Mid

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hold Fast said:

Lance Armstrong was on AIS?

No that's why he became a cheater. If he had it turned on all would have been ok. 

Share this post


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

What other SI being inadequate in this regard?

Nah. Fine tuning stage. Took days to come up with a title that would not be forgotten in a hurry.

We've hit a road block Jack. The CYCA are anticipating your letter so they are running a campaign to deflect any criticism. Something about 75 years....

https://www.sail-world.com/news/215543/Cruising-YC-of-Australia-celebrates-75-years

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Trickypig said:

The RC already had enough precedent from other offshore races to preconceive that their SIs were inadequate.

Then they got the perfect storm where 4 super maxis were vying for the lead 60 miles out in complete darkness and one had no AIS.

Tricky I think you have swallowed a urban myth that AIS wording in the 2018 S2H SI was "inadequate", namely 11.4;  Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a comparison;

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

That is pretty wide range of offshore races and RC's having varied experience in SI drafting world wide. I can't see any inadequacy or ambiguity in any of them, including the S2H.

Share this post


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

We've hit a road block Jack. The CYCA are anticipating your letter so they are running a campaign to deflect any criticism. Something about 75 years....

https://www.sail-world.com/news/215543/Cruising-YC-of-Australia-celebrates-75-years

 

Oh yeah, that drums been beating hard since New Years, only signal showing on screen.

 

Share this post


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

Tricky I think you have swallowed a urban myth that AIS wording in the 2018 S2H SI was "inadequate", namely 11.4;  Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a comparison;

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

That is pretty wide range of offshore races and RC's having varied experience in SI drafting world wide. I can't see any inadequacy or ambiguity in any of them, including the S2H.

The  Volvo competitors wouldn't have put up with any 'going dark' shit.  Although I think because the organiser was in charge of the maintenance (with the Volvo `Boatyard') it created transparency for them 

As for other races... not enough stuff online to say. If a fleet is big enough and a few go dark one can still the patterns across the course and who is making a gain.

How does an RC police this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trickypig said:

The  Volvo competitors wouldn't have put up with any 'going dark' shit.  Although I think because the organiser was in charge of the maintenance (with the Volvo `Boatyard') it created transparency for them 

As for other races... not enough stuff online to say. If a fleet is big enough and a few go dark one can still the patterns across the course and who is making a gain.

How does an RC police this?

 

Tricky puttying aside you still remain silent on your claim S2H SI were in your words  "inadequate" regarding AIS drafting having regard to other races, but it seems you now can't mention or have forgotten those races? despite me bringing up a few. 

AIS does not have to be policed by RC. Why is AIS activated any different to having VHF on at Ch 16 24/7 or Nav lights on after dark? That is why every racer puts in a post race declaration. You get caught out cheating by either a competitor protest or your post race declaration is not what it seems and is investigated by the RC..

BTW many instances in the VOR where AIS TX failed due to environmental reasons attached to a wet/wild RTW race (like many electronics) and accepted by all competitors. For instance this subject got seriously investigated when Vestas hit a fishing boat on HK approach and their AIS capability was investigated (no drama I understand). Then another example Scally lost Fish and their masthead AIS antenna at the time was caput and so issues picking up his AIS PLB. Which BTW meant zip in the circumstances. 

Mate you have invented something, then got caught out, then posed a diverting question not knowing the answer to your own question. Not a good look.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see now how many of you know how to read and can join the dots.

AIS TEST #4 & RF CONCEPTS…..& THEN SHIT THAT PISSES ME OFF

This following Table I have already posted up thread but upon reflection it was as confusing as fuck. So I have re drafted it and added the supporting concepts of Radio Frequency (RF) and VHF/AIS below. I apologise for the extent of notes to this Table, but I’m fearful someone may read it without understanding how it is derived ignoring it is two vessels and or RX land station specific and then either rely upon it without doing a specific calculation or worse still, some trolls may try and demolish it having regard to WOXI reference therein.

By simply referring to the Table below and Notes non-compliance with both WS and AS Special Regs and any Sailing Instructions for Offshore Sailing in the world for both VHF and AIS when your Max VHF Range Distance is reduced by 50% is guaranteed. Then visa versa using the features attached to most Class B AIS Transponders you can quantify on the Race Course using AIS TX Tests # 1 – 2 (irrespective of AIS activation being mandatory) whether compliance with VHF Race Rules are being met. What a handy tool. All fundamental to any Post Race Declaration about Race Rule Compliance which is either Yes OR No and no grey territory.

More importantly in terms of safety if that AIS Max Range is reduced by 50% then the “closing time” before a potential collision occurs with another stationary vessel or other AIS enabled but unmanned device is also reduced by “half” in terms of potential collision time. If the other vessel vessel is moving on a colliding course, that "closing time" to collision is reduced again.

The absolute lunacy attached to this subject is totally of WOXI’s own making claiming no such AIS TX Tests exist on the race course. It seems all to propagate a narrative they were immune to any AIS Protest and the Race Committee similarly inclined so lodged a protest destined to be declared invalid.

Yet this AIS TX Test #4 the least reliable out #5 (#5 yet revealed here) but every vessel having mandated persons with Radio qualifications on board everyone knows about? Worse still read in the context of these statements by Australian Sailing in regard to WOXI AISGATE and I quote;

Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI Matt Allen, ex Commodore of the CYCA, the Race Organiser (RO) of the S2H, Race Veteran and President of Australia Sailing (AS) who is quoted as saying; "Its been a test to a new rule that probably needed more thinking about in terms of how they were going to deal with the compliance of it." He goes on to say; "he believes boats should be notified that their AIS isn't working to begin with."

It then gets worse. Matt’s views as President of Australian Sailing are replicated in Australian Sailings own publication Opinions Divided On Wild Oats Saga where the Editor Roger McMillan, says; Before next year's sailing instructions (S2H) are written, the Race Committee needs to examine the issue of AIS reliability and determine a way to prove, conclusively, whether an AIS transmitter is turned on or not. If they can't prove it one way or the other, then the requirement for AIS has to be removed until they can”.

Well what we have now here from Australian Sailing is the worst of two evils. No fucking idea about the AIS TX Tests #1 -#5 articulated here. Then ignoring that looking to turn a “self-policing sport” into one being reliant upon the Race Committee policing it because they have no fucking clue about AIS? A mandatory piece equipment installed now for some years and where mandatory AIS activation has been in Race Rules now in many races around the world for years.  

 So basically a local narrative from the top echelons of Australian Sailing down which says, no such AIS TX Tests exist (despite shown otherwise here in this SA thread) on the Race Course and so everyone simply falls into line behind what Mark Richards/WOXI says in his  Sail_World.com/nz 31 Dec Interview  and then the CYCA will examine nothing unless pushed. That dumb fuck outcome can only come down to a RC auditing AIS compliance on the race course (albeit technologically impossible) and AIS protests that no one wants. That then ruins our sport courtesy of just one bloke desperate for putting more  fingers in the air.

How can this be so many will ask? Easy answer. What we have here is the old story of an “actual or worse perceived conflict of interest”. So starting in the last decade who has put more money into Australian Sailing than one entity?  Rather ironic when you consider that same entity survived a 2018 S2H RC WOXI Protest  under RRS 60.2(a) that is designed to “prevent” conflicts of interest for protests on the race course. That is even before even getting to the subject of an IJ Chairman after 8 years good service getting the boot by the CYCA after ruling against that favoured entity in the 2017 race. Then his replacement from NZ probably not giving two hoots about the S2H as up to his head in all things AC back in NZ.

So a bunch of stupid people thinking no one notices this implied or otherwise collusion amongst the leaders of our sport?? Fuck me dead, are we all that equally stupid to not complain?? Anyway for those interested in the technical not the “cover-up story”.

The irony is that Mark Richards by his own words is the best advocate for anyone on the race course doing AIS RX Test #4 as a matter of course. He says in the Sail_World.com/nz 31 Dec Interview that; “The problem is, it is a VHF antenna, and I know from my experience in the powerboat building world, that if you don't have a perfect VHF connection, then the system becomes massively compromised.”"The system is VHF frequency. If you don't have a perfect connection then the signal is compromised massively.”

So one would assume Mark Richards has forgotten about this quick Test #4 for both VHF and AIS functioning as per the Race Rules.This table may refresh Mark's memory and others about Race Rules.      

AIS RX TEST #4 - VHF/AIS DEGRADED TX POWER/RANGE COMPARISONS (i)

AIS/VHF TX Power Loss Reduced (ii)       Max RX Range in Nautical Miles 

                                                                                VHF Radio (iii)                   VHF AIS (iv)

Full Power (iii) & (iv)                                       21 nm                                    13 nm 

Divides by Half or -3dB (v)                            17 nm                                    11 nm

Divides by 10 or -10 dB                                   12 nm                                    8 nm                     

Divides by 16 or -12 dB (vi)                           10 nm                                    6 nm

Divides by 1,000 or -30 dB                             4 nm                                      2 nm

Divides by < 1 million or -57 dB (vii)            <1 nm                                     0.5 nm                 

Notes:

(i) Two (2) VHF/AIS stations having the same antenna height of 50’ (picked as average in offshore racing). The range is calculated using various VHF modelling (see Sections D & E below) over sea water, many VHF/AIS Radios data sheets and the author’s experience. For instance Class B AIS manufacturers may say their range could be anything from 8 -15 nm but those ignore vessel type, antenna heights and quality of installation. It must be stressed the “Full PowerTX Range” and then subsequent degradation will vary subject to those factors and the actual environmental conditions (see Notes (ii) & (iii) ).    

(ii) A Decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit that is a ratio of the power of the system. It is not linear. For instance if the masthead antenna height is doubled, the received signal strength at maximum at max range causes a 6 dB increase, or a four-fold gain in received signal power. Therefore it is essential vessel specific calculations need to be carried out having regard to Race Rules including Pre-Race Testing Auditing such as for the Sydney Hobart Race Radio Installation and Inspection Form and outcomes quantified before starting any race. Practical experience with the actual equipment and its performance is also very helpful to making subjective decisions about Max TX Range.   

(iii) VHF Radio rated at 25W or 44 dB at 157 MHz transmitting but a factor of -1 dB assuming battery power on board a non-powered vessel not producing max rated radio power of 25W. Also optimistically on the threshold of minimum RX sensitivity of -107 dB at 12 dB SINAD for the RX Station, but both VHF stations having well installed/maintained antenna systems i.e. “feed line” losses and “antenna gains” nearly cancel each other out. For VHF only atmospheric conditions are facilitating an additional TX Distance of 4 nm or 21 nm or beyond “Radio Horizon” of 17 nm between both stations. That additional 4 nm “average” or effective 4 dB (average” could be very easily be lost if the above assumptions are not the case, so this must be kept in mind.

(iv) Class B AIS rated at 2W or 33 dB at 162 MHz. All assumptions in Notes (i) - (iii) apply except VHF having greater power so an additional TX Distance beyond the “Radio Horizon” of 17 nm does not apply to AIS.

(v) Most AIS Transponders if Antenna VSWR Ratio >5:1 or a Power Loss factor of 45% or -2.6 dB, a Warning Alarm occurs indicating TX signal has degraded to the point distance and data integrity starts to become compromised.

(vi) As highlighted. For practical purposes taking into account the vagaries of VHF TX strength assume that if your VHF Max TX Range is less than 50%, the AIS has possibly suffered a similar power loss of 1/16th or -12 db and well in excess of an AIS’s limit of  -2.6 dB in Note (v). At his threshold of VHF/AIS TX power loss failure you can be virtually assured being on the threshold of non-compliance with both WS and AS Special Regs and any Sailing Instructions for Offshore Sailing in the world for both VHF and AIS. See Section C3 (d) below.      

(vi) As highlighted. Example using the above assumptions where a vessels AIS TX Range is degraded to just 0.5 nm or decreases transmit power by approx. 1 million times (-60 dB) and translates to a VHF range of <1 nm. For example the 0.5 nm as reported by WOXI for the 2018 S2H in Sails Magazine Feb/March 2019_WOXI albeit an antenna 3 X higher (150’) resulting from VSWR failure (cause not identified) which by any measure is catastrophic.    

For anyone not radio proficient and wants to better understand it and the jargon it is necessary to understand these RF/AIS/VHF/ Concepts below. Once you have digested that I will show you how to quickly calculate “Line/Propagation Losses” for both VHF Radio and AIS on any race boat and on any race course.  

C. RF/VHF/AIS CONCEPTS

This Section explains various Radio Frequency (RF) and VHF/AIS concepts like the marine band spectrum, power level, station signal gains and losses, receiver sensitivity and path losses etc. Before moving to the simple example of a vessel with a 50’ high mast head mounted antenna, it is necessary to understand these concepts and illustrate how this VHF/AIS TX Test #4 has been prepared, particularly if you wish to construct your own test as shown in Sections D - G. (omitted here)

1. VHF MARINE BAND SPECTRUM & AIS

Marine VHF (Very High Frequency) Radio comprises the radio frequency range from 156 MHz to 162 MHz. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) labels this as the "VHF Maritime Mobile Band." The AIS frequencies are in the upper limit of the Maritime Band are at 161.975 MHz and 162.025 MHz. For further information about AIS and method of data RX/TX using VHF using this spectrum About AIS.

2. RF/VHF POWER.

(a). Watts to dB Explanation

RF/VHF power is most commonly expressed and measured in decibels (dB) with a decibel-milliwatt reference being dBm or a decibel-watt reference being dBw.  A decibel is a logarithmic unit that is a ratio of the power of the system. A decibel value of 0 is equivalent to a ratio of 1.

So any RF/VHF Range Calculations can only be done using Decibel-milliwatts (dBm) being the output power in decibels not watts. However you can convert between mW and dBm using the following formulas which also show the relationship between the two:

P(dBm) = 10 · log10(P(mW))

P(mW) = 10(P(dBm)/10)

For example, a power of 2.5 mW in dBm is:

dBm = 10log2.5 = 3.979 or about 4 dBm.

For example, a power of 7 dBm in mW is:

P = 107/10 = 100.7 = 5 mW 

However an On-Line conversion from Watts to dBm can be found here to save you wearing your calculator, log tables or slide rule out. Watts to dB Calculator. So here are some common dB and VHF/AIS TX Power rules.

(b). dB Values and TX Power

An Increase of:                 A Decrease of:                  TX Power Produced

3 dB                                                                                 Double transmit power

                                                3 dB                                 Half transmit power

10 dB                                                                               10 times the transmit power

                                                10 dB                               Divides transmit power by 10

30 dB                                                                               1000 times the transmit power

                                                30 dB                                Decreases transmit power 1000 times

So using the Watts to dB Calculator  you can see your 25W VHF Radio is rated at 44 dB, yet a 2W Class B AIS is rated at 33dB? How can that be some may say? The above dB Values and TX Power Table answers that question.

3. VHF/AIS TX ANTENNA POWER GAINS/LOSSES

(a). Antenna Power Losses

Part of the Antenna system is the “feed line” or the coaxial cable and its connectors between the Antenna and the VHF transceiver and which where most losses occur.

The causes for those losses can be many including type of coaxial cable, run length and number of connections etc. For instance the attenuation in “low loss” LMR 400 cable is approx. 1.5 dB and yet similar looking but inferior RG 58 is approx. a loss of 6 dB per 100’ of cable. Before the advent of modern low loss exterior rated small diameter coax cable your only option was coax cable the diameter of your finger, with its attached weight up the mast on race boats. A good quality connector the loss should be around 0.04 dB each plus Splitter (good quality) loss around 0.1 dB.

Note: any extraordinary losses involving an “impedance mismatch” (power or heat being returned to the Transceiver) can also be measured using a Voltage Standing-Wave Ratio (VSWR) meter. Refer to AIS TX Tests #1 and #2 for further explanation.

(b). Signal to Noise Ratio & EMI/RFI 

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) or sometimes referred to as Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) which is narrower when referred to a specific frequency spectrum is when any unwanted signal interferes with your electronic equipment and in this case your VHF and AIS TX/RX signal. It can be caused by many things such as alternators (converting AC to DC), bad grounding, depth sounders, a Navigation PC, a microwave in the galley or a rapid change in voltage caused by switches making and breaking contact on high load devices such as electric winches etc. Filters or mechanical shielding is the most common solution which in fact is what a coaxial constructed and shielded antenna cable does. Good quality marine equipment is also built to recognised EMC standards. The outcome is strange readings on electronic displays, auto pilots suddenly going AWOL and weird noises on radio or audio equipment etc. In the case of VHF/AIS the probability is higher that it will impact more upon your RX sensitivity (see Section 4. Below) than your TX signal.

The most extreme EMI/RFI examples I can think of occurring is first generation LED Navigation masthead lights where the LED emitters having too closer frequency to the VHF marine band playing havoc with AIS’s. In fact this was the subject of a USCG directive last year about these older LED lights and AIS operation. With proper equipment location and cable routing, EMI/RFI should not be a major issue and not likely to be suddenly something which manifests itself on the race course and so is a condition that can be dealt with at Inspection and Audit stage as outline in Section 3(d) below.

 (c). Power Gain.

Marine VFF antennas are "omnidirectional vertically polarised" or in other words where the radiated signal is basically of equal strength through 360 degrees of and maximised in the horizontal plane and zero directly above and below the antenna like a "donut" as shown in diagrams below.

radiation-pattern-vert.jpg.f2120c2c8f678450b2b393e2a69780d1.jpgvert-polar.gif.7cc5de8464d1b8596127b932cae08ac5.gif

Then there is the antenna Gain which is the ability of the antenna to improve transmission "efficiency" and "horizontal directivity" of the radiated signal which gives the "appearance" the antenna alone is increasing power which it clearly can't do. Most marine masthead antennas will have a Gain of no more than 3dB, in fact any higher may introduce impedance matching or VSWR issues with AIS. The horizontal oriented "nodes" of a 3dB antenna are shown in diagram below.

antenna-3db.jpg.e7694d9604f1fa05539c91cd18c54da3.jpg

 

(d). How Do I Measure Antenna Power Gains/Losses so I can be assured I’m compliant with Race Rules?

First measuring and maintaining your VHF/AIS Antenna Power is an obligation under Race Documentation. For example using the 2018 Sydney Hobart Race (S2H) as an example. Australian Sailing (AS) Special Regulations  2.03.1 states: “All equipment required by these Special Regulations shall on the race course in terms of 2.03.1 be:

(a) Function properly.

(b) Be regularly checked, cleaned and serviced.”

However in addition to the obligation imposed under Australian Sailing (AS) Special Regulations 2.03.1 to regularly check and maintain for functionality, there is also AS 3.25.4 which states:

“Permanently installed VHF transceivers shall:

(c) Have transmission and reception with a base station at least 8 nautical miles distant.(peculiar to AS Regs compared to WS Regs)

(d) Be tested in accordance with the notice of race.”

So having regard to AS 3.25.4 the Pre-Race  Radio Installation and Inspection Form has a suitably qualified Radio Surveyor inspecting and making a Declaration that this is the case Pre-Race. This includes the AIS and the VHF antenna installation it relies upon namely Items;

15. “VHF Antenna in sound mechanical condition,

17. VHF Co-axial cable feeder is sound and of low loss quality with good connections, and

23. AIS Transponder fitted and operational.” 

So your suitably qualified Radio Surveyor inspecting and making a Declaration under Race Rules can tell you exactly what VHF/AIS TX Antenna Power Gains/Losses you have. No guessing is required.  It is noted that this expert Audit also includes other electronic orientated Safety Equipment, not just VHF/AIS in the form of Battery Power and Navigation Lights etc.

4. RX SENSITIVITY

A “typical” VHF and AIS Receivers “Minimum Sensitivity” is around 1 μVolt (50-Ohm antenna) or say -107 dBm at 12 dB SINAD.  Sensitivity is measured as a negative number so greater the number the greater sensitivity. SINAD is the ratio of the total signal power level (Signal + Noise + Distortion) to unwanted signal power (Noise + Distortion). Accordingly, the higher the figure for SINAD, the better the quality of the audio. 12 dB SINAD corresponds to a distortion factor of 25% and used by most VHF/AIS Manufacturers if they are not pulling the wool over your eyes.

A very high quality VHF Transceiver or that found in a typical terrestrial VHF Repeater will have a greater sensitivity in the order of -117 dB at 12 dB SINAD. So referring to the “dB Values and TX Power” Table in Section 2(b) above you can see that difference of 10 dB at a VHF Repeater as opposed to another vessels standard VHF and both having the same antenna height (see Section 5 below), that VHF Repeater has the effect of detecting your TX power when it 10 times smaller at a far greater distance. That explains why VHF Repeaters quite aside from their increased antenna height can receive VHF signals from long distances and with their greater TX power relay them back and forwards over long distances between two VHF Stations using a VHF Duplex Channel.  

It is noted the “received signal power” on a vessel for VHF voice should ideally be around 7 dB above that Receivers minimum sensitivity for good signal-to-noise and distortion ratio on the recovered modulation. Receiver sensitivity for a digital message via VHF such as AIS and DSC the same rule can be applied though strictly speaking is defined as the minimum signal power level with an acceptable Bit Error Rate (in dBm or mW).  In other words around a “received signal power” of -100 dBm to – 110 dBm depending on the nature of the VHF Receiver’s sensitivity is good.    

5. POWER PATH/ATTENUATION LOSS

(a). Detailed Explanation to Path Loss:

VHF radio communication relies upon line-of-sight propagation, which obviously limits performance. The primary factor in Propagation or Path Loss is the decrease in “signal strength” over “distance” of the VHF radio waves themselves. Radio waves follow an inverse square law for power density where the power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance. In plain English every time you double the distance between antennas, you receive only one-fourth the power. This also means that for every 6-dBm increase in output power doubles the possible TX distance that is achievable. Another way of expressing that in sailboat terms is if the masthead antenna height is doubled, the received signal strength increases four times (or 6 dB). Therefore knowing relative antenna heights is absolutely critical to quantifying the Path Loss between the two VHF/AIS TX/RX Antennas.

This is because it does two things. Firstly it allows a greater “Radio Horizon” (RH) which is slightly longer than “line of sight” (LOS) as VHF waves will follow the curvature of the earth on account of “atmospheric refraction.” This is a formula for Radio Horizon anyone can do.

dnm = 1.169 hf

Where d = range in nautical miles and hf = the height of your antenna in feet.

There also many On-line Calculators for this. Here is one which does both LOS and RH: LOS RH Calculator, though in kilometres so you need to convert to nautical miles. Use any On-line Conversion Calculator. 

If you plug in two vessels (or a vessel and Coastal Station) with 50’ mast mounted antennas they will have Radio Horizon of 32 klm (16 + 16) or 17 nautical mile being the actual “service range.”

Secondly antenna height positions the “pathway” (Fresnel Zone) those radio waves sit in relation to the earth’s surface with regard to any obstructions. The object is to have your VHF TX signal path or Fresnel Zone having at least a 60% clearance to reduce the amount of loss or attenuation as that signal propagates through the air. The Fresnel zone is an ellipsoid volume between the transmitter and receiver whose area is defined by the wavelength of the VHF signal. However the open water is not immune as this positioning of the Fresnel Zone and attached TX signal attenuation occurs as the environment like sunny or cloudy, water salinity, wave height, humidity or moisture above the water surface absorb and reflect RF energy.

Water is also a highly reflective surface so any reflected radio waves can also arrive at the RX station “out of phase”. It is noted this “reflection” and signal being either “in or out of phase” has a higher impact upon “digital” VHF signals like an AIS Transmission or DSC message compared to an “analogue” voice transmission.

Therefore the greater height the Fresnel Zone is above water and exceeding the minimum 60% clearance mid distance between antennas, the less power loss/attenuation there is. Therefore antenna height and environmental conditions are the key to good VHF propagation. This Diagram may better explain Radio Horizon and Fresnel Zone.

722157607_LOSRHFresnelDiag.jpg.287dd5b592e2f0e461e752db1bd51851.jpg

Then there is another factor being where the Radio Horizons of the TX and RX stations do not overlap and yet the propagation is still possible over the Radio Horizon. For instance in the case of air above water, there can often be a temperature difference or boundary layer which enhances the atmospheric refraction more than normally associated with a Radio Horizon which is already greater than the Line of Sight.  Another factor is the influence of signals arriving by more than just the direct path between stations where a signal has been reflected and where water provides a reflector that may create these secondary paths. While I mentioned above signals arriving by different paths may have different phase relationships increasing propagation losses the received signal still becomes the sum of the multiple signals and increasing the TX distance beyond the Radio Horizon. See Section D3 below. (not included here)

(b). Practical Examples of RX Power & Path Loss:

Ignoring the greater sensitivity of high end receivers. The Voyager I space craft at the beginning of 2018 was over 13 billion (13,000,000,000) miles from earth. It is still transmitting scientific data today using its <25 watt VHF radio i.e. no Radio Horizon, “free space” and no Fresnel Zone issues. Similarly an AIS Satellite Repeater orbiting around 380 mile directly above earth at any one point (far larger distance having regard to the huge footprint of each satellite) can receive an Vessel AIS CLASS B TX signal having less than 2 watts or 33 dB of TX rated power.

Yet the exact same Class B AIS Transponder of 2W power on two vessels with masts of say 50’ will have a TX range limit less than the Radio Horizon of 17 nm between their two masthead antennas. Yet aboard the same two vessels their 25w or 44dB VHF Transceivers with 50’ mast mounted antennas and the same radio horizon of approx. 17 mile should be able to communicate that full Radio Horizon distance with ease on account they have over 10 times the power measured in dB. See detailed calculations in Sections D - G below. (not included here)

THE END FOR NOW

For those who want to do their own vessel and race course calculations you will have to wait for this in a forthcoming Post. Fuck even Richo and the CYCA will be hanging out for it, who knows?

D. MAX VHF RANGE CALCULATION

E. VHF RANGE TEST WITH DEGRADED VHF RANGE CALCULATIONS

F. AIS RANGE TEST USING DEGRADED VHF RANGE CALCULATIONS

G. PRACTICAL APPLICATION ON THE RACE COURSE

H. CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A – WOXI EXAMPLE

Looks complicated but actually very easy.

PS. I think I just did the longest post in SA history..sorry

Share this post


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

Tricky puttying aside you still remain silent on your claim S2H SI were in your words  "inadequate" regarding AIS drafting having regard to other races, but it seems you now can't mention or have forgotten those races? despite me bringing up a few. 

AIS does not have to be policed by RC. Why is AIS activated any different to having VHF on at Ch 16 24/7 or Nav lights on after dark? That is why every racer puts in a post race declaration. You get caught out cheating by either a competitor protest or your post race declaration is not what it seems and is investigated by the RC..

BTW many instances in the VOR where AIS TX failed due to environmental reasons attached to a wet/wild RTW race (like many electronics) and accepted by all competitors. For instance this subject got seriously investigated when Vestas hit a fishing boat on HK approach and their AIS capability was investigated (no drama I understand). Then another example Scally lost Fish and their masthead AIS antenna at the time was caput and so issues picking up his AIS PLB. Which BTW meant zip in the circumstances. 

Mate you have invented something, then got caught out, then posed a diverting question not knowing the answer to your own question. Not a good look.   

By `precedents' I meant the experience of fleets finding AIS essential to tactical decisions and the reaction of Volvo competitors when they had a suspicion of another `going dark' ,I can't find the interview now but I think it was Walker who said it wasn't tolerated and there were threats of penalties.

The fact that there was no drama when the Volvo boat's coax connectors failed  was because the boatyard found the problem and the  competitors had their transparency. You could say that the maintenance requirements under the SIs for the Volvo race provided necessary regulation/obligation for a competitor's use of AIS.

That other race's SIs are just as simple doesn't mean the controversy won't repeat itself

That there is so much controversy over Oat's lack of AIS transmission and no obligation on anyone's part to explain, makes me think the SIs are inadequate if they are the law of the land in this regard. Yes I understand that it is a self policing sport etc etc and the SIs as they stand should be adequate , Nevertheless an SI instruction that obliged a competitor to prove it works, rather like the mandatory radio check at Gabo could be a solution.

.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack

Do you or anyone else know if the Radio relay vessel JBW is also equipped as an AIS receiver/relay/repeater/ station, as for VHF?

All boats, including WOXI should be within its range some of the time during the race?

Share this post


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

Jack

Do you or anyone else know if the Radio relay vessel JBW is also equipped as an AIS receiver/relay/repeater/ station, as for VHF?

All boats, including WOXI should be within its range some of the time during the race?

No for AIS repeat/relay stuff and not sure you understand how repeaters AIS and VHF work?? Read section 5. above titled  "POWER PATH/ATTENUATION LOSS' and then you will know JBW is just like any other vessel on the ocean.

"All boats" in range of JBW with HF only...and sat phone.

495956855_VHFRepeater.thumb.png.942ac313b57999eda98da6ccd51be61f.png

shipsheadlands (1).jpg

Share this post


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

That there is so much controversy over Oat's lack of AIS transmission and no obligation on anyone's part to explain, makes me think the SIs are inadequate if they are the law of the land in this regard..

Here are three examples yet again Tricky. Why in the fuck do you think S2H SI are inadequate re AIS ??? You are bordering on being put into the brain dead corner.

14 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Tricky I think you have swallowed a urban myth that AIS wording in the 2018 S2H SI was "inadequate", namely 11.4;  Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a comparison;

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

That is pretty wide range of offshore races and RC's having varied experience in SI drafting world wide. I can't see any inadequacy or ambiguity in any of them, including the S2H.

  

Share this post


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

Here are three examples yet again Tricky. Why in the fuck do you think S2H SI are inadequate re AIS ???

  

You are repeating yourself Jack and forcing me to repeat myself.

That there is so much controversy over Oat's lack of AIS transmission and no obligation on anyone's part to explain, makes me think the SIs are inadequate if they are the law of the land in this regard.. The three examples you give only make my point. They are all simple one liners in the respective SIs. I spoke to a well known navigator on the issue and he stated that AIS was now an essential tactical tool and that the `going dark' issue is giving him the shits. I believe the Syd Hob RC could have seen this coming.

The fear of navigators going dark in the Volvo race was discussed in several interviews. The `Boatyard' maintenance clause in the Volvo SIs provided the transparency for all involved. ie those SIs DID have a clause that prevented the `going dark' behaviours.

 There is anecdotal evidence of competitors in other races being unhappy with competitors going dark.

I believe that the Syd Hob RC could have preconceived that turning AIS off fo tactical reasons would be a continuing problem and yet they had a one liner in the SIs covering its use. I'm not saying Oats did, but AIS became surprisingly unreliable for some boats on the first night of the Syd Hob was one joke I've heard at the bar.

The fact that you are going to great lengths ( and thank you) to write a submission on this also tells me the SIs are inadequate for the Syd-Hob and other races. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky stop fucking around and simply say where the 4 world wide examples of SI above for mandatory AIS activation, incl the S2H, are in your words "inadequate". And if inclined which you clearly can't, illuminate us to your original statement claiming this aspect of SI wording has been a problem in many SI by naming those races.

BTW. Are you aware of the concept called pre race briefings?

Share this post


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

Tricky stop fucking around and simply say where the 4 world wide examples of SI above for mandatory AIS activation, incl the S2H, are in your words "inadequate". And if inclined which you clearly can't, illuminate us to your original statement claiming this aspect of SI wording has been a problem in many SI by naming those races.

BTW. Are you aware of the concept called pre race briefings?

All of 'em except the Volvo SIs.

If not why are you bothering with a submission to the CYCA?

 

Share this post


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

No for AIS repeat/relay stuff and not sure you understand how repeaters AIS and VHF work?? Read section 5. above titled  "POWER PATH/ATTENUATION LOSS' and then you will know JBW is just like any other vessel on the ocean.

"All boats" in range of JBW with HF only...and sat phone.

495956855_VHFRepeater.thumb.png.942ac313b57999eda98da6ccd51be61f.png

shipsheadlands (1).jpg

Jack not all boats will be in range of Jbw on hf

on different freq they may be but on the 6mhz race freq at certain times some will too far away but still too close to land a 6 MHz signal

no doubt some boats have fallen foul of the green cape rule over the years but did not understand enough to argue it out

all systems have  limitations the trick is to understand them

 

Share this post


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

Tricky stop fucking around and simply say where the 4 world wide examples of SI above for mandatory AIS activation, incl the S2H, are in your words "inadequate". And if inclined which you clearly can't, illuminate us to your original statement claiming this aspect of SI wording has been a problem in many SI by naming those races.

BTW. Are you aware of the concept called pre race briefings?

There's no way I'm reading through 40+ pages of this mess to see if it's been covered, but the inadequacy seems obvious, particularly when compared to other SI.

Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

The problem is duration. 

The S2H SI don't specify for what duration AIS needs to be receiving & transmitting.

This omission of duration seems glaringly obvious when compared to the other 3 examples, all of which are very clear as to when you must be powered on and transmitting. 

Volvo Ocean Race SI 27.11 "The AIS shall remain powered on and transmitting at all times while Racing."

Brisbane to Kepple NOR  4.1.2 h. "be fitted with AIS with the ability to send and receive and must be activated in both modes at all times during the race."

Marblehead to Halifax Race in the US SI.20.3 “Each boat shall start transmitting her position using her Automatic Identification System (AIS) beginning no later than 2000 ADT on the day of the start and ending no earlier than after she has entered the Northwest Arm in Halifax.”

Share this post


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

Jack not all boats will be in range of Jbw on hf

on different freq they may be but on the 6mhz race freq at certain times some will too far away but still too close to land a 6 MHz signal

no doubt some boats have fallen foul of the green cape rule over the years but did not understand enough to argue it out

all systems have  limitations the trick is to understand them

 

Lydia nonsense all in range. JBW 24/7 listening and sched race frequency is 4kHz not 6 kHz except 6 kHz late arvo scheds only for obvious reasons. Think you also got your mHz and kHz mixed up.

Share this post


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

The S2H SI don't specify for what duration AIS needs to be receiving & transmitting.

If so I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it can be turned off. Can you help?

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If so I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it can be turned off. Can you help?

 

Jeese Jack, careful,  you just made me inhale my coffee.

Share this post


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

If so I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it can be turned off. Can you help?

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Well the SI in this instance makes use the wording 'shall', not 'can', so not quite the same thing. 

That door swings both ways anyway. 

So if I'm looking for the bit in 4.09 (a) for the duration it shall be switched on. can you help?

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

You asked for the inadequacy in comparison to the Volvo, Keppel etc SI wordings - there it is. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Well the SI in this instance makes use the wording 'shall', not 'can', so not quite the same thing. 

That door swings both ways anyway. 

That door only swings one way. The word "shall" like "must" conveys an "obligation" under the rules. The word "can"  is something you can drink out of, or piss in, so very ambiguous. So that obligation is either "shall" be turned off or "shall" be turned on.

Share this post


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

That door only swings one way. The word "shall" like "must" both convey an obligation under the rules. Your word "can"  is something you drink out of.

It does swing both ways, because weather we consider your question or mine, the SI is not clear. i.e. it's inadequate. 

Share this post


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

It does swing both ways, because weather we consider your question or mine, the SI is not clear. i.e. it's inadequate. 

OK you believe inadequate are the words "A AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Pretend you sit in a small room with no windows writing policy for a law enforcement entity. You have come up with this draft directive for all officers but concerned it is inadequate;

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded, such that it is ready to fire"

How would you finalise that directive to make it adequate?

 

Share this post


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

OK you believe inadequate are the words "A AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Pretend you sit in a small room with no windows writing policy for a law enforcement entity. You have come up with this draft directive for all officers;

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded, such that it is ready to fire"

How would you finslise that directive to make it more adequate?

 

Jack is right. Simple matter for anyone who understands plain English.

Share this post


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

OK you believe inadequate are the words "A AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Pretend you sit in a small room with no windows writing policy for a law enforcement entity. You have come up with this draft directive for all officers;

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded, such that it is ready to fire"

How would you finslise that directive to make it more adequate?

 

in a similar way a simple amendment to the AIS rule would remove ambiguity

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded at all times while the officer is on duty, such that it is ready to fire"

simple addition of "at all times while racing" or similar, would bring it into line with the wording used in Volvo, Keppel etc and remove ambiguity

Share this post


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

in a similar way a simple amendment to the AIS rule would remove ambiguity

"A gun shall be carried and be loaded at all times while the officer is on duty, such that it is ready to fire"

simple addition of "at all times while racing" or similar, would bring it into line with the wording used in Volvo, Keppel etc and remove ambiguity

I see, so adding the words "at all times while racing" is needed to remove ambiguity. OK so between the start in Sydney and the finish in Hobart what times are not the racing times? Like are there anchoring and cook dinner times?

Share this post


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

Jack is right. Simple matter for anyone who understands plain English.

I don't think it's that simple.

You're interpreting the rule assuming an intent, not judging the rule on it's own wording in and of itself. 

It's not the same thing. 

Did race officials intend the AIS to be running constantly during the race? Probably.

Does the wording of the rule itself actually specify that? No. 

So there's room for ambiguity and the rule should be amended accordingly. 

Share this post


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

I don't think it's that simple.

 

Well you have a problem understanding plain English. The intent of the rule is that competitors must comply with it. It is a rule for a race. It is perfectly clear what the intention of the rule is because it is perfectly well written and anyone who understands plain English will know what the rule requires. End of story, I hope.

Share this post


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

I see, so adding the words "at all times while racing" is needed to remove ambiguity. OK so between the start in Sydney and the finish Hobart what times are not the racing times?

Or something similar, yes. You don't think it would?

There's a scheduled start for the race so probably that's clear enough as a minimum start time from when you must begin receiving & transmitting AIS. The finish is the finish, you're racing in-between. Would any non racing time in between matter? I don't know, haven't really thought it through or tbh know enough about what would constitute non-racing time during a race  (coming to aid of another vessel i suppose or something similar?) or exactly how it's handled by the rules, redress etc. 

None of that was the question though. The question was to show an example of how the AIS SI for S2H could be considered inadequate. I think that's been done. 

Share this post


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

Well you have a problem understanding plain English. The intent of the rule is that competitors must comply with it. It is a rule for a race. It is perfectly clear what the intention of the rule is because it is perfectly well written and anyone who understands plain English will know what the rule requires. End of story, I hope.

No, i just understand the difference between interpreting with an assumed intent and what's written. 

It's not perfectly well written at all. There's ambiguity in the rule regarding duration, which makes it inadequate.

I'm not a legal person, but going by the wording of that rule itself (maybe it's covered elsewhere, I don't know), I think it can be argued WOXI has complied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why there are so many lawyers.

It wasn’t so long ago that many race boats had no thru hulls for the head because the rules didn’t state a ‘working ‘ head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m enjoying reading this post, especially Jack’s very detailed descriptions on how AIS tests operate, but can’t help but wondering whether the Sydney Cruising Crushers and the Brisbane Royal Rumblers have got together to write their own rulebook?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “BRISBANE ROYAL RUMBLERS”

Just Prue gold!!!!

Share this post


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

I think it can be argued WOXI has complied.

Troll alert! 

I think it can be argued that Hold Fast can drink that can of piss while he hold a loaded gun at his head at all time, such that is ready to blow another hole in his head. 

He better first change his screen name to Hole Fast.

PJ2UP3c.thumb.jpg.fde83517ff9abbfa66dd93a9ec2a6562.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green Cape rule in the SIs that has been there for a few years is full of ambiguities and has not been tested fully in a protest.  I suggest this SI should be re-written to mean what the intention is and not what most people here think it says.  Same with the AIS SI.

Share this post


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

Does the wording of the rule itself actually specify that? No. 

Sigh. The word “shall” does not brook interpretation. Does compliance with the RRS require a caveat in use of “shall”? Does a rule such as “shall keep clear” require a caveat?  You can say it is arguable all you like. No court, jury or person who understood the English language would agree with you. Certainly not any IJ for a major race. 

The idea that there is “non racing time” during the race suggests you have little clue about how races are run. Unless the SIs explicitly provide a mechanism for suspending racing, you are always racing. Very few races do so. 

The rules have been honed over the decades and evolved in the face of far smarter attack than this. You can be assured that “shall” cannot and never is subject the any question about times of application. If there is a point where a rule is not to be applied it is explicitly stated.  It isn’t some sort of post modernist deconstruction. 

Share this post


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

Troll alert! 

I think it can be argued that Hold Fast can drink that can of piss while he hold a loaded gun at his head at all time, such that is ready to blow another hole in his head. 

He better first change his screen name to Hole Fast.

 

Is it really that much of a stretch though to suggest it could be argued in their favor because the rule itself can be read as being inadequate?

Not the assumed intent of the rule, not the 'spirit of the race', but the actual requirements of the rule itself. 

An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

WOXI did carry an AIS transponder, that was switched and it was receiving and transmitting. 

I'm sure there are legal types out there who could make a case with less. 

Share this post


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

Sigh. The word “shall” does not brook interpretation. Does compliance with the RRS require a caveat in use of “shall”? Does a rule such as “shall keep clear” require a caveat?  You can say it is arguable all you like. No court, jury or person who understood the English language would agree with you. Certainly not any IJ for a major race. 

The idea that there is “non racing time” during the race suggests you have little clue about how races are run. Unless the SIs explicitly provide a mechanism for suspending racing, you are always racing. Very few races do so. 

The rules have been honed over the decades and evolved in the face of far smarter attack than this. You can be assured that “shall” cannot and never is subject the any question about times of application. If there is a point where a rule is not to be applied it is explicitly stated.  It isn’t some sort of post modernist deconstruction. 

Which use of "shall keep clear" are you referring to though? Because using only fragments can be misleading as often there is additional information expanding on under what circumstances you "shall keep clear". 

Take rule 10 for example. 

10. ON OPPOSITE TACKS
 
When are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.
 
"shall keep clear" here is specific to when on opposite tacks. 
 
As for the idea of "non racing time" within a race - you best speak to Jack about that. He raised it, not me. 

Share this post


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

Lydia nonsense all in range. JBW 24/7 listening and sched race frequency is 4kHz not 6 kHz except 6 kHz late arvo scheds only for obvious reasons. Think you also got your mHz and kHz mixed up.

Should have more precise 

at a set time on the relevant freq not all boat will land a signal on jbw from every distance across the fleet

that is the nature of hf

there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This last 6 hours or so is just the perfect example why our sport is dying. There are enough barriers as it is.

The sport is massively complex, expensive and difficult to understand as it is. We do not require our environment to be further degraded by smart alec competitors who fail to play by the rules because they perceive an advantage is to be had.

The SI's outline what each boat and its crew are obliged to do during the event.

In this forum we are specifically talking about:

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

Yet there are plenty of mealy mouthed argumentative pricks who claim 'this, that and the other'; as to why this wording is inadequate.

IT IS Adequate; and to even suggest otherwise, would and or should, under any simple "Pub Test" be grounds to have you excluded from the sport.

You can be sure that the same people who argue the inadequecies of the rule wording are the same competitors who fail to comply with giving room, honour an overlap at a turning mark, give way at crossings, turns for touching a mark, barge in at the committee boat on a start and a thousand other examples of non rule compliance. 

Seriously, grow up and focus on being better sailors (than being argumentative legalese dicks).

What we have here is a classic case of failure to persistenetly and consistenetly, police straightforward rules by the RC; which in turn is guided by the directives of a club whose revolving door policy of committees and officers are just trying to please everyone, all of the time - which simply cannot (and should not) be done. 

We have a clusterfuck of headless chicken RC and CYCA back peddling, whilst headline competitors "hoisting themslves upon their own petard" - which are so clumsily on display for all to see. Something has to give.

We no longer live in an age where sweeping shit under the carpet is tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold Fast, thanks for helping keep this thread very alive. I guess you must be trolling because the SI wording is pretty clear and unambiguous.

I do however hate you because on this matter I am having to agree with Jack.

Share this post


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

We no longer live in an age where sweeping shit under the carpet is tolerated.

That may be the case however it's clear that certain clubs, 'elite' sailors and others don't follow that philosophy. But then again who can blame them when the International body has the same mentality?

Share this post


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

Hold Fast, thanks for helping keep this thread very alive. I guess you must be trolling because the SI wording is pretty clear and unambiguous.

I do however hate you because on this matter I am having to agree with Jack.

Every time I've seen this thread update to get to 44+ pages I've mostly ignored it because I really don't care. Result is in, case is closed and that's that. 

Then i happened to see the comments regarding SI wording and being something of a wordsy type, took an interest. 

I can't for the life of me understand how it can be claimed that the wording is perfectly unambiguous and could gain zero benefit from a basic edit. To me there are clear holes to be poked, which are highlighted when you compare to the equivalent rule regarding AIS for Keppel.

Tell me where in the rules it specifies the duration AIS needs to be transmitting to meet the requirements of the rule. Because while it's not been relied on in their defense and the rule tested, that really is the issue with WOXI's win - that they were not transmitting 100% of the time.

I don't give 2 shits which side of the WOXI debate you're on. 

I'm just saying the wording isn't great for that particular rule and could stand with some improvement ffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe one line in the SI's could be interpreted in multiple ways when read in isolation, but when read as part of the Sailing Instructions for the Sydney to Hobart Race, it becomes unambiguous. From the start of the race (which might be 5 minutes before the gun, or at least that is how it is in my clubs SI) until the finish the race or withdraw.

If you think you can argue that the AIS SI's are open for interpretation, then there are probably so many other things in the SI's that would also be the same.  

Share this post


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

Every time I've seen this thread update to get to 44+ pages I've mostly ignored it because I really don't care. Result is in, case is closed and that's that. 

Then i happened to see the comments regarding SI wording and being something of a wordsy type, took an interest. 

I can't for the life of me understand how it can be claimed that the wording is perfectly unambiguous and could gain zero benefit from a basic edit. To me there are clear holes to be poked, which are highlighted when you compare to the equivalent rule regarding AIS for Keppel.

Tell me where in the rules it specifies the duration AIS needs to be transmitting to meet the requirements of the rule...

I'm just saying the wording isn't great for that particular rule and could stand with some improvement ffs

You might be passing and dropped in and you might be the wordsy type. As for knowing what you are talking about you don't. 

Firstly the other races, a list I provided by the way with their AIS wording. The VOR SI are standalone. The Kepple in NOR not SI, is standalone as a Category 3 race where AIS is not mandatory in the AS Offshore Special Regs.  The Marble to Halifax specifies a activation commencement time because it is in advance of the start start time and deactivation at a end point after the finish.

As to to your claim the provision is deficient on the grounds "duration" is absent. You have clearly overlooked is SI 11.4 is an amending rule to Aust Sailing Offshore Special Regulations for a Category 1 Race. This is not a standalone provision. 4.09(a) "as is" in the Special Regs are a "provided" or "installation only" provision no different than other mandatory equipment incl electronic equipment i.e Depth Sounder, Log etc where their "activation" is not mandatory. The Offshore Special Regs cover the duration of the race. Your suggestion that they don't and therefore every single provision requires the some clarification as to the duration they apply is complete fucking nonsense.

4.09 AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS)

The following shall be provided:
(a) An AIS Transponder.

SI 11.4 Special Regulation 4.09 (a): "An AIS Transponder shall be carried and be switched on, such that it is receiving and transmitting."

As a new rule this edition this amending provision making "activation" mandatory was also the subject of pre-race briefings to ensure no-one missed the amendment.

A man needs to know his limitations.

Pick up your gun on the way out.

IMG_20190222_184604.jpg.4e13e7c3a3f251102a694d01a72f3e62.jpg

 

 

Share this post


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

Should have more precise 

at a set time on the relevant freq not all boat will land a signal on jbw from every distance across the fleet

that is the nature of hf

there

That's different to "range" and yes I agree. The endearing qualities of HF. You can't raise JBW on 4483 kHz a couple of hundred mile away but can talk to some dude clear as a bell fishing in Alaska.

Share this post


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

That's different to "range" and yes I agree. The endearing qualities of HF. You can't raise JBW on 4483 kHz a couple of hundred mile away but can talk to some dude clear as a bell fishing in Alaska.

The same dude in Alaska can check out if you’re transmitting on AIS too, pity the Sydney Cruising Crushers don’t have that technology...oh wait...

Share this post


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

The Green Cape rule in the SIs that has been there for a few years is full of ambiguities and has not been tested fully in a protest.

Well actually it has and it was WOXI in 2010. Their HF wouldn't work and RC  protest was had they proceeded into Bass Strait past the Green Cape no go line before they were able to transmit their report and have it "acknowledged" by JBW OR Race Control. They couldn't raise either so got the "acknowledgment" from Hobart Radio. The HF problem was a blown fuse. The IJ dismissed it saying Hobart Radio "acknowledgement" was enough to comply so decision had a odour about it in the eyes of some as competitors have been turned back home with this rule. Richo is no stranger to controversy on this race track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now