JimC

What happened to the Queensland Catamaran collision thread

Recommended Posts

It didn't seem that problematic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, it seems that nowadays the OP can hide the thread.

For those that missed it, the thread was about this apparently straightforward protest decision.

https://www.rqys.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Beachball-v-Cathjerine-Mary-DRAFT-DECISIONv2.pdf

Two or three posters, including the OP, were claiming that this was some sort of precedent that starboard gives way to port, or possibly that poverty gives way to money, it wasn't entirely clear. They didn't seem to give any sequence of events that contradicted the protest hearing. They also appeared to be promoting a theory that Colregs trump RRS in Queensland, which if true would be a very big deal indeed, but against all legal precedent.

They seemed to be promising a grand reveal when the local maritime safety org got involved. Perhaps the safety boys did report, and the result wasn't what the posters expected! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DECISION

Protest hearing Wednesday the 23 February 2019 - Beachball versus Catherine Mary

FACTS FOUND

1. Wind speed was approx. 15 knts from the North-East with a choppy sea state

2. Beachball and Catherine Mary were approaching the port hand lateral mark east of St Helena Island with Beachball on port tack and Catherine Mary on starboard tack

3. There was a boat overlapped with and to windward of Beachball

4. At approximately 100 m (10 boat lengths) separation Catherine Mary hailed Beachball

5. At approximately 80 m (8 boat lengths) separation Catherine Mary commenced altering course slightly to his port

6. At approximately the same time Beachball also commenced altering course to starboard

7. As the boats closed on a collision course Catherine Mary altered course a second time to port and Beachball also altered course but to starboard

8. Catherine Mary and Beachball were now bow to bow on a collision course separated by approximately two boat lengths

9. Both boats made further alteration to course, Beachball to starboard and Catherine Mary also to starboard to a void a head-on collision

10. There was contact between the port side of Beachball and the port hull of Catherine Mary causing serious damage to Beachball

11. Beachball return to harbour under power and retired from the race.

12. Catherine Mary continued to race

13. No turns were taken

CONCLUSIONS

1. Catherine Mary the right-of-way boat was obliged under rule 16 to give Beachball room to keep clear as she altered course

2. Catherine Mary did not give Beachball room to keep clear breaking rule 16 and in doing so caused the collision between herself and Beachball thus also breaking rule 14 3.

Rules that apply rule 16.1 a rule 14 and case 92

DECISION

Catherine Mary is disqualified from the wags race run on Wednesday the 16 January 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not fair to blame LB, Mad. Gramps deleted his posts supporting the rule breakers but didn’t start the thread. That was @ozmultis. He pulled his own thread unless the folks that run this place did it for him. Kinda typical SA. They came in whining and got debunked and called on it.

Share this post


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

Not fair to blame LB, Mad. Gramps deleted his posts supporting the rule breakers but didn’t start the thread. That was @ozmultis. He pulled his own thread unless the folks that run this place did it for him. Kinda typical SA. They came in whining and got debunked and called on it.

Ssshhhb, I’m trying to get a bite from the cunt. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ssshhhb, I’m trying to get a bite from the cunt. :P

My bad. Did you hear a wild and wholly unsubstantiated rumor it was LB himself that taught those condomaraners how to sail and race?!  Or maybe it was Mark Richards??  Somebody wake up Jack. He would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes all very interesting. BWAHAHAH

Well you reap what you sew.

Theres now money involved and lots of it.

 

Lets recap,

It appears like a bunch of clowns on a catamaran didn't execute their obligations as the stand on vessel under COLREGS

and CAUSED mayhem.

Does that sum it up.?

 

Lets not forget that LB 15 made a goose of himself , even though he is a highly paid EXPERT witness ,apparently, and a teacher of COLREGS., as he  doesn't hesitate to tell us at every opportunity. He got himself booted (proudly) from RQYS facebook for being said goose.

@ozmultis  started the thread as he appears to have  an " INTEREST" small we say, and appeared to be suffering chronic BUTT HURT.

By the way, How did LB 15 manage to delete post in the thread long after the edit period expired, and before the BUTT HURT one apparently pulled the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

By the way, How did LB 15 manage to delete post in the thread long after the edit period expired, and before the BUTT HURT one apparently pulled the thread.

You can hide an old post any time. Check "Options".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JimC said:

They seemed to be promising a grand reveal when the local maritime safety org got involved. 

If private boats, no one injured and nothing sunk how do local maritime safety org come into the picture?

Share this post


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

If private boats, no one injured and nothing sunk how do local maritime safety org come into the picture?

Thats a good question well asked.

It appears as though QLD is a little different in more ways than we thought.

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Marine-incidents

 

All marine incidents involving Queensland regulated ships, which includes recreational ships, must be reported within the required time even if there are no injuries and the boat does not sustain any material damage. If in doubt about whether an incident is reportable, report it.

Penalties apply to both owners and masters for failing to report marine incidents.

 Some insurance companies may require a marine incident report to validate claims.

.............

And when you think a ship is something of substance then QLD has very small SHIPS.

 

(1) For a ship that is: (a) less than six (6) metres in length

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm sure few of us are desperately concerned about whose insurer is going to pay for the broken rig, an issue of slightly more concern was @Lydia  s assertion that RRS don't apply in Queensland because COLREGS are mentioned in local law. I rather suspect this was Freemen on the Land style lawyering, since Colregs are cited in UK regulations and that doesn't impede RRS. In his assertions he also mentioned looking at NOr for confirmation, so I looked at RQYS NOrs, and saw nothing. It would still be useful to know though if the removal of the post is because something has occurred that definitively explodes the theory,  because it has been repeated several times.

Share this post


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

Thats a good question well asked.

It appears as though QLD is a little different in more ways than we thought.

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Marine-incidents

All marine incidents involving Queensland regulated ships, which includes recreational ships, must be reported within the required time even if there are no injuries and the boat does not sustain any material damage. If in doubt about whether an incident is reportable, report it.

Penalties apply to both owners and masters for failing to report marine incidents.

 Some insurance companies may require a marine incident report to validate claims.

.............

And when you think a ship is something of substance then QLD has very small SHIPS.

(1) For a ship that is: (a) less than six (6) metres in length

Well the next question is do they demand a incident report for the purpose of simply collecting information for incidents involving no injury etc? Or do they commision an enquiy/investigation for every report and if so, levy a fine/demerit points against the Qld/Other State licenced person in command deemed to be at fault or possibly both persons if fault is shared?

Insurance has nothing to do with it, save for there being a unlicensed vessel and or person involved. Plus if there is culpability apportioned, both insurers will do a deal based upon that and it may also have a bearing on excess liability for anyone deemed 100% not at fault.

If Authorities do investigate culminating in a report, they couldn't give a tinkers cuss about the RRS and SI of some yacht race over which they have no statutory interest in. 

Share this post


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

they couldn't give a tinkers cuss about the RRS and SI of some yacht race over which they have no statutory interest in. 

I think you're wrong, and dangerously wrong. If they need/choose to investigate the collision they will be profoundly interested in every factor that influences how it came about. 

Juno versus Endeavour is the classic case.

http://archive.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316530.html

Basically a local court applied the same theory Lydia has, and decided COLREGS superceded RRS. The decision was appealed and this is from the US Court of Appeal decision:

 

Quote

...Insistence on blind application of COLREGS to the facts of this case is not only unsupported by any historical imperative in this legislation and contrary to the weight of the sparse relevant authority, it is logically unsound.   Such application would turn on its head and render rife with uncertainty the thousands of private yacht races that take place throughout the United States and worldwide in which participants voluntarily agree to be bound by the IYRRs.  [snip]   Such absurdity is difficult to countenance, and cannot have been contemplated by Congress or the treaty negotiating authorities when the COLREGS were adopted.   Such legislation is simply not applicable to private yacht racing in which the participants have voluntarily adopted a different set of rules of the road for application among themselves. 

[snip]

In sum, the International Jury found the ENDEAVOR solely responsible for the collision, and it was inappropriate for the district court to have gone beyond this decision in the assignment of fault.   We conclude that the findings of that forum were final and binding on the parties, and we therefore reverse the decision of the district court in that regard.

Share this post


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

I think you're wrong, and dangerously wrong....

Basically a local court applied the same theory Lydia has, and decided COLREGS superceded RRS. The decision was appealed and this is from the US Court of Appeal decision:

This is regulatory issue not a court issue. If it did happen to escalate to that, then last time I looked Queensland is not a state of the USA and US judicial precedents mean Jack Shit in Australia including its territorial waters in the absence of others.

BTW I think you have more pressing issues if enamoured with US legal precedent to deal with...like their craning boats into the water.

unnamed.jpg.c8b6f356b6c203ddb9b00324c31a9a6c.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the phrase 'judicial comity' mean anything to you?

And Satanita'x Case was British law when Australia was part of the British Empire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Does the phrase 'judicial comity' mean anything to you?

And Satanita'x Case was British law when Australia was part of the British Empire.

Fuck me the lid has been taken off the lawyer box marked "never to be opened".

This is a matter determined by local regulation at this juncture. However if you wish to kick it down the highway through the different courts in Queensland then through to the Commonwealth and High Court of Australia.

"Judicial Comity" is a informal and voluntary recognition and that is all.

"Satanita" is a 1897 English contract law case that predated Australia being a "Dominion" only, not part of the British Empire and by 4 years.

In 1901 Australian colonies like Queensland were Federated in a new State called the Commonwealth of Australia and Australia then became a "Dominion" of the British Empire. In other words semi-independent entities not "part" of the British Empire. Britain and Australia shared a common nationality code up until just after WWII. The final constitutional ties between then the UK and Australia ceased in 1986 with the passing of the Australia Act in 1986 or 43 years ago.

Anyway you hooked me which is my bad, however I was hungry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would probably be helpful to a lot of readers if they saw a photo of a Seawind 1000.

Good God almighty

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curiouser and curiouser the “Streisand effect” seems in play

private messages just add to the intrigue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, JimC said:

 If they need/choose to investigate the collision they will be profoundly interested in every factor that influences how it came about. 

Is this where the plot will twist?

And consequences will be dire for a lot of lovers of this great weekly event!

And mabe even ruin, what has been a tradition up here for centuries!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 11:33 PM, JimC said:

Ah, it seems that nowadays the OP can hide the thread.

For those that missed it, the thread was about this apparently straightforward protest decision.

https://www.rqys.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Beachball-v-Cathjerine-Mary-DRAFT-DECISIONv2.pdf

Two or three posters, including the OP, were claiming that this was some sort of precedent that starboard gives way to port, or possibly that poverty gives way to money, it wasn't entirely clear. They didn't seem to give any sequence of events that contradicted the protest hearing. They also appeared to be promoting a theory that Colregs trump RRS in Queensland, which if true would be a very big deal indeed, but against all legal precedent.

They seemed to be promising a grand reveal when the local maritime safety org got involved. Perhaps the safety boys did report, and the result wasn't what the posters expected! 

 

20 hours ago, JimC said:

While I'm sure few of us are desperately concerned about whose insurer is going to pay for the broken rig, an issue of slightly more concern was @Lydia  s assertion that RRS don't apply in Queensland because COLREGS are mentioned in local law. I rather suspect this was Freemen on the Land style lawyering, since Colregs are cited in UK regulations and that doesn't impede RRS. In his assertions he also mentioned looking at NOr for confirmation, so I looked at RQYS NOrs, and saw nothing. It would still be useful to know though if the removal of the post is because something has occurred that definitively explodes the theory,  because it has been repeated several times.

 

19 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

....If Authorities do investigate culminating in a report, they couldn't give a tinkers cuss about the RRS and SI of some yacht race over which they have no statutory interest in. 

 

19 hours ago, JimC said:

I think you're wrong, and dangerously wrong. If they need/choose to investigate the collision they will be profoundly interested in every factor that influences how it came about. 

Juno versus Endeavour is the classic case.

http://archive.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316530.html

Basically a local court applied the same theory Lydia has, and decided COLREGS superceded RRS. The decision was appealed and this is from the US Court of Appeal decision:

 

 

4 hours ago, Turkey Slapper said:

Is this where the plot will twist?

And consequences will be dire for a lot of lovers of this great weekly event!

And mabe even ruin, what has been a tradition up here for centuries!

@JimC in your reliance on Juno v Endeavour where a US Appeal Court in 1995 determined that COLREGS do not supercede the RRS and supported the original International Jury decision. It therefore underwrites the Protest Committee decision in this namely.

1. The Protest (and Appeal dismissed) as decided based upon the RRS.

2. However a completely independent and potential process is the incident as viewed in the eyes of a statutory authority who by black letter law and regulation is empowered to investigate, make a determination and can levy a penalties. The RRS (and Juno v Endeavour precedent) are not referenced therein and by law cannot applied. What is overlooked is this is a shared waterway is not the sole domain of and or closed off to the benefit of the Club. The incident could quite easily have been between a competitor and member of the public.

Furthermore that Juno v Endeavour precedent did not apply to the decision making of a "statutory" authority but simply a "sporting/sailing body" decision making authority. Therefore your claim that more concerning was; " @lydia assertion that RRS don't apply in Queensland because COLREGS are mentioned in local law." and which if true would be a very big deal indeed, but against all legal precedent." is a claim that has no legs.

Similarly @Brass reminder;  "Does the phrase 'judicial comity' mean anything to you? And Satanita'x Case was British law when Australia was part of the British Empire." has no foundation. It is noted the Santanita, a 1897 case involving a collision between two racing yachts sailing under the rules of the Yacht Racing Association (of Great Britain) where the House of Lords decided along the same lines as the US Appeal Court for sporting/sailing body decision making nearly 100 years later.

3. As to a "possible" Investigation by the local maritime agency.

(a). As @MRS OCTOPUS points out; "All marine incidents involving Queensland regulated ships, which includes recreational ships, must be reported within the required time even if there are no injuries and the boat does not sustain any material damage."  This is contained in Queensland. Transport Operations ( Marine Safety) Act. 1994 (TOMSA) where Part 1 Division 3 deals with definition of "regulated ships" and Part 11 Divisions 1 & 2 Incident Reporting 

(b). Upon receipt of an Incident  Report the general manager may require a shipping inspector to investigate the matter and must report the results of the investigation to the general manager. Refer TOMSA Section 126 (I) and (ii).

(c). Prevention of collisions and application of collision regulations and responsibility is contained in Part 2 Section 79 Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR). The definition of "collision regulations" means the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea published by the International Maritime Organization. Refer to Definitions TOMSR. The RRS are not included in that definition.

It is noted 211(2) of TOMSA applies and provides for a penalty of 500 penalty units or
imprisonment for 1 year for a contravention of this regulation regarding prevention of collisions. This includes a marine licence being cancelled or suspended. It is noted a fundamental component to individual Marine Licensing is COLREGS for preventing Collisions, not the RRS.

(d).  If, after considering the report, the general manager is satisfied that a marine incident has happened, the general
manager may, in the way prescribed by regulation, cancel, suspend or amend an approval of a Queensland regulated ship or person involved in the incident. Refer TOMSA Section 126 (iii).

For @JimC and @Brass I hope it is now crystal clear that your reference to a US Appeal Court and 19th Century House of Lords precedent has been misplaced regarding this incident in so far as a Marine Investigation is concerned. Furthermore the concept that COLREGS are enshrined in Local and National laws is not peculiar to Australia.

As for @Turkey Slapper your concern that any potential investigation and consequences could be dire for a lot of lovers of this great weekly event? 

I don't believe so remembering that Insurers and Owners have and will always defer to the law and companion regulations as it contains their only mechanism for first a simple adjudication and secondly if necessary the only avenue for appeal via the courts. A Protest Committee similarly providing they are properly interpreting the RRS and their own Sailing Instructions and deciding accordingly they should not be fearful of the outcome of any marine investigation.

I will leave it to others to go into the detail however I see the prospects of a Marine Investigation concluding far differently than the decision made by the Protest Committee.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-08-25/act-1994-014&ved=2ahUKEwic7Jmq4cHgAhXLbSsKHTmeBhYQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1n8e3kN4OztwU_UDrhVt7Y

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-08-25/sl-2016-0154&ved=2ahUKEwic7Jmq4cHgAhXLbSsKHTmeBhYQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw04TrKAM7kURiSdG56ckufX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making a lot of assertions about the law there. What's your professional expertise?

I fully admit to having no legal expertise. However what struck me about Juno v Endeavour was that Colregs were similarly enshrined in local law, which appears to me to be the way the local court was thinking and the appeal court overturned.

Share this post


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

You're making a lot of assertions about the law there. What's your professional expertise?

I fully admit to having no legal expertise. However what struck me about Juno v Endeavour was that Colregs were similarly enshrined in local law, which appears to me to be the way the local court was thinking and the appeal court overturned.

Lots of assertions about the law? You are the one that went first down that burrow knowing fuck all.

Despite a plain English explanation from me to black letter law clause by clause and with linkys so any idiot can double check you go "assertions"?  Fuck me dead.

Go read my reply again before typing two paragraphs of shit. Your Juno v Endevour precedent was aimed at a sports/sailing authority decision not one of a maritime authority decision and there has never been one in the history of the world that you speak of. Chalk and Cheese.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt with my detailed reply. That was clearly a waste of my fuckin time. You clearly are a complete ignorant dead cunt as I suspected.

As for my professional expertise, I rang my Aunty Miss Marple to first double check my reply to your legal gobblygook before launching it. She never gets it wrong.

487087374_images(12).jpeg.ada49c1bca3f90a130ef0b661c5ba034.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, well obviously I have to bow to your superior intellect and reasoned expertise.Now where's the ignore button...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JimC said:

Ah, well obviously I have to bow to your superior intellect and reasoned expertise.Now where's the ignore button...

Mate a quick tip you being the OP for this thread and all.

JimmyC it unfortunately seems you can't  tolerate just after 29 posts (the majority yours) a considered and substantiated counter opinion to yours appearing on your own thread....and obvious now you have no ammunition to contest that counter with, so you revert to the "hear no evil girl button".

So mate no need for you to scramble around in the dark looking for the Ignore Button..just go scratch your head. 

IMG_20190217_205818.jpg

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

@JimC

@lydia

@JimC@Brass

As for @Turkey Slapper your concern that any potential investigation and consequences could be dire for a lot of lovers of this great weekly event? 

I don't believe so remembering that Insurers and Owners have and will always defer to the law and companion regulations as it contains their only mechanism for first a simple adjudication and secondly if necessary the only avenue for appeal via the courts. A Protest Committee similarly providing they are properly interpreting the RRS and their own Sailing Instructions and deciding accordingly they should not be fearful of the outcome of any marine investigation.

Jack, if there was a tree in all this, your barking up the wrong one! You couldn't be further from the direction I was going with points! Interesting thought process, but no, 

Share this post


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

Jack, if there was a tree in all this, your barking up the wrong one! You couldn't be further from the direction I was going with points! Interesting thought process, but no, 

Mate all you say is your concern is that any potential Marine Authority investigation and consequences could be dire for a lot of lovers of this great weekly event? That is the only tree you have marked and which I refer to.

Turkey if you have another tree you are growing, spell it out. I can't bark at or piss on an invisible tree. I'm good but not fuckin Nostradamus.

PS. I did scan it but didn't take much notice of the thread which got nuked but with copy of PC determination and reading between the lines by having more than a double digit IQ have a pretty good idea of some flavours going, but that is all. I'm behind some other eightball going here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right on the legal side of things, I have no idea on that! But with more of the 13 year old girl tantrums, the closer its getting to a weekday pastime tradition a lot have followed being gone forever!

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

@JimC in your reliance on Juno v Endeavour where a US Appeal Court in 1995 determined that COLREGS do not supercede the RRS and supported the original International Jury decision. It therefore underwrites the Protest Committee decision in this namely.

1. The Protest (and Appeal dismissed) as decided based upon the RRS.

2. However a completely independent and potential process is the incident as viewed in the eyes of a statutory authority who by black letter law and regulation is empowered to investigate, make a determination and can levy a penalties. The RRS (and Juno v Endeavour precedent) are not referenced therein and by law cannot applied. What is overlooked is this is a shared waterway is not the sole domain of and or closed off to the benefit of the Club. The incident could quite easily have been between a competitor and member of the public.

Furthermore that Juno v Endeavour precedent did not apply to the decision making of a "statutory" authority but simply a "sporting/sailing body" decision making authority. Therefore your claim that more concerning was; " @lydia assertion that RRS don't apply in Queensland because COLREGS are mentioned in local law." and which if true would be a very big deal indeed, but against all legal precedent." is a claim that has no legs.

Similarly @Brass reminder;  "Does the phrase 'judicial comity' mean anything to you? And Satanita'x Case was British law when Australia was part of the British Empire." has no foundation. It is noted the Santanita, a 1897 case involving a collision between two racing yachts sailing under the rules of the Yacht Racing Association (of Great Britain) where the House of Lords decided along the same lines as the US Appeal Court for sporting/sailing body decision making nearly 100 years later.

3. As to a "possible" Investigation by the local maritime agency.

(a). As @MRS OCTOPUS points out; "All marine incidents involving Queensland regulated ships, which includes recreational ships, must be reported within the required time even if there are no injuries and the boat does not sustain any material damage."  This is contained in Queensland. Transport Operations ( Marine Safety) Act. 1994 (TOMSA) where Part 1 Division 3 deals with definition of "regulated ships" and Part 11 Divisions 1 & 2 Incident Reporting 

(b). Upon receipt of an Incident  Report the general manager may require a shipping inspector to investigate the matter and must report the results of the investigation to the general manager. Refer TOMSA Section 126 (I) and (ii).

(c). Prevention of collisions and application of collision regulations and responsibility is contained in Part 2 Section 79 Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR). The definition of "collision regulations" means the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea published by the International Maritime Organization. Refer to Definitions TOMSR. The RRS are not included in that definition.

It is noted 211(2) of TOMSA applies and provides for a penalty of 500 penalty units or
imprisonment for 1 year for a contravention of this regulation regarding prevention of collisions. This includes a marine licence being cancelled or suspended. It is noted a fundamental component to individual Marine Licensing is COLREGS for preventing Collisions, not the RRS.

(d).  If, after considering the report, the general manager is satisfied that a marine incident has happened, the general
manager may, in the way prescribed by regulation, cancel, suspend or amend an approval of a Queensland regulated ship or person involved in the incident. Refer TOMSA Section 126 (iii).

For @JimC and @Brass I hope it is now crystal clear that your reference to a US Appeal Court and 19th Century House of Lords precedent has been misplaced regarding this incident in so far as a Marine Investigation is concerned. Furthermore the concept that COLREGS are enshrined in Local and National laws is not peculiar to Australia.

As for @Turkey Slapper your concern that any potential investigation and consequences could be dire for a lot of lovers of this great weekly event? 

I don't believe so remembering that Insurers and Owners have and will always defer to the law and companion regulations as it contains their only mechanism for first a simple adjudication and secondly if necessary the only avenue for appeal via the courts. A Protest Committee similarly providing they are properly interpreting the RRS and their own Sailing Instructions and deciding accordingly they should not be fearful of the outcome of any marine investigation.

I will leave it to others to go into the detail however I see the prospects of a Marine Investigation concluding far differently than the decision made by the Protest Committee.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-08-25/act-1994-014&ved=2ahUKEwic7Jmq4cHgAhXLbSsKHTmeBhYQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1n8e3kN4OztwU_UDrhVt7Y

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-08-25/sl-2016-0154&ved=2ahUKEwic7Jmq4cHgAhXLbSsKHTmeBhYQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw04TrKAM7kURiSdG56ckufX

Holy crap Jack that’s a lot of..... uh.... interesting stuff perhaps brought by excess consumption of some adult beverages??  Consider that perhaps you are off the trail by a mile and headed for a cliff at the bottom of which a certain WOXI skipper lies.  Did Gramps hack your account?  Or feed you a line you chomped on hook line and sinker perhaps (more likely)? 

This is going to be as much fun to follow as the WOXI / Richo cheater  thread. It’s got legs!!  Especially if Gramps is feeding you as I suspect.

Share this post


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

You may be right on the legal side of things, I have no idea on that! ..

 

4 hours ago, JimC said:

I fully admit to having no legal expertise.

I'm now detecting a trend.

Share this post


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

This is going to be as much fun to follow as the WOXI / Richo cheater  thread. Its got legs!! 

Wess this thing is as dead as a duck under normal circumstances...or is it?

An incident it seems only fueled by club malarkey around the beneficiary of a arguably marginal RRS ruling and absent of 3rd party witnesses saw a Protest in a beer can race ruled by the Club PC favouring their Club Vice Commodore. An individual with boating experience to burn in a collision with a Club nobody. Under the RRS things like relative experience, vessel characteristics for lookout opportunities and constraints etc are not factored in.

However under local Maritime Incident and mandatory reporting rules in terms of a collision occuring like this incident, RRS factors by statute are ignored and COLREGS are brought to account in any investigation, including vessel characteristics and individuals in control of a vessel. 

However there is no guarantee any such investigation will occur or be prosecuted under the Queensland. Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act. 1994 . That decision rests solely with the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld who first may or may not require a shipping inspector to investigate the matter and secondly may or may not take it further beyond that. Refer to  Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 , Section 126 (I) and (ii).

Therefore the only controversial aspect surrounding this matter left is if this incident is properly investigated and properly determined by Maritime Safety Qld or not? With that in mind is this.

One party to this incident has a family sailing pedigree to burn, a ex commercial captain and commercial pilot and a current Vice Commadore of a Club with a Royal name.  The other party a relative nobody.

I will let you draw your own conclusions as to what the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld may or may not decide bearing in mind they are many ranks below the Director General of the Department of Transport and the Government Minister responsible for same. Therefore any bias or worse potential lobbying by parties related to the incident has to be factored in by any interested observer of this incident.

PS. Turkey there is my tree above. How does your unknown tree measure up? 

3 hours ago, Turkey Slapper said:

Jack, if there was a tree in all this, your barking up the wrong one! You couldn't be further from the direction I was going with points! Interesting thought process, but no, 

 

Share this post


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

Especially if Gramps is feeding you as I suspect.

Ever thought I might feed him?

Share this post


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

Just wipe the drool every feed spoonfuls. 

Drool..I wish Lion ..LB gets really pissed when I mix up his Feeding, Catheter and Enema Tubes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

At some point it makes no difference, just rotate the bags: SISO similar to GIGO. 

Lion that concept of yours has always puzzled me..like they all look the same from the back end ...but do you reckon they all look the same front on??

pic_049-9.jpg.94e5967939883bd42655f8ba57b70fe4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, in NSW:

Schedule 4 Modifications to Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(Clause 5)
Rule 1 of the International Regulations is modified by including the following NSW special Rule:
(1)  Despite Rule 1 (a), these Rules extend to vessels in all navigable waters.
(2)  These Rules do not apply to vessels taking part in an aquatic activity if the aquatic licence that authorises the activity provides for a different set of rules to be applied. However, these Rules do apply if there is a risk of collision between a vessel taking part in the aquatic activity and a vessel that is not taking part in the aquatic activity.
 

Share this post


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

 

 

Similarly @Brass reminder;  "Does the phrase 'judicial comity' mean anything to you? And Satanita'x Case was British law when Australia was part of the British Empire." has no foundation. It is noted the Santanita, a 1897 case involving a collision between two racing yachts sailing under the rules of the Yacht Racing Association (of Great Britain) where the House of Lords decided along the same lines as the US Appeal Court for sporting/sailing body decision making nearly 100 years later.

So are you trying to say that an Australian court in 2018 would reject the reasoning behind 'The Satanita' because it's an old British decision?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack, I like your analysis, spot on in a lot of areas, but personally, I'm more worried about the bigger picture, a picture the event was more created around! Fun, and an Aussie tradition in yachting! ....... .. ... .... ..... ..... ..!

 

I'm waiting for DNA tests to confirm if some of the mentioned above are actually of a male varient, as there is more school girl tantrums, and claims of alledged offence than a catholic girl school lunch break! 

 

And in all honesty, its embarrassing thinking a club opened by the Queen of Australia with such rich heritage and history of great sailors, past and present coming from it, is being dragged down with un heard of Wynnum behaviour!

Share this post


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

Wess this thing is as dead as a duck under normal circumstances...or is it?

An incident it seems only fueled by club malarkey around the beneficiary of a arguably marginal RRS ruling and absent of 3rd party witnesses saw a Protest in a beer can race ruled by the Club PC favouring their Club Vice Commodore. An individual with boating experience to burn in a collision with a Club nobody. Under the RRS things like relative experience, vessel characteristics for lookout opportunities and constraints etc are not factored in.

However under local Maritime Incident and mandatory reporting rules in terms of a collision occuring like this incident, RRS factors by statute are ignored and COLREGS are brought to account in any investigation, including vessel characteristics and individuals in control of a vessel. 

However there is no guarantee any such investigation will occur or be prosecuted under the Queensland. Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act. 1994 . That decision rests solely with the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld who first may or may not require a shipping inspector to investigate the matter and secondly may or may not take it further beyond that. Refer to  Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 , Section 126 (I) and (ii).

Therefore the only controversial aspect surrounding this matter left is if this incident is properly investigated and properly determined by Maritime Safety Qld or not? With that in mind is this.

One party to this incident has a family sailing pedigree to burn, a ex commercial captain and commercial pilot and a current Vice Commadore of a Club with a Royal name.  The other party a relative nobody.

I will let you draw your own conclusions as to what the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld may or may not decide bearing in mind they are many ranks below the Director General of the Department of Transport and the Government Minister responsible for same. Therefore any bias or worse potential lobbying by parties related to the incident has to be factored in by any interested observer of this incident.

PS. Turkey there is my tree above. How does your unknown tree measure up? 

 

The poor VC will likely be vindicated any standard. After all they were chased down by some crazy high speed racing catamaran that couldn't even see where they were going, all while the poor VC tried with all his might to escape the crazed fool who is not out to wreck a club and it fun family friendly events after destroying a fine bendy boat.  And that is why mutis are rightly banned from the S2H or at least that is all what I think some guy somebody might have called Richo, said.  I think.  But I only sail an armchair, am often wrong and usually drunk so...

But do be careful with the stuff Gramps is feeding you.  It seems to cause delusions...

Share this post


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

there is more school girl tantrums, and claims of alledged offence than a catholic girl school lunch break! 

How would you know what these are Turkey Slapper, you ever found a good catholic girl.

 

43 minutes ago, Turkey Slapper said:

un heard of Wynnum behaviour! 

well perhaps then they should restrict membership to those of the 4179 Post code.....

Share this post


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

So are you trying to say that an Australian court in 2018 would reject the reasoning behind 'The Satanita' because it's an old British decision?

Not saying that at all. Saying it has no relevance firstly as it is contract law between two owners agreeing that Yacht Racing Association Rules overode a conflicting liability provision in the Merchant Shipping Act. Secondly no relevance as this involves a ruling by a State Government entity enforcing State legislation.

Share this post


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

For what it is worth, in NSW:

Schedule 4 Modifications to Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(Clause 5)
Rule 1 of the International Regulations is modified by including the following NSW special Rule:
(1)  Despite Rule 1 (a), these Rules extend to vessels in all navigable waters.
(2)  These Rules do not apply to vessels taking part in an aquatic activity if the aquatic licence that authorises the activity provides for a different set of rules to be applied. However, these Rules do apply if there is a risk of collision between a vessel taking part in the aquatic activity and a vessel that is not taking part in the aquatic activity.
 

Croc permit and other vessels is quite a limitation. Syd Hobart start might qualify if CYC are issued with some form of permit that delineates the race track?

Share this post


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

Not saying that at all. Saying it has no relevance firstly as it is contract law between two owners agreeing that Yacht Racing Association Rules overode a conflicting liability provision in the Merchant Shipping Act. Secondly no relevance as this involves a ruling by a State Government entity enforcing State legislation.

Ok,  I was mislead by the reference to the age of the case and the side-issue about the fact that it pre-dated the Commonwealth. 

If the MSQ get heavy handed and decide to strictly apply Colregs, sailboat racing in Qld could be in trouble. Good luck racing when you have to follow the Colreg requirements for maintaining a safe distance, ensuring the vessel is under full control at all times, ignoring windshifts and tides to make sure you stick to the starboard side of Waterloo Bay, etc. 

 

 

Share this post


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

If the MSQ get heavy handed and decide to strictly apply Colregs, sailboat racing in Qld could be in trouble. Good luck racing when you have to follow the Colreg requirements for maintaining a safe distance, ensuring the vessel is under full control at all times, ignoring windshifts and tides to make sure you stick to the starboard side of Waterloo Bay, etc. 

I don't have any concern providing the MSQ investigating officer has some sailboat understanding. The two regulatory arrangements can coexist quite comfortably. There is nothing to say no regard for RRS be applied when formulating a COLREGS decision. MSQ simply cannot use RRS as the underlying basis or grounds, particularly if penalties are being applied. Similarly for those on the race track and in the protest room, RRS dominant over COLREGS where there is some form of conflict between the two.

The underlying issue is the water is a shared resource between all sorts of recreational and commercial users and so there has to be a common denominator for collision avoidance. Throughout the world that is COLREGS. 

A heavy handed approach by MSQ doesn't appear to be supported by statistics.

To June 2017 there were 258,340 recreational vessels registered in QLD; one vessel  for every 19 people or one vessel for every three recreational vessel licensees.

The incident reports in QLD in 2017 year were as follows.

Queensland regulated ships were involved in 322 reported incidents.

These 322 incidents involved 391 Queensland regulated ships and 49 domestic commercial vessels.

The 391 Queensland regulated ships were predominantly motorboats (55 per cent) and sailboats  (33 per cent), while personal watercraft accounted for a further eight per cent of the vessels  involved in these incidents.

The 49 domestic commercial vessels involved in these incidents included 21 non-passenger vessels, three commercial fishing vessels and 25 hire and drive vessels (four motorboats, 18  sailboats, and a houseboat).

The most commonly reported incidents were collisions between ships (90), groundings (57), collisions with an object (34) and capsizing (35). Of the 90 collisions, 52 occurred in SE QLD.

These incidents resulted in 55 people being injured, including 21 who were admitted to hospital and seven fatalities.

Forty nine per cent of those injured were not in charge of the vessel at the time the incident occurred. Three of the seven people who died were the masters of Queensland regulated ships.

If you were to interpolate of the 52 collisions in SE QLD and one having the highest concentration of sailboats in the State, approx 17 involved sailboats for the 2017 year. Or in other words a collision every three weeks on average.

I will try and track down stats on marine offences to give a even clearer picture.

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/-/media/MSQInternet/MSQFiles/Home/About-us/Marine-incidents-in-Queensland-2017.pdf%3Fla%3Den&ved=2ahUKEwj5m5uLtcTgAhUGVH0KHTRmCqsQFjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0by9FQE7HbxKTTADucXti3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 12:04 AM, JimC said:

 

 

 

Have always hated that interpretation of the rules. So much confusion. Why isn't P held to account for not avoiding a collision also? They were by definition the give-way vessel by being on port. If S has to make any course adjustments because they deem a collision imminent then why isn't P raked over the coals. Hunting of P by S is what is meant to be avoided, but surely some incidents of S altering course are to avoid collisions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I witnessed one of these events during a pre-start BITD; both skippers were friends.  They came to call it the "dance of death".  Both were reaching towards each other.  Port waits just a bit too long, starboard alters course to leeward to avoid at exactly the same moment that port finally alters to leeward.  Then they both realize the other boat has turned and head up hard instead.  Collision happens.  Starboard was found at fault in the one I saw as well.  It sucks because starboard didn't create the conflict in the first place, port did.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the interpretation (case 92) is now, P can actually hunt S and be found not at fault. Hardly seems fair really.

Hunting is all about intent, and unless people can now read minds, I don't know how intent can be determined, particularly by a bunch of effectively amateur sleuths (the jury).

All S can do is hold course and luff up at the last minute if a collision is imminent. Such actions don't seem particularly useful for avoiding a collision, which is the primary intent of the rules.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle is sound. If starboard changes course before it's *necessary* to avoid a collision then they are required to keep clear. If they wait then they'll be exonerated.

Few PCs are going to penalise starboard unless they do something pretty damn stupid, but turning into the collision leaving a port boat that would have been able to keep clear nowhere to go sure qualifies in that respect.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I will try and track down stats on marine offences to give a even clearer picture.

 

3 hours ago, Curious said:

If the MSQ get heavy handed and decide to strictly apply Colregs, sailboat racing in Qld could be in trouble.

Curious unfortunately the most up to date statistics I could find for Marine Infringement Notices (MIN) issued by MSQ and in a form capable of interpolating those attributable to collisions is for the April to June Quarter 2009.

By some bizzare coincidence there were 391 recreational incidents in 2009 exactly the same as in 2017. In 2009 30% or 117 involved a collision, so 23% more than the 90 collisions in 2017. In 2009 approx 30% involved sailboats again similar to 2017. So a comparison is relevant despite the time difference.

As you can see for 2017 Year above 52 collisions occurred in SE QLD. Then interpolating that 17 involved sailboats for the 2017 year based simply on 33% of incidents involving sailboats.

If you assume the the 32 offences in SE QLD for the 2009 1/4 for other than speeding, licencing, safety gear etc are most probably collision related, then applying the same 33% ratio, 10 involved sailboats for the quarter or 40 for the 2009 year. If you assume blame was apportioned and both masters were issued with a MIN that equates to 20 collisions for the year.

Interestingly that 20 collisions involving 2 Marine Infringement Notices being issued is close to the interpolated figure for Incident Reports of 17 for the 2017 involving a collision bearing in mind there were 23% more collisions in 2009 reducing that 20 to around 16 collisions on a comparison basis.

Obviously the above involves enough interpolation to be hardly reliable. However it may provide a picture that if you submit an Incident Report to MSQ involving a collision, then there is a very high probability blame will be apportioned and MSQ will issue both skippers with a Marine Infringement Notice regarding a collision. On average annualy this occurs every 3 weeks in SE QLD, though clearly it would be weighted more towards summer by the increase in traffic.

On the other hand if this occurs on the race course the Jury room will most times using the minutia of the RSS, only find one vessel at fault.

It also underpins why a Insurer will always look to a MSQ style determination over that of the Protest Room.

So maybe relying statistics if any of the two parties are thinking a Marine Incident Report and enquiry by MSQ will provide some joy, then maybe they may need to rethink that.

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/-/media/MSQInternet/MSQFiles/Home/About-us/Right-to-information/Published-information/Lists-and-registers/Min-prosecution/2009/Pdf_min_april_june_2009.pdf%3Fla%3Den&ved=2ahUKEwigl8KDzMTgAhXJV30KHWb_BgwQFjAEegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw21JnzgLBrLCfSmAT-AsL28&cshid=1550469259593

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

A. PRELUDE

To carry on from my posts #27, #37, #52 and #57 providing a detailed examination of how Marine Safety Queensland (MSQ) get involved, their statutory framework and potential decision making if they decide an investigation is necessary.

Then with my latter two posts, #52 and #57 indicating what the probabilities are if they do investigate as to their determination using just statistics attached to MSQ Marine Incident Reports for collisions based upon their Marine Infringement Notice (MIN) history.

Note; I should stress I only starting looking at the COLREGS 12 Amendment thread late in the peace just before it got nuked. So please forgive me if I'm going over old ground here. I have no idea why the OP and @LB 15 nuked that thread. My only guess is the considered posts to that thread went counter to the narrative they were on about re the PC decision. That hasn't gone away.

B. NOW ANCIENT HISTORY OR IS IT?

All I can remember is firstly 3rd party witnesses were thin on the ground and the only description of the incident was that attached to the Protest Committee's (PC) determination which largely relied upon a generic case book sketch, not a incident specific sketch.

Namely Case Book #92 capturing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRC) Rule 14, (Avoiding Contact), Rule 16.1 (Changing Course) and Rule 16.2 (Changing Course). It is noted The Case Book complements the RRS, providing details on the application of the RRS to around 140 scenarios. See Case Book #92 sketch in pic below and RC's decision in this linky.

https://www.rqys.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Beachball-v-Cathjerine-Mary-DRAFT-DECISIONv2.pdf

I thought that absence of an incident specific sketch a bit odd at the time. The actual PC determination saying the Catamaran was the "give way" vessel, not the Mono was supported by such people as @shanghaisailor whose RRC knowledge and practical application is respected World Wide. Likewise the opinion of say @JimC quite correctly referencing a US Appeals Court decision in so far as enshrining a PC giving weight to the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRC) over that of COLREGS where there is any conflict.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316530.html

C. SO WHAT'S LEFT?

The decision of the PC is now ancient history and all that remains is a Marine Safety Queensland (MSQ) response to a Marine Incident Report as submitted.

A quick reminder is that under the definition of  "collision regulations"  under the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR). The definition means the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) or COLREGS and for the avoidance of any doubt TOMSR. references those COLREGS as an Appendix to the Marine Orders - Part 30: Prevention of Collisions, Issue 8 (Cwlth) as follows.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-08-25/sl-2016-0154&ved=2ahUKEwic7Jmq4cHgAhXLbSsKHTmeBhYQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw04TrKAM7kURiSdG56ckufX

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01187

COLREGS Rule 12 details actions to be taken when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so to de-risk any collision occuring, where one of them shall keep out of the way of the other. For those that struggle with the understanding black letter regulation without pictures, the video below may assist.

COLREGS Rule 12

Sailing vessels

(a)    When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:

(i)    when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other;

(ii)    when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;

(iii)    if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other.

(b)    For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite to that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a squarerigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore and aft sail is carried.

D. MSQ PROCESS

Having regard for my posts #52 and #57 above there is a guaranteed probability of an MSQ enquiry occuring and blame will be apportioned and MSQ will issue both skippers with a Marine Infringement Notice regarding this collision. The apportionment of blame may be subject to modern day realities of life and concepts of influence as outlined in my post #37 upthread.

That aside the MSQ investigating officer (Shipping Inspector by definition in QLD) has no option under COLREGS but to also consider these four (4) main things, independent of and not constrained by the RRS, and even if only based on the information being the PC decision founded on Case #92 and attached sketch below.

1. The first test is to ensure COLREGS Rule 12 applies being 12 (iii) where the potential "Give Way" vessel with wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and can or cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side. That aspect is without any argument so COLREGS Rule 12 applies.

2. From this point on the vessel under COLREGS Rule 12 deemed to be the "Give Way" vessel and so any delay acting accordingly is irrelevant, whilst maybe supported by the minutia of RRS (that made them potentially a "Stand On" vessel). The RRS then become truly irelevant under COLREGS Rule 12. The simple and fundamental fact is COLREGS Rule 12 where one of them shall keep out of the way of the other. In this instance by one vessel not following COLREGS Rule 12 a collision then eventuated.

3. The incident was severe. One vessel (Give Way vessel under COLREGS) lost its rig and through grace of God or otherwise, no one was killed or injured.

4. Not encumbered with the RRS, though possibly having regard to them when formulating a decision, the MSQ officer also has factors to also consider when apportioning blame for a collision. Such as:

(a). Relative Experience between the Parties.

The "Give Way" vessel whose Master has a family sailing pedigree to burn, a ex commercial Captain and commercial Harbour Pilot and a current Vice Commadore of a Yacht Club. The other party under COLREGS as the "Stand On" vessel a relative nobody by comparison.

(b). Vessel Characteristics.

Under COLREGS the "Give Way" vessel a mono hull enjoying good manoeuvrability and line of sight having regard to COLREGS 12 (iii). The "Stand On" vessel a multi-hull with arguably less comparitive manoeuvrability and less line of sight. See pic below.

Seawind-1000-XL-saloon-bed-Whitsunday-Escape-1024x683.thumb.jpg.7434daec2f70ac3c265fc4a33dcdb148.jpg

E. THE MSQ DECISION

This decision hasn't occured but by any objective assessment a decision that will go completely counter to the PC decision to only apportion blame to one party is virtually guaranteed, unless politics come into play. See my posts #37 and #57 above.

F. CONCLUSION

A FP piece written by @shanghaisailor just last week titled "What would elvstrom think?" 

https://sailinganarchy.com/2019/02/10/what-would-elvstrom-think

A great reminder but deficient in that it did not capture Race Organisers and Protest Committee's who have no concept that the definition of "impartiality" is; "free from bias, not having or showing an unfair tendency." But much more importantly is giving every "appearance" that bias doesn't apply. For that the Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron (RQYS) have failed in spades here.

The only thing left here is a MSQ decision proving that, unless they are got at.

medium.png

Share this post


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

Croc permit and other vessels is quite a limitation. Syd Hobart start might qualify if CYC are issued with some form of permit that delineates the race track?

Help out a non-ozzie lawyer here Jack:

 

1) IS there a threshold number of participants that dictates whether you need to get an aquatic license for an event? 

 

2) When you sign up for an event are you required to agree to be governed by the RRS?

In the US all events have #2, which guarantees that RRS cases don't go to court for much longer than it takes to throw them out.  Occasionally a personal injury case (crew vs. owner) gets to court, but those are non-RRS/COLREGS issues typically.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

For what it is worth, in NSW:

Schedule 4 Modifications to Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
(Clause 5)
Rule 1 of the International Regulations is modified by including the following NSW special Rule:
(1)  Despite Rule 1 (a), these Rules extend to vessels in all navigable waters.
(2)  These Rules do not apply to vessels taking part in an aquatic activity if the aquatic licence that authorises the activity provides for a different set of rules to be applied. However, these Rules do apply if there is a risk of collision between a vessel taking part in the aquatic activity and a vessel that is not taking part in the aquatic activity.
 

 

11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Croc permit and other vessels is quite a limitation. Syd Hobart start might qualify if CYC are issued with some form of permit that delineates the race track?

 

21 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Help out a non-ozzie lawyer here Jack:

1) IS there a threshold number of participants that dictates whether you need to get an aquatic license for an event? 

2) When you sign up for an event are you required to agree to be governed by the RRS?

In the US all events have #2, which guarantees that RRS cases don't go to court for much longer than it takes to throw them out.  Occasionally a personal injury case (crew vs. owner) gets to court, but those are non-RRS/COLREGS issues typically.

 

Clean like the US a state in Oz can amend national shit as it applies to its own jurisdiction within bounds. The aspect about COLREGS that @mccroc brought up is restricted to the state of NSW only as follows and only a couple of years old. 

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2016/308/sch4

In so far as the wording the exclusions are very limited, so not sure why it came into being in NSW? Some powerboat waterways racing? Maybe protecting competitors in S2H start from some rogue vessel who gets through the ropes?

Once you sign up to compete under SI's and RRS that's it as per your #2 world wide is my understanding. 

Someone like @lydia is maybe better placed to answer your query in more detail.

Share this post


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

The principle is sound. If starboard changes course before it's *necessary* to avoid a collision then they are required to keep clear. If they wait then they'll be exonerated.

Few PCs are going to penalise starboard unless they do something pretty damn stupid, but turning into the collision leaving a port boat that would have been able to keep clear nowhere to go sure qualifies in that respect.

The principle is sound...it's the practicalities that are hard to fathom. How do you decide if S was hunting or trying to avoid a collision?

An alternative interpretation of the incident. S saw that P couldn't tack because of another vessel to windward and overlapped on P, so decided to duck P. P didn't notice they were closing on S and by the time they took avoiding action, it was too late and the wrong avoiding action.

I still don't see how S is solely responsible when P is required to also avoid contact AND is give-way vessel. All S needs to say to the jury is "I took the action necessary to avoid the collision". Just because he kept a better lookout than P and/or is more timid than P doesn't mean Case 92 is applicable or right.

How is Case 92, or the reliance on it as gospel, helping to avoid collisions?

The onus of proof of hunting should be on P. Case 92 does not appear to make that clear.

This isn't the only time I've seen 92 applied (imo) incorrectly.

(Caveat, I don't know the specifics of this incident beyond what is written here. S may've actually been hunting, we've all seen newbs do it.)

Rant over.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

A. PRELUDE

To carry on from my posts #27, #37, #52 and #57 providing a detailed examination of how Marine Safety Queensland (MSQ) get involved, their statutory framework and potential decision making if they decide an investigation is necessary.

Then with my latter two posts, #52 and #57 indicating what the probabilities are if they do investigate as to their determination using just statistics attached to MSQ Marine Incident Reports for collisions based upon their Marine Infringement Notice (MIN) history.

Note; I should stress I only starting looking at the COLREGS 12 Amendment thread late in the peace just before it got nuked. So please forgive me if I'm going over old ground here. I have no idea why the OP and @LB 15 nuked that thread. My only guess is the considered posts to that thread went counter to the narrative they were on about re the PC decision. That hasn't gone away.

B. NOW ANCIENT HISTORY OR IS IT?

All I can remember is firstly 3rd party witnesses were thin on the ground and the only description of the incident was that attached to the Protest Committee's (PC) determination which largely relied upon a generic case book sketch, not a incident specific sketch.

Namely Case Book #92 capturing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRC) Rule 14, (Avoiding Contact), Rule 16.1 (Changing Course) and Rule 16.2 (Changing Course). It is noted The Case Book complements the RRS, providing details on the application of the RRS to around 140 scenarios. See Case Book #92 sketch in pic below and RC's decision in this linky.

https://www.rqys.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Beachball-v-Cathjerine-Mary-DRAFT-DECISIONv2.pdf

I thought that absence of an incident specific sketch a bit odd at the time. The actual PC determination saying the Catamaran was the "give way" vessel, not the Mono was supported by such people as @shanghaisailor whose RRC knowledge and practical application is respected World Wide. Likewise the opinion of say @JimC quite correctly referencing a US Appeals Court decision in so far as enshrining a PC giving weight to the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRC) over that of COLREGS where there is any conflict.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1316530.html

C. SO WHAT'S LEFT?

The decision of the PC is now ancient history and all that remains is a Marine Safety Queensland (MSQ) response to a Marine Incident Report as submitted.

A quick reminder is that under the definition of  "collision regulations"  under the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR). The definition means the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea published by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) or COLREGS and for the avoidance of any doubt TOMSR. references those COLREGS as an Appendix to the Marine Orders - Part 30: Prevention of Collisions, Issue 8 (Cwlth) as follows.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/2017-08-25/sl-2016-0154&ved=2ahUKEwic7Jmq4cHgAhXLbSsKHTmeBhYQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw04TrKAM7kURiSdG56ckufX

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01187

COLREGS Rule 12 details actions to be taken when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so to de-risk any collision occuring, where one of them shall keep out of the way of the other. For those that struggle with the understanding black letter regulation without pictures, the video below may assist.

COLREGS Rule 12

Sailing vessels

(a)    When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:

(i)    when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other;

(ii)    when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;

(iii)    if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other.

(b)    For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite to that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a squarerigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore and aft sail is carried.

D. MSQ PROCESS

Having regard for my posts #52 and #57 above there is a guaranteed probability of an MSQ enquiry occuring and blame will be apportioned and MSQ will issue both skippers with a Marine Infringement Notice regarding this collision. The apportionment of blame may be subject to modern day realities of life and concepts of influence as outlined in my post #37 upthread.

That aside the MSQ investigating officer (Shipping Inspector by definition in QLD) has no option under COLREGS but to also consider these four (4) main things, independent of and not constrained by the RRS, and even if only based on the information being the PC decision founded on Case #92 and attached sketch below.

1. The first test is to ensure COLREGS Rule 12 applies being 12 (iii) where the potential "Give Way" vessel with wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and can or cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side. That aspect is without any argument so COLREGS Rule 12 applies.

2. From this point on the vessel under COLREGS Rule 12 deemed to be the "Give Way" vessel and so any delay acting accordingly is irrelevant, whilst maybe supported by the minutia of RRS (that made them potentially a "Stand On" vessel). The RRS then become truly irelevant under COLREGS Rule 12. The simple and fundamental fact is COLREGS Rule 12 where one of them shall keep out of the way of the other. In this instance by one vessel not following COLREGS Rule 12 a collision then eventuated.

3. The incident was severe. One vessel (Give Way vessel under COLREGS) lost its rig and through grace of God or otherwise, no one was killed or injured.

4. Not encumbered with the RRS, though possibly having regard to them when formulating a decision, the MSQ officer also has factors to also consider when apportioning blame for a collision. Such as:

(a). Relative Experience between the Parties.

The "Give Way" vessel whose Master has a family sailing pedigree to burn, a ex commercial Captain and commercial Harbour Pilot and a current Vice Commadore of a Yacht Club. The other party under COLREGS as the "Stand On" vessel a relative nobody by comparison.

(b). Vessel Characteristics.

Under COLREGS the "Give Way" vessel a mono hull enjoying good manoeuvrability and line of sight having regard to COLREGS 12 (iii). The "Stand On" vessel a multi-hull with arguably less comparitive manoeuvrability and less line of sight. See pic below.

Seawind-1000-XL-saloon-bed-Whitsunday-Escape-1024x683.thumb.jpg.7434daec2f70ac3c265fc4a33dcdb148.jpg

E. THE MSQ DECISION

This decision hasn't occured but by any objective assessment a decision that will go completely counter to the PC decision to only apportion blame to one party is virtually guaranteed, unless politics come into play. See my posts #37 and #57 above.

F. CONCLUSION

A FP piece written by @shanghaisailor just last week titled "What would elvstrom think?" 

https://sailinganarchy.com/2019/02/10/what-would-elvstrom-think

A great reminder but deficient in that it did not capture Race Organisers and Protest Committee's who have no concept that the definition of "impartiality" is; "free from bias, not having or showing an unfair tendency." But much more importantly is giving every "appearance" that bias doesn't apply. For that the Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron (RQYS) have failed in spades here.

The only thing left here is a MSQ decision proving that, unless they are got at.

medium.png

Jack - The fishing here sucks.  You put out 1000s of words of bait just to say that the RRS/SI will prevail and that while a PC usually dings one or the other boat, a regulator (federal/state) will usually apportion blame across both, and you didn't catch anything.  Even Gramp's socks stopped biting.  Face it; there just ain't enough here.  Insurance will fix the boats and meanwhile some drama lamas will claim favoritism and others will will cry conduct unbecoming but life will go on.  Silly multihullers.  JimC has it right. The nature of the damages suggests S belongs in the sin bin under any standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ncik said:

The principle is sound...it's the practicalities that are hard to fathom. How do you decide if S was hunting or trying to avoid a collision?

The thing to remember is that its more or less impossible to work out how to avoid a boat that's changing course, That's why both RRS and Colregs place such weight on the stand on boat standing on. To my mind the PC doesn't have to work out whether S was hunting, trying to avoid a collision, looking at the whales in the next bay or what.  They only have to work out whether S changed course before it was necessary to try and avoid a collision. This is just my opinion though, don't think I'm a major rules expert.

But yes, there may be circumstances where its appropriate to penalise both boats. Case 26 is an example. Case 88 is also worth looking at.

But going back to this one, lets suppose S is nervous Nelly and wants to act before its obvious P is not keeping clear.   If S tacks, its not too bad, but if, as in this case S attempts to duck port then port is completely out of options. If she tries to tack then Starboard will T bone. If she tries to luff up then if Starboard comes to her senses and stops bearing away there's going to be a worse collision, she's faced with a boat that is quite unpredictable.  The PC found that P was attempting to fulfil her obligation to keep clear of starboard, and starboard made it impossible. I don't suppose there was any malice in what S did, but the end result was she did the most stupid thing possible and caused a completely unnecessary collision that P had no way of preventing. That's why, given the facts found, I think the PC was correct not to penalise P. If there was doubt that P would have been able to keep clear of s if S had held her course it might be another matter.

Share this post


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

Jack - The fishing here sucks.  You put out 1000s of words of bait just to say that the RRS/SI will prevail and that while a PC usually dings one or the other boat, a regulator (federal/state) will usually apportion blame across both, and you didn't catch anything.  Even Gramp's socks stopped biting.  Face it; there just ain't enough here.  Insurance will fix the boats and meanwhile some drama lamas will claim favoritism and others will will cry conduct unbecoming but life will go on.  Silly multihullers.  JimC has it right. The nature of the damages suggests S belongs in the sin bin under any standard.

So @Wess do you mind if I call you Wheezer. So what I write sucks and you claim I'm just writing it to lay bait? Bait for who?

You really are a dead cunt and one that can't read or appreciate why people post in detail and like myself with exhaustive footnotes to support every utterance. The objective solely looking to make the sport better.

If you had read those 1,000 words you would have seen I stayed away from the RRC/PC decision entirely as it is dead issue. 

The only reference I made to that RRC/PC decision was in the absence of more detail it may inform decision making around a Marine Incident Report regarding a "collision involving two sailing boats" under the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR) and the the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (TOMSA) by the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld (MSQ). 

That PC decision was founded entirely on Case Book #92 capturing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRC) Rule 14, (Avoiding Contact), Rule 16.1 (Changing Course) and Rule 16.2 (Changing Course) and not a incident specific sketch. Case Book #92 being one of 140 RRS scenarios. There was no detailed incident sketch other than a descriptor in RRS speak.

Case Book #92

medium.png.cb15c16be1238d50164e55a07d89b5ce.png

I then made the comment that if MSQ were presented with nothing more than the PC's decision and Case Book #92 sketch above, then under TOMSA, TOMSR and COLREGS that MSQ could quite easily.determine that one vessel was at fault (the basis to COLREGS Rule 12) and one not in line with the PC's decision. However if there was shared responsibility, in all probability the one deemed to be not at fault by the PC's under the RRC would be deemed more at fault under TOMSA, TOMSR and COLREGS.

Whezzer you clear have a contrary opinion by simply stating; .  "JimC has it right. The nature of the damages suggests S belongs in the sin bin under any standard

Well firstly @JimC has not delved into MSQ standards under TOMSA and TOMSR probably because he comes from the UK, a pretty sensible decision of his. Secondly @JimC view on the PC decision is restricted to just the PC decision as published.  A view based entirely upon that no one can dispute unless having a partesan agenda and or having the benefit of 3rd party witnesses accounts not published. @JimC wasn't teleported from the UK do that is what he relies upon. Where were you teleported from? Another planet? So thirdly you have taken @JimC viewpoint to in your words; "suggests S belongs in the sin bin under any standard".  

@JimC is only interested in the RRC as just posted upthread and informative as always and as demonstrated to date. However he should be very pissed on having you extend his views to a jurisdiction and statutory decision making process some 17,000 klm distant and one which he understandaby has no interest in pursuing or has knowledge of. That said he might want to go down a local decision involving COLREGS Rule 12 in the future, I don't know.

You Wheezer are obviously of the view such a statutory outcome regarding COLREGS is just noise to you? I very seriously doubt both MSQ, the two vessel owners and their Insurers think like you.

That then brings me to you Whezzer. What exactly is your contribution here??

Someone whose next original thought will be their first ? Any possible thought outside that borrowing from others is then going to have a long and thirsty journey across your mind. Wheezer the only thoughts we see is the single paragraph like shit you just posted above and to which I reply herein. A common theme across many threads you post on I might add. That is why you get the dead cunt tag.

I would hate to put words into @LB 15 mouth but we are in unison on just one thing it is this. Wheezer if God hadn't have invented the Ventalin Inhaler, you would be well and truly fucked.

PS. If you think another of your bullshit replies to the above further 1,000 words I have invested in will hook me into continuing? Think again. I would rather gouge an eye out with a blunt spoon covered in battery acid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 10:45 PM, jack_sparrow said:

 

 

Clean like the US a state in Oz can amend national shit as it applies to its own jurisdiction within bounds. The aspect about COLREGS that @mccroc brought up is restricted to the state of NSW only as follows and only a couple of years old. 

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2016/308/sch4

In so far as the wording the exclusions are very limited, so not sure why it came into being in NSW? Some powerboat waterways racing? Maybe protecting competitors in S2H start from some rogue vessel who gets through the ropes?

Once you sign up to compete under SI's and RRS that's it as per your #2 world wide is my understanding. 

Someone like @lydia is maybe better placed to answer your query in more detail.

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 9:58 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

 

2) When you sign up for an event are you required to agree to be governed by the RRS?

In the US all events have #2, which guarantees that RRS cases don't go to court for much longer than it takes to throw them out.  Occasionally a personal injury case (crew vs. owner) gets to court, but those are non-RRS/COLREGS issues typically.

 

 

 

RRS 3.3(c)

Share this post


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

So @Wess do you mind if I call you Wheezer. So what I write sucks and you claim I'm just writing it to lay bait? Bait for who?

You really are a dead cunt and one that can't read or appreciate why people post in detail and like myself with exhaustive footnotes to support every utterance. The objective solely looking to make the sport better.

If you had read those 1,000 words you would have seen I stayed away from the RRC/PC decision entirely as it is dead issue. 

The only reference I made to that RRC/PC decision was in the absence of more detail it may inform decision making around a Marine Incident Report regarding a "collision involving two sailing boats" under the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR) and the the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (TOMSA) by the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld (MSQ). 

That PC decision was founded entirely on Case Book #92 capturing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRC) Rule 14, (Avoiding Contact), Rule 16.1 (Changing Course) and Rule 16.2 (Changing Course) and not a incident specific sketch. Case Book #92 being one of 140 RRS scenarios. There was no detailed incident sketch other than a descriptor in RRS speak.

Case Book #92

medium.png.cb15c16be1238d50164e55a07d89b5ce.png

I then made the comment that if MSQ were presented with nothing more than the PC's decision and Case Book #92 sketch above, then under TOMSA, TOMSR and COLREGS that MSQ could quite easily.determine that one vessel was at fault (the basis to COLREGS Rule 12) and one not in line with the PC's decision. However if there was shared responsibility, in all probability the one deemed to be not at fault by the PC's under the RRC would be deemed more at fault under TOMSA, TOMSR and COLREGS.

Whezzer you clear have a contrary opinion by simply stating; .  "JimC has it right. The nature of the damages suggests S belongs in the sin bin under any standard

Well firstly @JimC has not delved into MSQ standards under TOMSA and TOMSR probably because he comes from the UK, a pretty sensible decision of his. Secondly @JimC view on the PC decision is restricted to just the PC decision as published.  A view based entirely upon that no one can dispute unless having a partesan agenda and or having the benefit of 3rd party witnesses accounts not published. @JimC wasn't teleported from the UK do that is what he relies upon. Where were you teleported from? Another planet? So thirdly you have taken @JimC viewpoint to in your words; "suggests S belongs in the sin bin under any standard".  

@JimC is only interested in the RRC as just posted upthread and informative as always and as demonstrated to date. However he should be very pissed on having you extend his views to a jurisdiction and statutory decision making process some 17,000 klm distant and one which he understandaby has no interest in pursuing or has knowledge of. That said he might want to go down a local decision involving COLREGS Rule 12 in the future, I don't know.

You Wheezer are obviously of the view such a statutory outcome regarding COLREGS is just noise to you? I very seriously doubt both MSQ, the two vessel owners and their Insurers think like you.

That then brings me to you Whezzer. What exactly is your contribution here??

Someone whose next original thought will be their first ? Any possible thought outside that borrowing from others is then going to have a long and thirsty journey across your mind. Wheezer the only thoughts we see is the single paragraph like shit you just posted above and to which I reply herein. A common theme across many threads you post on I might add. That is why you get the dead cunt tag.

I would hate to put words into @LB 15 mouth but we are in unison on just one thing it is this. Wheezer if God hadn't have invented the Ventalin Inhaler, you would be well and truly fucked.

PS. If you think another of your bullshit replies to the above further 1,000 words I have invested in will hook me into continuing? Think again. I would rather gouge an eye out with a blunt spoon covered in battery acid.

But you will.  Like a bug to a light.  You do seem to like to hear yourself talk, LOL.

And you seem to ignore that the port side to port side damage also tells a story.  Its a bit hard to argue that P left their duck too late, and S was not hunting and didn't turn down way too early, if P was still able to turn down below S (after S already turned down!) such that port side to port side damage is the result. Its not just JimC who noted it.  Many did in the deleted thread. 

You have a lot of spare time on your hands Jack.  Your droning on about the definition of "impartiality" is right up Gramp's alley and while a nice distraction still doesn't change the fact that the decision appears well reasoned and once the stand on vessel didn't... P was screwed (by S).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhh dear Wheezer I can now see why you can't read and are feeling breathless.

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

If you had read those 1,000 words you would have seen I stayed away from the RRC/PC decision entirely as it is dead issue. 

The only reference I made to that RRC/PC decision was in the absence of more detail it may inform decision making around a Marine Incident Report regarding a "collision involving two sailing boats" under the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine. Safety) Regulation 2016 (TOMSR) and the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (TOMSA) by the General Manager of Maritime Safety Qld (MSQ)...

..You Wheezer are obviously of the view such a statutory outcome regarding COLREGS is just noise to you? I very seriously doubt both MSQ, the two vessel owners and their Insurers think like you..

tenor.gif.a3a01ed3b347206648abe82f43dcab7d.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So @jack_sparrow - With your latest saying you "stayed away from the RRC/PC decision" can we now safely assume you are also past continued whining about the definition of "impartiality" of same group?  And so now you are focused solely on "statutory outcome regarding COLREGS?"

PS - I told you, you would be back.  So easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that car on starboard?  Seems to be hunting for the guardrail?

I expected better Jack.  You are letting your game slip.

Because Jack  as you say  while "not encumbered with the RRS, though possibly having regard to them when formulating a decision, the MSQ officer" - right so far -  "decision hasn't occured but by any objective assessment a decision that will go completely counter to the PC decision."  No; not so much agreement on that last part.  Other than the rather obvious fact that the PC usually dings one and not both, whereas any regulator such as the MSQ is likely to apportion blame across both and not solely blame just one.... but in terms of people's life's going on... well...

It seems like a lot of drama just waiting for a "statutory outcome regarding COLREGS" that may never come and may not materially matter.  I would guess that repairs are underway - and maybe even insurance checks written well prior to said statutory outcome.

But do go on with your novelettes and pics/gifs!

PS - Be careful of that blunt spoon and battery acid.

Share this post


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

Other than the rather obvious fact that the PC usually dings one and not both, whereas any regulator such as the MSQ is likely to apportion blame across both and not solely blame just one...

Wheezer your original thoughts are just fucking awesome.

On 2/18/2019 at 4:59 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Obviously the above involves enough interpolation to be hardly reliable. However it may provide a picture that if you submit an Incident Report to MSQ involving a collision, then there is a very high probability blame will be apportioned and MSQ will issue both skippers with a Marine Infringement Notice regarding a collision. On average annualy this occurs every 3 weeks in SE QLD, though clearly it would be weighted more towards summer by the increase in traffic.

On the other hand if this occurs on the race course the Jury room will most times using the minutia of the RSS, only find one vessel at fault.

 

Share this post


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

It seems like a lot of drama just waiting for a "statutory outcome regarding COLREGS" that may never come and may not materially matter.  I would guess that repairs are underway - and maybe even insurance checks written well prior to said statutory outcome.

And as for that brain fart maybe consider the making of Marine Incident Reports are mandatory for collisions and these words from MSQ are;.

"Some insurance companies may require a marine incident report to validate claims."

https://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Safety/Marine-incidents

Then have a look at individual policies in terms of the Insured's responsibilities with regard to a marine incident and any claim and then having regard to the very small pool of marine insurers in Australia. 

Take a wild guess what that all means Wheezer?

Keep pitching up your drool fool.

fnc0bnih00qh570s0 (1).gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack - For somebody not responding you sure do go on and on.  Bit busy but will get back to you later.  But yea, I still think you are a drama lama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 4:59 PM, MRS OCTOPUS said:

Image result for seawind 1000

A long white cane is an option, apparently.  :)

Just joking, my bestie has a Seawind.

Friends don't let friends own condomarans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 12:58 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Help out a non-ozzie lawyer here Jack:

 

1) IS there a threshold number of participants that dictates whether you need to get an aquatic license for an event? 

 

2) When you sign up for an event are you required to agree to be governed by the RRS?

In the US all events have #2, which guarantees that RRS cases don't go to court for much longer than it takes to throw them out.  Occasionally a personal injury case (crew vs. owner) gets to court, but those are non-RRS/COLREGS issues typically.

 

 

 

@Mr. CLEAN1. There is no threshold number of participants that I am aware of. If you conduct any organised aquatic activity, you need an aquatic licence - sailing, surfing etc. You have to supply as much details as possible - maps of courses, rules to be used, whether any foreshore is used, a risk assessment document, etc etc. This year however NSW Roads and Maritime has dropped the requirement for sailing clubs to apply for separate licences - just notify them of what you are doing - the best thing? No more fees!

2. By entering in yacht races you agree to abide by the RRS,  Australia does not have a special prescription saying you cannot go to the courts, but usually courts are only where damages are decided if they can't be sorted out by Insurance companies. In the past it was a requirement of RMS  that the entry form or the NoR/SIs had to clearly state that the RRS applied.

It seems QLD is different in requiring reports of all incidents. In NSW we only have to report directly to them if there is injury or death, and when there is serious damage. As clubs we tend to have a hearing whenever there is serious damage, so we have it on record should RMS want to see our findings. Most insurance companies respect a Protest Hearing as a legitimate investigation into an incident, although i have had separate investigations where a party or the insurance company does not agree with the Protest findings.

@jack_sparrow S2H isn't why they introduced the amendment regarding RRS and Col;Regs - it is really more for harbour racing. Under ColRegs we couldn't really have close quarter mark roundings! So RMS are therefore satisfied if something happens that a Protest Committee can judge the incident purely on the RRS. However i chaired a Hearing recently where there was a collision between a racing yacht and a non-racing cruising yacht. This is the type of circumstance where the RRS do not apply, so I called it a Hearing. not a Protest Hearing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites