack

Only thing I'm thinking about is whether your drivel makes you deserved of taking Randumb's place on one of SA's mantles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

there are plenty of credible explanations and the WOIX component of this thread has been flogged to death.

I just looked at thread title. Are you suggesting another component?

Only thing being flogged is WOXI saying their Splitter got fried by microwaves and about to supply evidence of that and no AIS TX any minute now by way of Richo's one week promise.

I for one .would like to know if hiding your Splitter in a chicken then zapping it is not a good idea.

Share this post


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

about to supply evidence of that and no AIS TX any minute.

Image result for for sale bridge

Share this post


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

I just looked at thread title. Are you suggesting another component?

Only thing being flogged is WOXI saying their Splitter got fried by microwaves and about to supply evidence of that and no AIS TX any minute.

I for one .would like to know if hiding your Splitter in a chicken then zapping it is not a good idea.

LOFL button.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good night from me and it's good night from him.

Laugh In....you had to be there.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

That’s really good Jack. But in the process of doing that you can’t just make stuff up yourself or you become fake news yourself.

Point to anything which I write that is "fake" with particular reference to the SI's (incl references theirin to RRS etc) for this race which you attest to be now an expert on. If you can't.. fuck off.

Share this post


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

It is fake to say that Special Reg 3.29.13(a&b) is applicable to the S2H race.

Are you on some sort of get dumber by the minute plan?

5 minutes ago you didn't know 3.29.13 existed, then you get enlightened and you still keep banging on about what?? Clearly you still haven't read the the SI's despite being urged to do so. Do you need a reference for them, the RRS also to tie them all together ?

Fuck..I'm now calling you Cliff.. also in the hope you drive over one.

 

Share this post


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

Now I haven’t read the SI’s.

you're being trolled Jack .........................

Share this post


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

Now I haven’t read the SI’s. 

Are you selling some sort of euthanasia thing. If so it is working a treat but I think I will be gone before I pay. Sorry about that.

Share this post


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

you're being trolled Jack .........................

I know but the really dumb ones are easy to counter troll and I'm feeling lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Jack and Shang seem to be using as qualifying evidence per special regs, are from World Sailing. A mistake easily made as the W.S. online front page shows a picture of Alive.

The Special Regs as used in the Hobart race are issued by Australian Sailing and contain some noticeable differences from that used by the overseas contributors to this thread.

Sydney to Hobart Sailing Instructions: http://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/media/3438679/rshyr-si-final.pdf

World Sailing Offshore special regs: https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingOffshoreSpecialRegulations20182019180104-[23449].pdf

Australian Sailing Special regs:https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/piano.revolutionise.com.au/site/dmmqegh5tpkojlb4.pdf

A quick check of the S.I.'s, 11.4 Changes to Special Regs. 

Special Regulation 3.24.5 (c): in world sailing relates to 3.24 Compass; in Aust vers. 3.24.5 relates to fuel carried.

3.25 World sailing = Halyards;  3.25. Australian sailing = Marine radio.

More differences but you get the jist, need to quote from Australian Special Regs, to tar, feather and hang people on Australian boats in Australia.

,Time for overseas contributors, (and some aussie ones that are jumping on the lynch mob bus), to do some of your own research.

Share this post


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

What Jack and Shang seem to be using as qualifying evidence per special regs, are from World Sailing..

The Special Regs as used in the Hobart race are issued by Australian Sailing and contain some noticeable differences from that used buy the overseas contributors to this thread.,

Time for overseas contributors, (and some aussie ones that are jumping on the lynch mob bus), to do some of your own research.

Hilly I can't speak for Shang but with regard to myself you are very wide of the mark with that qualifying evidence comment.

Good point though about an international crowd here and one which I accommodate when I remember. You will find those references have been made in the most part in the context of AIS and how long has this AIS stuff been around,  not as a specific S2H requirement reference, where many not knowing the difference between an equipment mandate and a mandate that says the sucker should be turned on.

The latter is done by the SI and that quite frankly is the end of story. The rest is background, informative or not.

However your suggestion is that myself,  Shang and overseas contributors, are not across SA varients and share the same seat as those on the lynch mob bus ??  You say through ignorance, to the extent say for instance don't take SI into account in formulating an opinion and need to do further research.

Mate that is so far off mark, to the extent of offending those who are informed.

As for naming me in that group go fuck yourself you turnip. I'm sure @shanghaisailor will have a much softer response. If I have misread your intent despite your reference to myself sharing a bus seat with idiots, my apology.

Share this post


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

Thanks a very reasoned post..

I thought a more "seasoned" one to help you out of that BBQ pit you have dug yourself Cliff.

Share this post


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

Please don’t come back with its all in 11.4 dot point #3..

Cliff be rest assured the only thing I'm coming back with is the Electric Button.

 

Share this post


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

3.29.13 (a & b)

Here is Shangs contribution re: W.S. spec regs. I see you have got your broom out and deleted your post re  telling Frant to look up power loss / ariel position.

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I have a Phd in rude. But as you just sent me money via PayPal, then as your servant  I must oblige, Section 3.29.13 and with even with a linky

https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingOffshoreSpecialRegulations20182019180104-[23449].pdf

A rule I think 3 years old?

Above is a post you forgot to clean.. 

You somehow seem to think rule 3.29.13 (a&b) is important to your argument... By the way, there is no R 3.29.xx in Australian Spec. Regs..

Another classic Jack quote:

"Are you on some sort of get dumber by the minute plan?

5 minutes ago you didn't know 3.29.13 existed, then you get enlightened and you still keep banging on about what?? Clearly you still haven't read the the SI's despite being urged to do so. Do you need a reference for them, the RRS also to tie them all together ?

Fuck..I'm now calling you Cliff.. also in the hope you drive over one."

If you  read the section below you will not find any mention of power loss, only output, you were quoting the reg that Shang has mistakenly quoted.

Why dont you tell us who you are Jack and where you live,  the town will do, just so I know which way to place my prayer mat,   sea rug, Great circle route obviously, so that I can proselytize in your direction, and worship the guy who confuses Flinders and Tasman Islands... but is the self assesed guru of all things yachting. 

 

This from Australian sailing Spec regs.

3.25 MARINE RADIO
Satcom C equipment forms part of the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System and is carried aboard all
commercial shipping as well as by shore based rescue
coordination centres. This technology is well
established and is an option available to yachts
participating internationally under the World Sailing
Special Regulations. Owners and race organisers may
consider phasing in this equipment as a prelude to its
potential introduction into future versions of these
Special Regulations.
3.25.1 The following waterproof or marine standard
communication equipment shall be provided:
1 2 3 4 5
(a) (i) Permanently installed HF transceiver.
(ii) All new HF transceivers shall be DSC capable.
1 2
SECTION 3 – PART 2 FIXED EQUIPMENT
41
(i) It is recommended that all HF transceivers be
DSC capable.
(ii) Where shore based VHF facilities exist for the
entire length of the course, the organising
authority may permit an installed VHF transceiver
only and this shall be included in the notice of
race.
2
(b) (i) Permanently installed VHF transceiver 1 2 3 4
(ii) A permanently installed, DSC capable VHF
transceiver is recommended
5
(iii) All new permanently installed VHF transceivers
shall be DSC capable.
(iv) It is recommended that all permanently installed
VHF transceivers be DSC capable.
1 2 3 4
(c) A satellite phone is recommended. The satellite phone
should have coverage of the race area, and be
connected to the main power or have a spare battery.
1 2
3.25.2 A waterproof handheld VHF transceiver. 1 2 3
Specifications and Testing
3.25.3 Permanently installed HF transceivers shall be: 1 2
(a) Able to transmit and receive on the standard distress
frequencies of 4125, 6215, 8291 kHz.
(b) Tested in accordance with the notice of race.
3.25.4 Permanently installed VHF transceivers shall: 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Have a maximum rated output power of not less than
25W.
(b) Have a mast head antenna. 1 2 3
(c) Have transmission and reception with a base station at
least 8 nautical miles distant.
1 2 3
(d) Be tested in accordance with the notice of race. 1 2 3 4 5
3.25.5 The following emergency antenna shall be provided:
(a) An emergency antenna for each required radio. 1 2 3
(b) An emergency antenna where the regular antenna
depends upon the mast.
4
SECTION 3 – PART 2 FIXED EQUIPMENT
42
3.25.6 Handheld VHF transceivers shall: 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Have a maximum rated output power of not less than 5W.
(b) Be tested in accordance with the notice of race.
3.25.7 At least two means of receiving weather bulletins shall
be provided.

Share this post


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

Jack are you pissed or a blithering idiot? ..The S2H is run under the SI’s..

You have to be the dumbest troll God ever invented 

As I'm looking for the battery to the Electric Button quickly read this. You have until I find that battery.

38 minutes ago, frant said:

Probably  using 3.29.13 as a guide but you simply can’t protest using that rule number in Australia. It is not a rule of the S2H.

I will give you $100 million dollars where I have said a protest by anyone should or can be made directly referencing that rule either in WS or any equivalent regs.

I will give another $100 Million if you can name the rule or its interpretation that lets WOXI off the hook from defending a competitor protest for WOXI not having their AIS TX signal being recieved by that competitor or by the RC as protester if the RC had evidence on hand of that independent of and not reliant upon any competitor.

Now get going and earn your $200.million while I look for a $2 battery .

Share this post


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

Here is Shangs contribution re: W.S. spec regs. I see you have got your broom out and deleted your post re  telling Frant to look up power loss / ariel position.

Not interested in shangs post. How do you delete a post?

49 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Above is a post you forgot to clean.. 

You somehow seem to think rule 3.29.13 (a&b) is important to your argument... By the way, there is no R 3.29.xx in Australian Spec. Regs..

And quoted in the context of what Hilly? The context is many replies. Who is doing the cleaning here or are you just lazy?

49 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Why dont you tell us who you are Jack and where you live,  the town will do, just so I know which way to place my prayer mat,   sea rug, 

My mistake I thought you had a serious argument going. Seems no such thing. Just a rant like everyone but certainly now no need for that subject to apology I gave you. Your intent is now very clear.

What ever it is it must be really hurting you. Shame about that.

Share this post


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

i have owned, read and understood the contents of the Blue Book and its updates since 1968. Both as a competitor at world and Olympic level. Also been seconded to protest committees...I have read and understand the Australian Special Regulations and Audit forms as a qualified Cat 1 auditor. 

As your other dickhead mate said, it’s goodnight from me. See you when you are sober.

Ahh the play dumb then reveal and scarper off without answering the $200 million question troll. It took a while to flush you out, even had to revert to the Electric Buzzer trick 

You and Hilly should get together and compare notes.

That aside excellent to see this subject has people getting passionate. The opposite is no good for anybody or anything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Dickhead

A predictable "au revoir' from someone, even sporting it seems 50 odd years of RRS experience, but who can't answer a simple question to substantiate their meandering argument. That was;

53 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I will give another $100 Million if you can name the rule or its interpretation that lets WOXI off the hook from defending a competitor protest for WOXI not having their AIS TX signal being recieved by that competitor or by the RC as protester if the RC had evidence on hand of that independent of and not reliant upon any competitor.

Don't worry you are not alone, there others who avoid that question like the plague.

Share this post


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

Jack are you pissed or a blithering idiot? If pissed then you might be able to read and come to a reasoned response when you are sober. The S2H is run under the SI’s, the RRS and the Australian Special Regs. It is sort of imperative that one understands what these are ie how the race is run and regulated. Unless that is done you can’t postulate on what the IJ could rule. SS had obviously not read the Australian Regs or he would not have quoted the Reg number that he did. Clearly and as I have stated all along the IJ may  have been forced to come to a conclusion as to what a “ satisfactory” Tx was/ is.  Probably  using 3.29.13 as a guide but you simply can’t protest using that rule number in Australia. It is not a rule of the S2H.

OK so I quoted from a GLOBAL standard instead of an AUSTRALIAN variant. I hold my hand up on that one.

I bow to your vast experience "co-opted onto protest committees" wow, that probably puts you alongside probably half the club sailors in the world over the years. 

Here's a number for you. It is the only really relevant number in this discussion. 

Sailing Instructions 11.4

If you are so knowledgeable about the  rules you will recognise the importance of the word "SHALL" in the instruction.

Anyway that's the personal 'pop' out of the way and no malice intended, I would still down a pint with you if we met -discussion is healthy. 

The thing I find hard to believe about this whole affair is that the Race Committee clearly (according to them) had not watched any news REPORTS by news REPORTERS of what Blackjack stated. I find it strange (not unbelievable but strange) that an RC showed no interest in what the media were REPORTING from the dock (about the race they were the RC of) in Hobart and  didn't watch, listen to or read any of the media REPORTS about claims over AIS being on, off, faulty, mandatory (or not) etc. I doubt if many of the REPORTERS filing their REPORTS had any conflict of interest regarding what they were REPORTING.

For the record, I have no conflict of interest over the whole issue, I just find it strange that a party to the whole event has provided almost as many variants to the actual events as the Crown Prince of Saudi.

Saddest part of the whole thing for me is the REAL winner of the event, Alive who picked up the Tatersall Cup has almost been forgotten in the morass of writings about a on/off/faulty piece of electronics let alone the amazing performance of the all female team on Wild Oats Ten who beat 86 teams of (mainly) Aussie blokes to the second spot of the IRC Overall podium. That's the real race.

SS

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

But as I have tried to explain to Jack that is a lot different to an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict whatever the penalty.There must be some quantifiable standard expressed in the rules by which a Tx is measured. Ie is it 10 miles, 5 miles 1 mile, 50 metres? 

You have explained nothing of the sort.  I have made no comment in any post about what a IJ's determination may or should have  been. You make shit up. That aside the current test of compliance is simple. The piece of equipment is either on or off. 

No better example of your gobblygook is this 

You are presented with a AIS history for WOXI in the context of indicating the RC had sufficient evidence available to lodge a valid protest under RSS over AIS TX and one not relying on a competitor that WOXI's AIS TX was off. No mention of a hearing, the IJ or prospects on any IJ determination.

Your bizzare reply.

5 hours ago, frant said:

Think very carefully now Jack. Should an IJ make a decision on supposition or not. Unless you can show me an amendment to Australian Special Regs then those are what the IJ must use. WOXI have provided an alibi for their low or null transmission. Like it or not that is the way that it is.

What have the Special Regs got to do with determining the validity or not of a RC protest?? Where do I mention IJ? Where did WOXI present this "alibi"? Who accepted and interrogated this "alibi" and then made a determination? Answer is simple, none of the above occured because no such protest ever occured. The IJ were presented with nothing. 

Serious question. Do you honestly believe this Perry Mason alibi dribble? 

Share this post


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

You really must be drunk. Now in your childish response I can see that you think it’s all about ME. Now fuckoff and come to terms with the fact that no one is going to play your little I bet you a million dollars game.

You are simply a lying creep who makes shit up on the go by way of attribution and then you squirm when you get caught out. Some tolerate that, I don't. Choice is yours if you want to persist.

Share this post


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

You really must be drunk.

 

1 hour ago, frant said:

Dickhead

I'm not wunk, I'm wealy wealy wunk, wike borderin on pararipitic pissdelfofef wunk ..wike mabis evin cromotose wunk, The wickhead thingy U cally me Im still pwosessing. Howthe weather wefore I path out in a see of womit end piddley me pents ..can U pwesse ranswer me questiony. I jest cipied heree as thaty wes hours ago wen I wassy only part pissy. Hopey U dinny mind thet.

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I will give another $100 Million if you can name the rule or its interpretation that lets WOXI off the hook from defending a competitor protest for WOXI not having their AIS TX signal being recieved by that competitor or by the RC as protester if the RC had evidence on hand of that independent of and not reliant upon any competitor.

By thee wayzer fwenty ..didle I every well U thaat I actualllly envented theee question marky ting. It gotty me weery werry wich. Like wuber wich. Wike the Woogle cwowd give 1 centy everry time them use my ?. Heve U iny ideas how meny ? markys is in a IRL..like U weplying to me posts I makey me moneey. The Woatleys wood kill for me casshy flow just talkin about thim..or meybe thim kill me firsty? Ha ha. Cwazy isitty. Mebye thets wheise I meek suchy cwazy efferings twoo wickyheads twoo wanswer me westions? Oopsie I did a westion mark end iim 1 centres wicher. ha ha I goty step that.

Wooking worward to ye wanser fwenty. No mores wiggleyy weaslliy wordys ok

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snaggletooth, U speake Abo kangaroo do u ? 

Please translate into gobbledygook !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned a lot about AIS from this thread and have pontificated mightily about it's technical aspects above concerning this incident, and we all know I'm always right.

But, having  looked over the latest statements from those directly involved & media reports, I wish to retract some of my earlier blather.  WOXI's spokesmen first claimed "a News 7 helicopter transmitted and forced a reset of our onboard electronics which disabled our AIS TX capabilities", but I think they actually meant the onboard live camera transmission(s) (to a helicopter relay or direct to a terrestrial downlink) damaged or reset their electronics systems.


Now that I can actually buy.  I don't know the particulars of long range wireless media camera systems, but think it's more plausible the onboard camera caused the problem, given that only a few line honors boats carried one (and the camera person once outside the harbor), so the "black helicopter should have fried all boats" theory falls by the wayside.

I'm leaning toward giving WOXI the benefit of the doubt now.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bloody relief to all concerned I'm sure.
Doesn't change the fact they were in breach though which is the main issue.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

It's good night from me and it's good night from him.

Laugh In....you had to be there.

 

That was The Two Ronnies. Laugh In was " Goodnight Dick ".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the reasoning come out yet? 

I know an ex tv network engineer experienced in live transmission/broadcasting keen to hear the detail

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

WOXI's spokesmen first claimed "a News 7 helicopter transmitted and forced a reset of our onboard electronics which disabled our AIS TX capabilities", but I think they actually meant the onboard live camera transmission(s) (to a helicopter relay or direct to a terrestrial downlink) damaged or reset their electronics systems.

...so the "black helicopter should have fried all boats" theory falls by thewayside.

Not sure how you acertained that but if so doesn't that in fact make it less, not more likely?

Firstly the camera pack has less power than the helicopter relay back to Channel HQ? If a camera uplink is that powerful to fry onboard electronics how are a helicopters electronics imune from that? How in fact have so many broadcasts been done without a onboard electronics incident of this nature?

Secondly you would assume the microwave  access to the splitter would be via the mast mounted antenna then VHF coaxial cable as the VHF cable and splitter are encapsulated in carbon. Therefore isn't that mast top antenna access point more susceptible to the operator in the helicopter getting his higher powered relay device direction cocked up, not the camera operator with his low powered device?

Thirdly you appear to be using no other boats effected so can't be helicopter approach? It happened 2 hours before the start and they were at Bradley's Head with no other boats around. Don't know why they were live transmitting 1 1/2 hours before the telecast started, but that is beside the point.

I don't know the exact power involved for each device and I don't know how one channel and half of the other channel in a splitter survive a roasting leaving only AIS TX impaired, but the helicopter relay being the culprit sounds quite plausible to me.

PS. Actually the irony of all this is everyone complains about only the big boats on the TV coverage. The problem is with these two boats two onboard cameraman broadcast approach they utilise two helicopters which takes resources away from covering anyone else. Get rid of the onboard cameraman and people might see other boats exist. Or alternatively Channel 7 charters more choppers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If a camera uplink is that powerful to fry onboard electronics how are a helicopters electronics imune from that?

The answer to this is the enormous amount of care taken. The lengths that are taken with aircraft electronics to ensure they are appropriately shielded and otherwise constructed and installed to avoid interference effects is mind numbing. You can be sure that every bit of flight electronics has been tested, as installed, by the manufacturer, to be resistant to a wide range of EM, and appropriately certified, signed off, reviewed, and so on. Part of why the joke goes that an aircraft is not ready to fly until the mass of paperwork exceeds the mass of the aircraft.

In comparison, your average (or even high quality) boat installation looks like something done by a moron with a stone. Unless you test the installation you will never know what it is immune to or vulnerable to. A few centimeters of cable here or there can make worlds of difference. It isn't just neatness that matters.

The only vessels I see that have similar levels of care taken as aircraft are naval vessels. They of course expect someone to try to hit them with various EM measures in addition to operating with all manner of local high power EM sources.

That said, actual physical damage is a different thing to disabling, interfering, or glitching electronics. As I wrote earlier, "fry" as in "destroy" is a different thing, and a much less likely outcome. The only realistic interpretation I can see is that "glitch" is the mechanism. If indeed there was such a failure.

Share this post


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

I guess you are being tongue in cheek when you say “ bow to your vast experience” yes just because we’re old doesn’t mean we’re wise. And agree that just about every club Sailor that has been around has been cooped onto a PC. What it does mean however is that you have real world experience at the difficulty to actually determine what happened between differing eye witness accounts and then applying those “facts found” to the rules as they read, not just deciding who you think the nice guy is and judging in his favour. Boy you show your age even more than MR and myself highlighting SHALL. That used to be in the blue book definitions as in “ shall is mandatory”. I think I made the comment on this thread a while ago that MR ‘s comment that AIS was not mandatory indicated that he was referring to RRS rather than COLREGs or there current abbreviation.

yes shall means just that, if doing an audit I would not pass a boat that Tx wasn’t visible on my MarineTraffic app. Just simply say no that doesn’t satisfy the intent of the rule.But as I have tried to explain to Jack that is a lot different to an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict whatever the penalty.There must be some quantifiable standard expressed in the rules by which a Tx is measured. Ie is it 10 miles, 5 miles 1 mile, 50 metres? The man on the Clapham omnibus probably doesn’t have a clue on these technical matters so we can’t go there, as in saying if it doesn’t appear on MarineTraffic it’s not on!

For the rest I agree fully, but that is not what happened and we are again only speculating as to the whys and wherefores. 

Ha ha - you get worse. The "Blue Book" as you call it is the "Australian Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing". In the current version (I own a copy) it clearly states that "Other words and terms are used in the ordinarily understood in nautical or general use".

The Sailing Instructions (SIs) are part of the rules of the event and have nothing to do with IRPCAS (what you call the ColRegs). The IRPCAS requirements for AIS DO NOT apply to a sailing yacht of the weight of Wild Oats XI.

That sentence in the introduction of the "Blue Book" applies across all elements of the rules of our sport unless,like ALL aspects of the RRS, is specifically countermanded by a part of the NoR or SIs -you may have seen in some things like "This replaces Rule such and such.

The 2018 RSHYR NoR and SIs have no such entry that even suggests the normal usage understanding of words is incorrect. Cutting a long story short SHALL means SHALL but of course,as an experienced rules 'person' you would know that anyway.

You mention in an earlier post that being old doesn't mean being wise. It is important (perhaps also wise) to understand that true wisdom doesn't come from what you know. IN fact true wisdom comes from knowing what you don't know. (Think about it).

Your comment about an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict is irrelevant in this case as there was no guilt (or innocence) decided in the  protest room as the protest was deemed invalid. Not the judges fault but the way in which the protest was prepared.

Nobody has won.

Wild Oats has not been proven guilty(f they were).

They have not had the opportunity to prove their innocence (if they were)

The reputation of the race and our sport has been besmirched.

The Overall Victory of Alive has been largely buried which is not in the least bit fair. Hers was a rare Hobart based boat's victory.

The achievements of the ladies on Wild Oats X, newsworthy in itself has barely had a mention.

On a much brighter note for our sport, the 2019 Fastnet Race entry has opened and closed.

It took a mere 4 minutes and 37 seconds to fill the 340 places available in the Royal Ocean Racing Club's biennial event.

Just sayin'

SS 

Edit: PS there are another 100 boats on the wait list by the way.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Not sure how you acertained that but if so doesn't that in fact make it less, not more likely?

Firstly the camera pack has less power than the helicopter relay back to Channel HQ? If a camera uplink is that powerful to fry onboard electronics how are a helicopters electronics imune from that? How in fact have so many broadcasts been done without a onboard electronics incident of this nature?

Secondly you would assume the microwave  access to the splitter would be via the mast mounted antenna then VHF coaxial cable as the VHF cable and splitter are encapsulated in carbon. Therefore isn't that mast top antenna access point more susceptible to the operator in the helicopter getting his higher powered relay device direction cocked up, not the camera operator with his low powered device?

Thirdly you appear to be using no other boats effected so can't be helicopter approach? It happened 2 hours before the start and they were at Bradley's Head with no other boats around. Don't know why they were live transmitting 1 1/2 hours before the telecast started, but that is beside the point.

I don't know the exact power involved for each device and I don't know how one channel and half of the other channel in a splitter survive a roasting leaving only AIS TX impaired, but the helicopter relay being the culprit sounds quite plausible to me.

PS. Actually the irony of all this is everyone complains about only the big boats on the TV coverage. The problem is with these two boats two onboard cameraman broadcast approach they utilise two helicopters which takes resources away from covering anyone else. Get rid of the onboard cameraman and people might see other boats exist. Or alternatively Channel 7 charters more choppers.

I'm sure the AIS feed historical data on the interwebs can tell us when and where the transmitter switched off.  It would be easy enough to triangulate that data with helicopter flight logs and other sources (e-mails, text messages etc) that could pinpoint when and about where the alleged frying transmission took place.  WOXI could do this themselves to prove their claim and shut all this nasty innuendo down, as SS points out it's drawing attention away from those who deserve more publicity.

Share this post


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

The answer to this is the enormous amount of care taken. The lengths that are taken with aircraft electronics to ensure they are appropriately shielded and otherwise constructed and installed to avoid interference effects is mind numbing...

Frances I realise that, it was a power reference if it is the camerman's link as he suggests (I think the higher powered helo relay as reported sounds more plausible) That is the same camera pack you see in the street? If that pack is.powerfull enough to disable a splitters electronics, why aren't the electronics in every car in that street cactus more particular the TV relay van itself? To bring a splitter down or more precisely selectively do so where only TX is effected requires surely requires a big ,hit of EM interference surely? Of the comparative sources I would have thought the helo relay the culprit more likely as reported, not the camera pack..  

Share this post


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

.....Nobody has won.

Wild Oats has not been proven guilty(f they were).

They have not had the opportunity to prove their innocence (if they were)

The reputation of the race and our sport has been besmirched.

The Overall Victory of Alive has been largely buried which is not in the least bit fair. Hers was a rare Hobart based boat's victory.

The achievements of the ladies on Wild Oats X, newsworthy in itself has barely had a mention.

On a much brighter note for our sport, the 2019 Fastnet Race entry has opened and closed.

It took a mere 4 minutes and 37 seconds to fill the 340 places available in the Royal Ocean Racing Club's biennial event.....

^^^^^ This...... And by the sound of it, I am glad I did four Fastnets straight when I did......

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm sure the AIS feed historical data on the interwebs can tell us when and where the transmitter switched off. 

Last transmission Wednesday 11.11am Bradleys Head and Richo stated this was the location of their TV link induced  electronics reboot.

414540691_WOXI_AIS_20181226_1111AEDT.jpg.a25ea6e4765f23160df98f2aa5882224.jpg

Share this post


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

Doesn't change the fact that WOXI won.

Fake News eddie :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

My reference to the IJ coming to a verdict was on the hypothetical case of how they would be required to make a decision. Clearly IF a protest was heard that decision would have to be made, obviously the whole discussion on this thread is irrelevant beyond from where the protest deemed invalid.

  HALLELUJAH

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rest in Peace Leonard

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's AIS transmission evidence. Evidence that the boat was elsewhere? Isn't it getting line honours in Hobart while AIS had it in Sydney Harbour pretty good evidence something is amiss. Certainly good enough for RC to lodge a protest that won't be deemed invalid don't you think?

Yes, but that didn't happen. As for why, only the RC can comment. Without a properly convened official investigation and resulting determination, all the rest is conjecture (approaching 2,200 posts of it). There are probably only two or three people on WOXI who know the truth. As to whether or not they've spoken it, we may never know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Frances I realise that, it was a power reference if it is the camerman's link as he suggests (I think the higher powered helo relay as reported sounds more plausible) That is the same camera pack you see in the street? If that pack is.powerfull enough to disable a splitters electronics, why aren't the electronics in every car in that street cactus more particular the TV relay van itself? To bring a splitter down or more precisely selectively do so where only TX is effected requires surely requires a big ,hit of EM interference surely? Of the comparative sources I would have thought the helo relay the culprit more likely as reported, not the camera pack..  

Yeah, my post was more for the peanut gallery that  keep harping on the if that one, why not all argument.

EM, especially microwave is a slippery beast. Microwaves just do not obey intuitive rules about what they do.  Which is why you have to test the exact installation to know. You could have WOXI and BJ side by side, with the same radio equipment installed, and one could be sensitive to microwave problems and the other not. Something as simple as a different sized hole in a carbon panel to run the coax could, in principle, make all the difference. 

Car manufactures take about as much trouble as aircraft manufacturers now. If you look at a modern car's core electronics installation, extraordinary care is taken with the design. This doesn't have to add much to the unit cost. Just a lot of testing of the prototypes and very strict design and specification of parts. A metal car body is a good start, but a lot of detail work has to go into making it work properly across the full spectrum of likey EM. Even little slots - like shut lines on the bonnet (hood for the US readers) - can leak RF as if the body wasn't there at some frequencies, yet the body could be impervious at others. 

More power is worse, but you don't need much at all to get to logic level voltages  (anything from say 1.8 to 5v) inside equipment. Won't kill anything, but can result in temporary incorrect operation, including glitching things. Weird transmission line effects along bits of wire inside unit can get you quite high voltages with minimal power present.

Agree. IMHO the helo is much more likely the culprit. If there is one at all.

Share this post


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

Yes, but that didn't happen. As for why, only the RC can comment. Without a properly convened official investigation and resulting determination, all the rest is conjecture

Exactly as I left it with. "Certainly good enough for RC to lodge a protest that won't be deemed invalid don't you think?" That's it. Where do I go beyond that?

Half the problem here is people make no effort to comprehend or sometimes even read what they are replying to and take something to the next step or make something new up. Frant has been the main offender and it is what creates misunderstanding and conflict.

For the record I have made no posts nor do I have any interest on the hypothetical facts and a hypothetical IJ determination. My only interest and I think that of many here ceases at the point the RC could protest and with what to enable it to lodge a valid protest without competitor assistance. There is more than enough information at hand to do that in the public arena let alone what a RC can obtain.

After that you need a crystal ball for why the RC didn't employ that evidence and a crystal ball for the evidence not presented by WOXI and a crystal ball for any potential IJ determination or all based on conjecture as you say.

Share this post


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

....Agree. IMHO the helo is much more likely the culprit. If there is one at all.

Thanks Francis I know the square root of fuckall about microwaves except the reheat chicken variety.

Share this post


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

SS not sure how you can “ own” a current copy of the “  the 2017-2020 copy of the Blue Book in the normal usage of the term “ own a copy”. It’s only available as a free IBook!  However for the use of the word shall I have agreed that shall means shall in the normal usage of that term which spelt out is “shall is mandatory”. I was merely pointing out that previously it was a blue book defined term and is possibly why MR was referencing the RRS rather than the COLREGS ( his way of talking about IRPAS).

i take it that you also reflect on or think about your own wisdom! My reference to the IJ coming to a verdict was on the hypothetical case of how they would be required to make a decision. Clearly IF a protest was heard that decision would have to be made, obviously the whole discussion on this thread is irrelevant beyond from where the protest deemed invalid.

As you say Nobody has won is on the same line as my The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned challice. Maybe the wrong metaphor but a similar meaning.

Where do we go from here? 

Ha ha ha, I laughed so much I nearly fell off my chair.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post wisdom is more often about knowing what you don't know.

Ownership in no way implies a purchase, not in law, not in common usage.

You are right however that the "Blue Book", if downloaded is free. I have indeed 'downloaded' a copy of the "Blue Book". That copy is on my computer and my iPad. I own that copy in the "normal usage of the term "own a copy". The fact that someone has not paid for an article in no ways denies ownership - plonker!

FFS your comment has got to be one of the thinnest arguments and weakest responses I can remember seeing on this or any other forum.

Not having a go about the ColRegs reference (Not COLREGS by the way, it is not an acronym) just that the requirement for AIS has, in this instance, absolutely nothing to do with IRPCAS, it is governed by the SIs of the event which quite sensibly follow the World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations on this matter.

I do agree with you however that had the protest been deemed valid it would have been quite a challenging decision to make but there were quite a few avenues of evidence that could have been followed but the WOXI skipper did little to strengthen their case by changing his story and if the disappearing WOXI 'blip' could been seen by people on this forum I am sure others closer to the action would also have seen that disappearance.

Please note however that this would in no way imply that WOXI deliberately turned their AIS off, just that it wasn't transmitting as required by the RSHYC 2018 SIs. In their defence they(WOXI) would only need one witness boat to state they saw WOXI on their AIS and they would be exonerated.

What I would repeat from an earlier post is that had WOXI felt/known/learned that their AIS was not transmitting after they signed their declaration and then went back to request an amendment to that declaration then the headlines would likely read "Honest boat gives up line honours prize due to equipment malfunction" - if indeed it wasn't transmitting - and WOXI would then be remembered down into folklore and legend as a wonderful example of how sport (not just sailing) should be played instead of being involved in a contentious situation for the second year running

All theory though except that, having once worked with Russell Green I know that as Jury Chairman his team would have worked hard to reach their correct decision.

BTW I also have worked multiple times with the chairman from last year (strange he wasn't invited back this year after 8 years of service) and that incident gave us yet another pile of forum pages of discussion, In fact, come to think of it the same crowd went out of their way to defend WOXI as have done this time and last year's incident was crystal clear.

Your comment that "The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned chalice" is completely erroneous. If the RC had formulated their protest in such a way that it was valid then the PC/IJ would have had an opportunity to hear the case. In actual fact the IJ/PC acted 100% within and in compliance with the RRS with regard to validity of a protest - they had no option but to disallow - read your rule book.

In reality it was the RC who slipped the poison into the cup if anyone. 

Anyway, that is my last word on the subject, I have a match race event to prepare for this weekend (umpire) so no more time but thanks for the laugh.

SS

Share this post


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

strange he wasn't invited back this year after 8 years of service

Did they really pointedly not even approach him for another stint, and he had given no indication that he might be unavailable? 

If that is true my already somewhat diminished regard for the OA vanishes. There can be no sensible excuse for such behaviour. And lots of bad reasons. Some very bad. 

Share this post


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

Snaggletooth, U speake Abo kangaroo do u ? 

Please translate into gobbledygook !

 

 

9 hours ago, hoppy said:

LOL I don't think he's posted in this thread

I sobered up and couldn't understand it. So I sent to Snags to decipher. He said sure  providing I could do the same for him. Looks like we both have to now start having beer for breakfast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

WOIX has been flogged to death, but there is plenty of life in the OT AIS discussion and the traditional SA mud or other slinging and other activities.

I couldn't agree more Hoppy where it goes beyond the point that the RC didn't seek or employ evidence that would support a valid Protest. That evidence was in the public domain but for what ever reason the RC chose not to employ it.

WOXI gazing beyond that is a crystal ball for evidence not presented by WOXI and a crystal ball for any potential IJ determination for what could have been a valid RC Protest. For instance suggestions there is no rule that quantifies if an AIS is On or Off?  Pretty bloody pointless.

That said Richo has to take some responsibility for the subject still being kicked around by publicly ripping into the RC and promising evidence that would negated the need for a Protest and or have exonerated them if such a Protest was heard by the IJ. Such WOXI evidence or any report of it has yet to surface.

Share this post


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

Hi Faggot, 

Doesn't change the fact that WOXI won. Move on.

Thanks for the 20 down votes Jiss boy. At this rate it will be 18 days at least before you can drop your maggots on anyone else.

 

Edit, it's quite refreshing also because I can now speak freely for 24 hrs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the weeks come and gone ,

 

must of misunderstood MR .....................

Share this post


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

so the weeks come and gone ,

 

must of misunderstood MR .....................

Cut him some slack. It is not as though he has to post it here. Hopefully a considered statement will be forthcoming as he promised as any undue delay is not a good look. I for one are mainly interested in just the technical side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hoppy You are absolutely right about this.


No doubt they have won and good luck to them. This thread was always going to be about two things essentially.

Were they in breach of the rules?

If so, what should be done to make sure it isn't repeated.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Cut him some slack. It is not as though he has to post it here. Hopefully a considered statement will be forthcoming as he promised as any undue delay is not a good look. I for one are mainly interested in just the technical side.

Jack if you believe there's going to be any statement .................

 

I've a nice bridge for sale  , only one previous owner .

Share this post


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

Jack if you believe there's going to be any statement

Mate arguably that is worse for all the players involved, than WOXI concocting one that bullshit. For instance that FP tear jerker by that Blue Robinson fool was no accident, there are some concerned parties out there in damage control. More people read shit like from here than many appreciate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't disagree , still I have zero expectations of a statement .

I'd be staying far away from it and waiting for the fire to die down , as it's doing  .

 

Share this post


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

don't disagree , still I have zero expectations of a statement

Nothing or "hear no evil, see no evil" would be consistent with off-the-cuff decisions being made. There is no evidence of that here. Nearly 12 hours for a RC protest to be announced dragging this into the next day. Another 2 days for a statement by the alleged offending party to be released. This thing is being carefully orchestrated. Also don't be surprised if what you are not expecting appears but is something you don't expect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This thing is being carefully orchestrated.

indeed , orchestrated to quietly fade away .

It's all good Jack , on this I'll be very happy to be proved wrong

just not holding my breath .

Share this post


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

don't be surprised if what you are not expecting appears but is something you don't expect.

:ph34r::lol:

Agree on the orchestration. Minimally someone will be acting as Richo's handler. This is their last shot at getting it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to help them along I sent the Clark and Dawe sketch to Mumbles.

 

Edit.  Just for you Eddie.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Car manufactures take about as much trouble as aircraft manufacturers now. If you look at a modern car's core electronics installation, extraordinary care is taken with the design. This doesn't have to add much to the unit cost. Just a lot of testing of the prototypes and very strict design and specification of parts.

Francis you must live in the 1st world. My VW 6 volt electrics were put together before the jet passenger plane was invented and when a helicopter looked like a little round greenhouse. 

I'm now concerned about driving past anyone's house who owns a microwave :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello grumpy , I'm flattered by your attention :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Plonker back at you. You were referring to common usage of a term. If you own a copy of a book the common usage understanding is that you are in physical possession of a hard copy