Mid

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

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, woodruffkey said:

Do we know yet how MR is going to Enlighten us all with the nitty gritty tomorrow?.

A Media conference?

A sailing Anarchy exclusive?

Or another Sail-World puff piece.

#1 the last place, #2 the second last place so punt #3. Gladwell got the exclusive my guess as very WOXI sympathetic, not because he is a fanboy, but a bit of a rules stickler and my guess thinks BJ is the villian in this theatrical number with many players. Gladwell has promised exclusive content ready to launch and content that a online platform needs to survive. I'm not too sure he will be letting Richo off the hook if it doesn't show up. He is not known for trading independence for access, unlike some in media land.

Share this post


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

Given that marinetraffic has photos of the V70 & Maxi with the V70 photo dates predating the maxi, it's safe to say that they have kept their MMSI

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:169746/mmsi:503792600/

I would say they have transferred the MMSI to the new boat and either the AMSA Beacons database was not updated correctly or the AIS tracking sites either did not receive updates or just don't process the updates correctly.

Hoppy it is safe to say you are wrong. Forget Beacons. MMSI's attach to the vessel and don't go walkabout unless someone clueless is involved. I can assure you that 503792600 in that link is attached to the 100' and the 70' has a different MMSI number and a different call sign attached. It is just the MarineTraffic descriptor showing a 70' which is wrong and that is all and which could be a BJ, AMSA or MarineTraffic error. Toss you double or nothing.

Share this post


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

Edginess of their own making.

Has anyone seen one snipet in either sailing or mainstream media about "cheating"? Nope only one being Gladwell's WOXI contrived interview with Richards. This thread of over 2.000 posts and over 40,000 views in one week, only a handfull of idiots have gone to print using the word "cheat/cheating". He is translating interest and enquiry about the RRS, the circumstances etc as being condemnation of WOXI. Way off mark.

The bit that got me he is a journalist yet appears to have traded his journalistic independence for access to WOXI and that equals this PR puff piece that ignores every single aspect of this debacle, save for crying about some noses getting out of joint. 

Titling his piece in a 19th century French saying which translates into the title "A public denunciation of a miscarriage of justice" says it all. Complete fucking tosser.

I lost my respect for him as a journo a LONG time ago. He has written so much that is way off the mark or poorly informed. Sure I get it wrong sometimes too but much less frequently. Sadly he is not the only sail-world writer that pens from entirely self interest or ignorance but that's another story.

Share this post


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

Ohhhh fuck Randumb..you read the directions on "How to string yourself up" literally and used string not rope. There is no God.

Edit. If you are wondering about this post with no Randumb post. He just deleted it 

I am guessing from his post that his wife read some of this thread and told him to get of SA. Good advice i think. Despite the endless bullshit we hurl at each other I actually don’t mind him as he enjoyed the game as much as I did and saw it for what it was, but the likes of MR and Witty make his head explode for some reason and he really had lost the plot over this bullshit. A break will do him good and hopefully he will return as the charming, happy go lucky fella we all know and love. 

No purple ink available on my phone.

Share this post


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

Possibly not a red hearing if Blackjack 100' was a registered Aust ship. She is not. WOXI on the other hand is and if I was a WOXI fan, would stay away from that AIS rabbit hole.

I was not going to raise this issue, but having to deal with a commercial vessel matter in my day job at the moment, it seems that legislation about AIS use was changed recently and Marine Order 27 issued.

The result is that all "Australian Registered Vessels" not on a recreational voyage are now "regulated vessels" and required to carry operate AIS (transmit and receive) at all times (regardless of size or displacement)

Does not really matter what the SI says.

Should have been binned for complying with Australian Law but then again what does the law have to do with special little darlings racing under the RRS.

End of the day AIS is collision avoidance device for all shipping not a tactical instrument.

Guess that was lost on the jury.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The result is that all "Australian Registered Vessels" not on a recreational voyage are now "regulated vessels" and required to carry operate AIS (transmit and receive) at all times (regardless of size or displacement)

but how does the law define "recreational voyage"?

Competing in a sporting event sounds to me like recreational.

Share this post


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

but how does the law define "recreational voyage"?

Competing in a sporting event sounds to me like recreational.

Operating the vessel for 'Hire or reward'. Receiving money for 'Sponsorship' is a  loophole into the grey zone. Like most things it is all fun until someone loses an eye. 

Share this post


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

The S2H is a recreational voyage, whilst they may be playing for sheep stations no prize money is awarded. MR also covered himself by claiming amateur status.

Hopefully this change leads to fishing boats Tx AIS but won’t effect the club race!

Is that because he couldn’t charge after last years fuck up?  :P 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

but how does the law define "recreational voyage"?

Competing in a sporting event sounds to me like recreational.

There’s a lot of crew out there doing it for far more than recreational reasons. 

Share this post


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

If that happens you might need to buy some more. There will be a lot of squealing.

 

Who knows ? Mundle's dog might have eaten the script.

Share this post


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

There’s a lot of crew out there doing it for far more than recreational reasons. 

That the crew do it paid should not matter, they are just paid crew for the Oatley family. If the Oatley's are doing it for recreation, then it's recreation. As Frant points out, the ATO will be treating it as recreation in all likelihood, and the ATO is king. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Operating the vessel for 'Hire or reward'. Receiving money for 'Sponsorship' is a  loophole into the grey zone. Like most things it is all fun until someone loses an eye. 

The ATO will make it black or white. AMSA would have to toe the ATO line

Share this post


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

Same way the ATO does. Try claiming the direct costs of the Sydney Hobart campaign against the income from that voyage and see how you go.

That would depend on how much Richo can get for the Rolex at cash converters. 

Share this post


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

The ATO will make it black or white. AMSA would have to toe the ATO line

Hoppy you are the gift which keeps on giving. It is a floating fucking commercial billboard. The Australian taxpayer has been subsidising via business deductibles (more than one Co) the WOXI campaign since the year dot. 

That is why the punters take so much interest, they own most of her and get really confused when they see some other boats actually go to Hobart too that they might own a slice of.

Share this post


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

Who knows ? Mundle's dog might have eaten the script.

I'm confused, didn't Mumbles dog eat the AIS?

Share this post


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

Hoppy you are the gift which keeps on giving. It is a floating fucking commercial billboard. The Australian taxpayer has been subsidising via business deductibles (more than one Co) the WOXI campaign since the year dot. 

That is why the punters take so much interest, they own most of her and get really confused when they see some other boats actually go to Hobart too that they might own a slice of.

Oatley Wines, Ch7 and other sponsors will be getting tax deductions for the costs of their sponsorship, but it does not mean that the ATO will treat Wild Oats XI as a commercial enterprise. 

If there is any chance that WOIX could be run as a tax deductible business, then the boat would have been owned by a company and not Bob Oatley and now the Oatley Estate

Share this post


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

Oatley Wines, Ch7 and other sponsors will be getting tax deductions for the costs of their sponsorship, but it does not mean that the ATO will treat Wild Oats XI as a commercial enterprise. 

If there is any chance that WOIX could be run as a tax deductible business, then the boat would have been owned by a company and not Bob Oatley and now the Oatley Estate

They could claim it is the Demo boat for the RP100 dealership. 

Share this post


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

Oatley Wines, Ch7 and other sponsors will be getting tax deductions for the costs of their sponsorship, but it does not mean that the ATO will treat Wild Oats XI as a commercial enterprise

Sponsorship income is income and unless WOXI pays the Medicare Levy it is not a human enterprise but commercial or some other enterprise and while on the subject of humans. For the crew on board recieving a salary income then WorkCover NSW, or for contracted crew a 3rd party workplace insurer, their interest and liability is for "workplace" incidents, not "fun-place" incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for tick tock animated

Share this post


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

I was not going to raise this issue, but having to deal with a commercial vessel matter in my day job at the moment, it seems that legislation about AIS use was changed recently and Marine Order 27 issued.

The result is that all "Australian Registered Vessels" not on a recreational voyage are now "regulated vessels" and required to carry operate AIS (transmit and receive) at all times (regardless of size or displacement)

Does not really matter what the SI says.

Should have been binned for complying with Australian Law but then again what does the law have to do with special little darlings racing under the RRS.

End of the day AIS is collision avoidance device for all shipping not a tactical instrument.

Guess that was lost on the jury.

I glad you were hungry lydia and took a bite of that "regulated vessel" bait. 

Hypotheticaly what if WOXI had put her 30 tonne into a fishing vessel going down the NSW coast on Wednesday night doing 20k involving loss of life and which has been known to happen.

In fact a case occured on the 19th of January a year ago with Vestas in the VOR. The subsequent independent enquiry that dealt with AIS in detail amongst other things was ironically headed up by Rear Admiral Chris Oxenbould AO RAN (Rtd) a Sydney Hobart Race veteran. His expertise in this arena is probably with out parallel being former chairman of Australia Sailing’s National Safety Committee, representing the state of NSW as its member of the National Maritime Safety Committee,  former chairman of the 2000 and 2001 S2H RC and chaired the CYCA's internal Flinders Islet Inquiry in 09/10.

I therefore find it somewhat disturbing for a RO/RC that has been at the pointy end of coronial enquiries attached to its races, one with findings very critical of the RC, that it has treated a potential breech of safety provisions attached to collision avoidance only worthy of a Protest in a form destined to be declared invalid by the IJ. While it is rocky ground for an IJ to give a protester a second bite of the cherry, the IJ's lack of interest is similarly disturbing.

However as it is a self policing sport so what that of the competitors actions? In this case the 100's who were close together and could observe first hand a breech of this nature? Two did nothing, one had a cry on TV and did nothing and the other, the one being protested, has publicly torn strips off the RC for making AIS TX compulsory for this race and demanded an apology from the RC for lodging a protest.

Wow this sport really is in safe hands.

I wonder what the President of AS, the big dick at AMSA responsible for compliance by "regulated vessels" and retired Rear Admiral Chris Oxenbould think of all this?

As for the hypothetical of Mark Richards standing up in a coronial enquiry that addresses Marine Order 27 and facing the family members of those who didn't make it home? Does it really have to take something like that to occur again for someone to drain the swamp?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 10:08 PM, EddyAllTime said:

You going to try the Hillary defence next and call me racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic?

WOXI won. Move on.

I think  cockwobble will do

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I therefore find it somewhat disturbing for a RO/RC that has been at the pointy end of coronial enquiries attached to its races, one with findings very critical of the RC, that it has treated a potential breech of safety provisions attached to collision avoidance only worthy of a Protest in a form destined to be declared invalid by the IJ. While it is rocky ground for an IJ to give a protester a second bite of the cherry, the IJ's lack of interest is similarly disturbing.

It's really quite simple. The RC couldn't protest because it had no independent evidence that WOXI had broken a rule. No one else protested, so effectively there was no protest. It's the equivalent of the RC going into a protest saying "Boat X says boat Y didn't round the top mark correctly", where boat X hasn't protested and no member of the RC saw the incident.

As to whether the RC should disqualify WOXI based on an alleged breech of maritime law, that would first require a relevant authority to charge a crew member with a suitable offence and for them to be found guilty. That hasn't happened.

So any action to be taken must be in regard to future races, something along the lines of a system to provide independent proof of a boat's AIS functioning correctly at all times. Then not only can the RC protest, but they can also advise a boat immediately when it's detected that their AIS isn't working. That will actually address the safety issue and provide for proper enforcement of rules and regulations.

Share this post


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

It's really quite simple. The RC couldn't protest because it had no independent evidence that WOXI had broken a rule. No one else protested, so effectively there was no protest. It's the equivalent of the RC going into a protest saying "Boat X says boat Y didn't round the top mark correctly", where boat X hasn't protested and no member of the RC saw the incident.

So any action to be taken must be in regard to future races, something along the lines of a system to provide independent proof of a boat's AIS functioning correctly at all times. 

Only a person living on the other side of moon and it seems the RC and PC don't know that.

However there are ways for the RC to formulate a protest to avoid them colliding with that provision. You speak of independent evidence. It has been available since 11.11am on 26th December. They didn't do that. Why, you would have to ask them.

1603764687_WOXITSHIRT.jpg.ad607d8cbda1a1dc7ae2cfc898490196.jpg

414540691_WOXI_AIS_20181226_1111AEDT.jpg.a25ea6e4765f23160df98f2aa5882224.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 Dec 2018

Quote

"We can very clearly prove that we had our AIS on for the entire race. We can prove, and will confirm in a week's time, that we were compromised by live-streaming from the helicopter.

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

 

7 days make 1 week .

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As to whether the RC should disqualify WOXI based on an alleged breech of maritime law, that would first require a relevant authority to charge a crew member with a suitable offence and for them to be found guilty. That hasn't happened.

Horseshit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Horseshit.

Fuck knuckle. 

Share this post


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

Only a person living on the other side of moon and it seems the RC and PC don't know that.

However there are ways for the RC to formulate a protest to avoid them colliding with that provision. You speak of independent evidence. It has been available since 11.11am on 26th December. They didn't do that. Why, you would have to ask them.

 414540691_WOXI_AIS_20181226_1111AEDT.jpg.a25ea6e4765f23160df98f2aa5882224.jpg

That may be evidence the the tracker wasn't displaying the boat's true position, if combined with evidence that the boat was elsewhere at the time.

Share this post


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

Hypotheticaly what if WOXI had put her 30 tonne into a fishing vessel going down the NSW coast on Wednesday night doing 20k involving loss of life and which has been known to happen.

This is a rather important point. Usually when people talk about AIS and safety on sailing boats the idea is that it is to protect the yacht. Stop some evil great ship stomping her. But 100' of high speed carbon ramming a stationary fishing boat is not a happy thing for the fishing boat. Part of the justification of AIS has been replacing radar reflectors on small craft, and implicit in this is the notion that vessels will now be transmitting AIS in lieu of a radar return, and indeed, for some, in lieu of a radar system at all.  Given the power draw of radar in comparison to AIS, there is a significant value on a sailing boat.

Overall, one can see why the risk averse OA mandates AIS transmit. It isn't just about losing boats in the race. It is a bad look if an innocent fishing boat can't see the 20+ knot missile pointed at them. Indeed it starts to make any disable of AIS transmit sound less and less justifiable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's may be evidence the the tracker wasn't displaying the boat's true position, if combined with evidence that the boat was elsewhere at the time.

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is a rather important point. Usually when people talk about AIS and safety on sailing boats the idea is that it is to protect the yacht. Stop some evil great ship stomping her. But 100' of high speed carbon ramming a stationary fishing boat is not a happy thing for the fishing boat. Part of the justification of AIS has been replacing radar reflectors on small craft, and implicit in this is the notion that vessels will now be transmitting AIS in lieu of a radar return, and indeed, for some, in lieu of a radar system at all.  Given the power draw of radar in comparison to AIS, there is a significant value on a sailing boat.

Overall, one can see why the risk averse OA mandates AIS transmit. It isn't just about losing boats in the race. It is a bad look if an innocent fishing boat can't see the 20+ knot missile pointed at them. Indeed it starts to make any disable of AIS transmit sound less and less justifiable.

 

The chances of a prawn trawler on the NSW or Vic coast having their AIS on is about the same as the RC's chance of getting that protest up. Compulsory AIS on racing yachts on this coastline is a solution looking for a problem, but I will bet my left nut it was a requirement forced onto AS/CYCA by AMSA. I am seeing a very dangerous culture creeping into recreational yachting since AIS became wide spread. Many punters think that replaces hearing and sight as a look out. Up here in gods country we need them to fit one to about 20 000 humpback whales for our winter offshore races. However they should definitely fix one to Warro's sunfish for the S2H, even though it must be in a wheelchair by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Overall, one can see why the risk averse OA mandates AIS transmit. It isn't just about losing boats in the race. It is a bad look if an innocent fishing boat can't see the 20+ knot missile pointed at them. Indeed it starts to make any disable of AIS transmit sound less and less justifiable.

 

That implies that the fishing boat was not transmitting an AIS signal. 

It takes two to tango...

Share this post


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

Isn’t that 65 feet of carbon that you are talking about? Presumably the fishing vessel wasn’t Tx on AIS either thus couldn’t be seen by the carbon projectile.

Well that was last time. This time it could have been anything up to and including 100 feet. I suspect the repercussions of the Vestas collision will continue to be felt for quite a while. Nobody wants a repeat of that in their race.

The lack of AIS on the fishing vessel was long discussed. In Oz waters you would expect that a fishing vessel would likely have AIS. The difficulty is in monitoring things. Only one vessel transmitting halves the chance someone will notice the impending collision. 

Share this post


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

Presumably the fishing vessel wasn’t Tx on AIS either thus couldn’t be seen by the carbon projectile.

As that vessel sank and with no Chinese  enquiry no one will ever know. Here commercial fishing vessels if not "regulated vessels" nationaly or obliged under State regulation to transmit AIS TX RX then they don't have to. Fishing vessels obviously often turn off TX to maintain their secret spots.

Don't forget fishing vessel also includes that 6 metre tinny with dad and the kids getting away from mum for the night relying on his cheap and cheerful AIS RX only unit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That implies that the fishing boat was not transmitting an AIS signal. 

It takes two to tango...

Please point to where fishing vessels are obliged to AIS TX

Share this post


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

As that vessel sank and with no Chinese  enquiry no one will ever know. Here commercial fishing vessels if not "regulated vessels" nationaly or obliged under State regulation to transmit AIS TX RX then they don't have to. Fishing vessels obviously often turn off TX to maintain their secret spots.

Don't forget fishing vessel also includes that 6 metre tinny with dad and the kids getting away from mum for the night relying on his cheap and cheerful AIS RX only unit.

Or an app.

Share this post


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

Please point to where fishing vessels are obliged to AIS TX

So the fishing boat does not matter when the race boats are doing 20+ in a delivery or during any other race in Australian waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prawn trawlers tend to monitor VHF (for bitching about government regulations) and channel 9 news (for monitoring the weather girls tits). This anecdote explains the safety culture among Prawnies. A mate of mine chartered a Trawler to salvage an upside down tri on the northern NSW coast a few years back. They got it under tow at about 1 knot and then the weather went pear shaped. They dropped the tow and ran for Yamba and were preparing to cross the bar in very marginal conditions. As they approached the bar he went into the wheelhouse to ask where the life jackets are to find the skipper and decky stark naked. When he asked what was going on the skipper said it was much easier to swim ashore without all that crap on. These are not AIS kind of people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The chances of a prawn trawler on the NSW or Vic coast having their AIS on is about the same as the RC's chance of getting that protest up. Compulsory AIS on racing yachts on this coastline is a solution looking for a problem, but I will bet my left nut it was a requirement forced onto AS/CYCA by AMSA. I am seeing a very dangerous culture creeping into recreational yachting since AIS became wide spread. Many punters think that replaces hearing and sight as a look out.

Culture change is always a significant danger. There are a depressing number of accidents in all manner of occupations that come down to complacency in the face of a culture change driven by reliance of technology. It is hard to legislate sensible behaviour.  Worse of course are those for whom keeping a proper lookout has never been learnt, as they start out with technological aids from the start, and imagine this all that was ever needed.

There is never a single right answer. AIS in close coastal waters is arguably not what it was designed for. It was never intended to be used in waters where a tinny would be out fishing. But it has crept into these areas. Regulating authorities of course love to regulate. And any new technology is grist for the mill, and if they think it can be folded into their regulations, one can be sure they will. It isn't always a happy result. The argument that adding new technological aids can only improve safety is not always well founded.

AIS versus radar reflectors is an interesting question however. It made sense, but I was slightly surprised when I saw AIS presented as an exchange for a reflector.

Share this post


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

Or an app.

Or WOXI doing 20k+ or 10 metres per second. Class B at that speed a 30 sec TX rate. That is 300 metres if AIS to AIS. That fisherman relying on his interweb app provider to retransmit WOXI's relayed TX signal, be generous say add another 30 seconds.

That 30 tonne of carbon has travelled 600 metres or 1/3 of a nautical mile with 60 seconds warning before they get a close look at what a 100' sprit looks like.

I hope they don't think they have time to haul up the anchor and their lines.

Share this post


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

signal, be generous say add another 30 seconds.

When I monitored myself and nearby boats on an app, it was minutes out.

Share this post


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

Culture change is always a significant danger. There are a depressing number of accidents in all manner of occupations that come down to complacency in the face of a culture change driven by reliance of technology. It is hard to legislate sensible behaviour.  Worse of course are those for whom keeping a proper lookout has never been learnt, as they start out with technological aids from the start, and imagine this all that was ever needed.

There is never a single right answer. AIS in close coastal waters is arguably not what it was designed for. It was never intended to be used in waters where a tinny would be out fishing. But it has crept into these areas. Regulating authorities of course love to regulate. And any new technology is grist for the mill, and if they think it can be folded into their regulations, one can be sure they will. It isn't always a happy result. The argument that adding new technological aids can only improve safety is not always well founded.

AIS versus radar reflectors is an interesting question however. It made sense, but I was slightly surprised when I saw AIS presented as an exchange for a reflector.

Good post. The problem here is due to our good vis most of the time at these Latitudes, RADAR is not that common on recreation sailing vessels around here. Even if fitted it is more than likely it is either not turned on, or the owner has no idea how to use it properly. We offer a one day RADAR course but it is not that popular. When I did my Master V 25 years ago it was a 7 day course, but the first 5 were about how they work, not how to use it. It is my understanding that the IMO have approved AIS for watch keeping, but not collision avoidance. 

Share this post


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

That implies that the fishing boat was not transmitting an AIS signal. 

It takes two to tango...

 

15 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Please point to where fishing vessels are obliged to AIS TX

 

10 minutes ago, hoppy said:

So the fishing boat does not matter when the race boats are doing 20+ in a delivery or during any other race in Australian waters.

They matter a lot.

For them it matters if a vessel is required to transmit AIS TX be it themselves or another vessels.

In fact the genisis of the RC making AIS operative in this race was to make allowance for fishing vessels with AIS of all pursausions including their AIS TX beaconed apparatus.

Share this post


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

When I monitored myself and nearby boats on an app, it was minutes out.

Out of interest I was watching my phone app while sitting on a Sydney ferry a few months back. I was already fighting the crowds on circular quay before the app had the boat tied up.

Share this post


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

When I monitored myself and nearby boats on an app, it was minutes out.

Explained if you/they were doing less than 2kts then your/their TX rate is 3 minutes not 30 seconds. Never ever looked at AIS Interweb retransmit delay, but could be minutes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very simple.

If CYCA scraps AIS in future S2H races because MR says so, or because they can’t or don’t want to police it, so be it.

The 2018 race had a clear AIS requirement, there was clear independent publicly avaliable evidence that at least MR’s boat had AIS switched off for the whole race and the CYCA did what?

-Accepted MR’s false declaration.

-Put in a bogus protest to cover their tracks and shifted the onus onto to competitors to do their job for them.

-Accepted or tollerated MR’s subsequent verbal abuse and criticism without reply or rebuke.

Gutless Wonders........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, in Tasmanian waters all vessels over 6m must carry a radar reflector.

Don't local law get the way of a yacht race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Americans standing around this virtual bar with strange expressions on their faces listening to the language used. Like when someone orders a Schooner of XXXX they expect a multi masted vessel loaded with condoms to appear.

Or head the word "cock-up" expecting a vulgar competition to suddenly erupt. Even if they are across the English origin, what might they make of Robert Burns' poem, which took the name of the old Scottish rhyme 'Cock up your beaver'. What Burns was actually referring to was adorning a beaver fur hat by putting a cock's feather into it. 'Cock', in the sense of this term, means 'stand up conspicuously'. While its use to mean blunder is quite old such as 'the incorrect placement of the cock-feather when loading a longbow", the term 'cock-up' didn't become widely used to mean blunder until the middle of the 20th century.

It then joined a long list such as "fuck up", "tits up" and "balls up" etc which obviously all have an underlying theme of copulation which I find a bit strange.

Anyway I'm struggling with making a list of people who have made famous "cock ups". Should I put Guy Fawkes in front of or behind all the players in AISGATE? In the explanation is it fair to say Richo's hairstyle looks like a dead beaver awaiting someone to decorate it with a cock, sorry feather?

Share this post


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

Trouble is that it is not that simple. Whether you believe it or not, and the story does sound incredible, WOXI claim to have been broadcasting a very low or null Tx signal. They claim that they had their AIS switched on. That is the whole gist of the discussion, not as simple as you would like.

If everyone can see it just before the start of the race, and just after the end of the race, but not in between?????

The whole point of having AIS on, is for it to be seen and it wasn’t. It may not be their “fault”, we still await yet another explanation, but it doesn’t matter. It effectively wasn’t on...

Share this post


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

all vessels over 6m must carry a radar reflector.

as opposed to display ...

fairly sure that's a lot more widespread that just Tassie .

Share this post


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

Explained if you/they were doing less than 2kts then your/their TX rate is 3 minutes not 30 seconds. Never ever looked at AIS Interweb retransmit delay, but could be minutes?

 

9 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

It is very simple.

If CYCA scraps AIS in future S2H races because MR says so, or because they can’t or don’t want to police it, so be it.

The 2018 race had a clear AIS requirement, there was clear independent publicly avaliable evidence that at least MR’s boat had AIS switched off for the whole race and the CYCA did what?

-Accepted MR’s false declaration.

-Put in a bogus protest to cover their tracks and shifted the onus onto to competitors to do their job for them.

-Accepted or tollerated MR’s subsequent verbal abuse and criticism without reply or rebuke.

Gutless Wonders........

Just now, Sidecar said:

If everyone can see it just before the start of the race, and just after the end of the race, but not in between?????

The whole point of having AIS on, is for it to be seen and it wasn’t. It may not be their “fault”, we still await yet another explanation, but it doesn’t matter. It effectively wasn’t on...

Prior to this years Southport race we replaced the vhf aerial because we were not showing up on AIS except when very near a ground station. This was after checking the unit was transmitting and bypassing the splitter which was considered the most likely fault. Would appear the impedance in the cable was such that the low output signal from the AIS was mostly lost, though VHF still worked and we could see other boats around us on AIS, but not at the same range as with a new aerial.

Given our experience ,maybe MR is right. 

Also unlike the skeds which have a mandatory recept requirement (by any means) there is nothing in the SI which require your AIS signal to be received, just that your unit is transmitting.

Share this post


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

Would appear the impedance in the cable was such that the low output signal from the AIS was mostly lost, though VHF still worked and we could see other boats around us on AIS, but not at the same range as with a new aerial.

Given our experience ,maybe MR is right. 

Trouble is MR hasn't said it was cable and or connector fault, the most common.

He has said it's the splitter and is preparing supporting evidence to that effect, including the cause being a microwave link between the Channel 7 helo and onboard cameraman.

Share this post


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

7 days make 1 week

guess we'll have to make do with a story about a crew members broken foot .................

Quote

You see, Steve Jarvin actually broke his foot during the recent race. The long-term member of the Wild Oats XI crew may not have known exactly what had gone on at the time, but a trip to the doctor in Hobart, and the resultant X-Rays, revealed that yes, apparently two bones had fractured. That's just got to hurt. On so many levels, too... At least they collected a ninth Line Honours for the Oatley Family's silver bullet.

https://www.sail-world.com/news/213581/Time-on-the-beach

Share this post


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

Trouble is MR hasn't said it was cable and or connector fault, the most common.

He has said it's the splitter and is preparing supporting evidence to that effect, including the cause being a microwave link between the Channel 7 helo and onboard cameraman.

Maybe same effect though if the splitter was fried. A bit early yet to burn him at the stake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, Rawhide said:

Maybe same effect though if the splitter was fried. A bit early yet to burn him at the stake. 

How long does it take to find a fried splitter?...... 3 minutes, 3 hours, 3 days, 10 days?....Or never?

PS

And whatever the “problem” was, it was fixed PDQ after the finish, for all the world to see.....

Edit: Clearly finding the right explanation for the “problem”is a lot harder than fixing it..........

Share this post


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

Maybe same effect though if the splitter was fried. A bit early yet to burn him at the stake. 

Completely different fault/effect involving one primary channel (VHF, the default) in Splitter working and other secondary channel half working (AIS RX only). My comment was not critical of MR at all, only repeating what he said.

Share this post


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

Explained if you/they were doing less than 2kts then your/their TX rate is 3 minutes not 30 seconds. Never ever looked at AIS Interweb retransmit delay, but could be minutes?

at least one was a motor boat moving at speed. 

To fully understand the delay it's better to use class A for the test. It's probable that different sites have different delays. 

Regardless, online AIS is useless because coverage is not full, even along coastlines. Too many blackspots.

Share this post


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

at least one was a motor boat moving at speed. 

To fully understand the delay it's better to use class A for the test. It's probable that different sites have different delays. 

Regardless, online AIS is useless because coverage is not full, even along coastlines. Too many blackspots.

You are absolutely correct:

 

A45A587F-066B-4C5F-8C99-8F83E6BE2F44.jpeg

Share this post


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

You are absolutely correct:

 

A45A587F-066B-4C5F-8C99-8F83E6BE2F44.jpeg

I'm not sure if you were agreeing or just being sarcastic...

In case it's the latter, satellite based AIS receivers can pick up boats in the blackspots, but it's not reliable, sometimes it can be hours between sat passes and most importantly it costs a fortune to include sat on your i-AIS subscription and you need to specify the boats you want to follow.

It's useless unless you are a stalker. 

Share this post


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

Also unlike the skeds which have a mandatory recept requirement (by any means) there is nothing in the SI which require your AIS signal to be received, just that your unit is transmitting.

Raw not picking on you. Actually far from it as your posts offer up quite normal and considered responses, unlike some.

As for this one regarding safety/communication devices contained in the Special Regs and as modified or not by race SI's. 

1. HF a long range two way communicator mandated by the SI's as the default. Sat phone the back up. Skeds 4 X daily test operation. The mandatory Green Cape call up before entering Bass Strait places another mandatory on water test. This is RC centric with 1998 in mind and strictly enforced, to the extent DSQ's have eventuated and WOXI had to survive a RC protest where she kept trucking beyond contry to the SI's while fixing a faulty HF, a blown fuse I recall.

2. VHF. Short range two way communicator. A listening watch to be maintained  on Channel 16 for the duration of the race. As the RC represented by the Relay Vessel is most probably out of range, no mandatory call up provision. However putting aside any other responsibilities imposed upon a vessel and her skipper at sea, the RRS and SI's impose a responsibility to ensure communicstion/saftey equipment is in good working order. 

The realities are many do this, some don't. For instance putting up a all stations broadcast or dialing up that mate you see behind you to give him a bit of stick, or knowing they are eating freeze dried asking how long you should roast chicken a chicken for.

3. AIS. A two way collision avoidance communicator. Its inclusion as equipment in this a Cat 1 race  has been in force for a few years. It being turned on in both RX and TX mode mandatory via the SI, this is the first year. So basically no different than VHF except you can't use it for Chicken recipies. You can both test both RX and TX while going through that recipie over the VHF. You can do with your mobile phone if you like in terrestrial proximity.

BTW while its inclusion is for safety and collision avoidance it offers up some racing spin offs. The most obvious is Location, SOG and COG updated at a 30 second interval of your opposition, not every 10 minutes via Tracker where only the position is reliable, COG and SOG is just update spot data. 

So putting aside collision avoidance in other words someone who is in RX mode only, where TX can be killed off at the flick of switch, then enjoys a substantial advantage over other competitors who are in TX mode and in compliance with the SI's.

Another racing by product of AIS is saying you are going full tilt in the middle of the night where nav lights can be confusing and are presented with a potential collision with a vessel outside the race. A quick call up on the VHF in my experience has them change speed and or course to avoid this knowing exactly where you are by your AIS TX. You then keep trucking without having to make a sail change and getting the off watch up where they stop dreaming about your sister.

I hope that makes sense where the overarching obligation to test your AIS already exists in the rules of this race just finished. The only people who don't do this are either ignorant or fall into a category of someone treating the rules as something they can break and get away with.

And mate if I need to repeat it, I appreciate your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

download.jpg.96abdd2ae55cf86f483def9cbbe11649.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

download.jpg.96abdd2ae55cf86f483def9cbbe11649.jpg

Thats a bit harsh Mid, it's only 20.00, he has a full 4 hours of ? grace.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 8:57 AM, jack_sparrow said:

The bit of a dick move became a monster dick move by seeking that apology in conjunction with publicly ripping into the RC for making AIS transmission mandatory for this race. I think he must have gone to some special school where they teach Tourettes.

Especially as neither the OA or the RC made AIS mandatory. The WS OSR state for a Cat 1 race an AIS “Transponder” must be used. By definition a transponder sends & recieves

Share this post


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

When I monitored myself and nearby boats on an app, it was minutes out.

 

5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Explained if you/they were doing less than 2kts then your/their TX rate is 3 minutes not 30 seconds. Never ever looked at AIS Interweb retransmit delay, but could be minutes?

 

2 hours ago, hoppy said:

at least one was a motor boat moving at speed. 

To fully understand the delay it's better to use class A for the test. It's probable that different sites have different delays. 

Regardless, online AIS is useless because coverage is not full, even along coastlines. Too many blackspots.

Hop the motor boat was then on a 30 sec TX interval which means you have derived a pretty good idea of latency with Interweb AIS compared to AIS to AIS. It measures in minutes not the 30 seconds I was so generous with my example upthread in reply to @LB 15. Well done. As the latency difference between a Class B and Class A is minimum around 28 seconds if Class A is on a irratic course then the difference is imaterial to requiring a Class A to test that latency.

The bottom line is by your example if anyone uses a App/Interweb AIS for collision avoidance they are on fucking drugs. The delta between picking up a Class A, let alone a Class B doing north of 20kts and collision is close to around 1 mile/3 minutes with the best terrestrial repeater contact available. You have taught me something, I have never looked into. Though @LB 15 Circular Quay ferry example was funnier.

 

2 hours ago, Sidecar said:

You are absolutely correct:

 

A45A587F-066B-4C5F-8C99-8F83E6BE2F44.jpeg

Sidecar, like Hoppy not sure I understand if you are being sarcastic or not highlighting Hoppys last paragraph in reply with the pic I posted upthread. However to avoid any misunderstanding.

Those three tracks are WOXI, BJ and the Indian. There is no InfoTrack as no continuous course start to end was transmitted. As maintenance of AIS/VHF gear is directly related to TX power, maybe InfoTrack looking like a poor cousin beside the other sparkling three 100's suggests not a first class maintenance program.

WOXI's track is the straight line where only two TX transmissions were received via terrestrial relays. The first before the start in Sydney Harbour, the second after the finish in Hobart. That obviously has them growing wheels and exhibiting extraordinary TWA/VMG characteristics.

The other two are a combination of terrestrial and satellite receiver TX transmissions from both boats. You can see the actual transmission receipts blur into one line close to shore and offshore relying on satelitte pings a few hours apart. This corresponds with both the AIS enabled satelite constellation times within sight in that postcode and the fact they are transmitting using low power Class B gear.

The bottom line is WOXI ceased AIS transmission before the start despite having terrestrial stations within shouting distance and similarly until after the finish. 

What needs to be not forgotten is the RC formulated a protest based solely on another competitors complaint without making any attempt to check it out with independent evidence and thus make that protest valid, not invalid as the IJ correctly ruled. That evidence was available to the RC from 1 1/2 hours before the start and throughout the race up to including BJ making everyone aware of it. I noticed it at the start attempting to use AIS to track shore selection strategies of the 100's down Sydney Harbour and seeing no WOXI, gave up. I didn't think it of again until the BJ media cry 2 days later. The evidence that RC and PC has elected to overlook was posted on this thread shortly afterwards, me being the first one I recall and supplemented by others.

This same RC took line honours away from Rothmans in this same race in 1990 relying on not first hand evidence, but a TV broadcast of Rothmans flying a logo kite (their last one left as others turned to confetti) outside any competitors view or that of the public and used a RC's right to protest to send Lawrie Smith back home to England empty handed and give a favoured son Ragamuffin the prize. An incident ironically that led to the removal of anti-advertising rules, creating an era of corporate funding and promotion for this race.

You need to have no nose not to pick up even the wift of a bad smell here and involving more than one party.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

However, the effectiveness of the Tx does not appear to be covered by the rules.

Yes it is. Go read the Special Regs re power loss and antenna positioning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Had a speed read of regs, couldn’t find the power loss and antennae positioning bit. Point me to section no please.

What did your last servant die of? Fuck there is a lot of lazy cunts at this bar... mentioned upthread countless times to boot.

Share this post


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

No need to be rude. I had a look and couldn’t find it, maybe I’m just incompetent but not lazy. Would have been a lot easier for you just to type in the section no. 

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?

Share this post


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

What did your last servant die of? Fuck there is a lot of lazy cunts at this bar... mentioned upthread countless times to boot.

Special rega specifically state the equipment required to ensure minimum power loss- he must be a dinghy sailor Jack

Share this post


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

Had a speed read of regs, couldn’t find the power loss and antennae positioning bit. Point me to section no please.

3.29.13 (a & b)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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.

Frant, I rarely use the downvote button, I don't see the point. I have just downvoted you 3 times because you are deliberately and willfully being ignorant. There is no excuse for that.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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