528 replies to this topic

[pogen]

What we really need is a wireless antenna unit for the masthead, that would be slick. No idea if one exists or if costs as much as a new boat if it does.

The VHF antenna (typically only about 20" long, with a impedance matching device at the base) actually radiates 25W of RF power, or the equivalent of 2A at 12 V, so there is no way to have a wireless device at the masthead that would not also need a very husky battery, somewhat defeating the purpose.

Moore 24s and the ilk may have short enough masts that they can get away with using RG-58 instead of RG-274 coax, the RG-58 being a lot lighter.

This whole discussion is getting kind of tiresome.

"My boat doesn't look cool with lifelines" waaaaa
"The dinky engine I installed is too small, and the fuel smells" waaaaa
"It is too much of a pain to run a masthead antenna" waaaaa

So are these rules to have some sort of wildcard feature, whereby all racers/owners can choose to ignore any one or two rules of their choice?

[NoStrings]

Thank you amigo, we're of similar mind on this one.

[NoStrings]

EStar, please don't encourage them. Seriously, most of the guys bitching have boats that are already prepped to sail to Hanalei Bay. I'm hearing a lot of sturm and drang over the definition and cost of safety...when in reality these guys are really just counting lbs that they may or may not have to carry.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Estar,

We agree that masthead 25watt VHF radios work better than handhelds - without question. Despite casc27 saying that they could hear everything Green Buffalo was saying from Richmond, I know from personal experience aboard various Race Committee boats, the StFYC and GGYC race decks and various other places that hunting down competitors who are much beyond Pt. Bonita by VHF is sketchy at best form inside the SF Bay. It is true that if the Organizing Authority will truck a radio out to the Marin headlands, then they can talk quite clearly to boats as far away as the Farallon. No repeater exists, thus trucking a radio out there is what folks do. A repeater would be a "very good idea" and it would be an even better idea if there was a channel that folks would dedicate to this sort of thing. If there was such a repeater on the Marin headlands, it is highly likely that the poor performing hand held VHFs would reach it easily.

Sorry I addressed the MOB situation and not comms with the RC. In an emergency the RC is not who folks call - they call the USCG. Thankfully, someone is usually nice enough to let us in the RC know what's happening sometime after the initial event. It is directly analogous to someone calling 911 when there is a car accident even though the car might be in a rally and have a "organizer". The RC is simply not the first call. As to tracking where everyone is, the folks who truck out to the Marin headlands have it right and it would be wonderful if someone would build a repeater out there. However, most are motivated by the safety concern and not the tracking concern.

As to your comment on MOB. That has been the single most common sort of emergency event in the Bay of Farallon racing. Any number of competitors, at least 12 that I know of, have been MOB during the various races held in the area. There was one boat, mentioned above, that lost its keel and flipped, a trimaran flipped near South Farallon, and there have been a handful who have lost their rigs. In all those cases a mast head antenna doesn't work. Between MOB, flips and dis-mastings you've probably got the vast majority of events in the area. In those cases a handheld VHF would be better, especially in the hands of the MOB.


NoStrings,

As to the "cost" issue and the expense of putting a VHF in each competitor's lifejacket, I was talking about DHF specifically. As it is currently a requirement that the boat have at least one VHF, and the NC-ORC proposal if for one fixed and one hand-held, I'd respectfully suggest that adding one more hand-held instead of the fixed masthead unit is less expensive than the NC-ORC proposal not more. That said, as Estar has correctly pointed out, it isn't as good a radio as a masthead antenna 25watt radio - provide the mast isn't in the water.


All,

Moore sailors take their rigs down a LOT - basically almost ever time they travel to a Roadmaster event. As a result, it would be easier to run the COAX up the inside of the mast than running it from the cabin to the stern then up the backstay. While the boom doesn't hit the backstay on this design, the top battens do and there would be a bit of chafe on the COAX if it were along the backstay. In the Moore fleet folks kill for a half a pound of weight reduction in the rig, so (IMHO) this requirement really is going to result in folks removing the antenna and the COAX after each ocean race before going buoy racing in the bay. (Or, not going ocean racing at all.)

I would also second the procedure suggestion that a competitor may "drop out" of a race anytime they want by confirming that they have informed the RC that they've withdrawn. Once they've done that, there shouldn't be a reason for the RC to hang about waiting for them, they've chosen to be on their own and are "accounted for".

Finally, casc27 is right that an outboard is useless in a Moore, Express-27 or a Santa Cruz 27 in any chop above about 3'; which means that it's useless most of the time in the Gulf of the Farallon in the spring and summer except late at night and very early in the morning. It is particularly useless when there is an ebb tide running against the wind. I'd suggest that people consider what sort of food and water requirements should be included if engines aren't required, of if ineffective engines are allowed. It took us two days to get in once on our Moore, in precisely this situation.

BV

[NoStrings]

The handheld VHF w I'll be no more than 6' above the water. A repeater at Pt. Bonita is at max 100' above the water. The combined RLOS is about 17 miles, not accounting for signal strength/ERP and Rx sensitivity. I could run a Longely Rice prop model for you, but the fact is that antenna height and the increased power of a 25w VHF will dominate. A handheld isn't even a close replacement.

[NoStrings]

And I'm telling you BV that if the concern is weight, then you need to sail with corrector weights to make up for the required safety gear tat you're too inconvenienced to put aboard. Honestly, the weight argument is nothing more than bullshit and you should be ashamed to bring it into a discussion about safety.

Nick Salvador

[tolachi]

And I'm telling you BV that if the concern is weight, then you need to sail with corrector weights to make up for the required safety gear tat you're too inconvenienced to put aboard. Honestly, the weight argument is nothing more than bullshit and you should be ashamed to bring it into a discussion about safety.

Nick Salvador

I think more of BV's concern is the Moore 24 participation dropping to < 1/2 in the 2013 DHF. Most of the fleet deciding they don't want to spend thousands of dollars and weeks of work to do a race every other year. The thinking being that the new requirements are onerous and ridiculous for a 24' boat that they have been racing around the farallones for 30 years. And at the end of the day Moore 24s virtually disappear from ocean racing.

Regarding weight. The percentage of total displacement this safety equipment constitutes is much greater for a 2050 lb Moore 24. I don't want to put a bunch of crap on my boat that is in reality useless.

[BobJ]

Hence my comment earlier in the thread that a small boat highly optimized for OD racing may not be a good candidate for conversion to an ocean racer. The Express 27's and Moore 24's that regularly race outside are not also at the top of their OD fleets, correct?

Like pogen, I'm getting weary of this. The committee has done a great job of listening and paring back the requirements to the essentials. If we could require 100% DSC compliance today, Rescue 21 would allow paring back a bit more on the communications side - but the USCG has struggled for years to get DSC into wide use.

I'd still like to see the outboard/fuel issue addressed realistically.


Happy Birthday Beau.

[tolachi]

Moore sailors take their rigs down a LOT - basically almost ever time they travel to a Roadmaster event. As a result, it would be easier to run the COAX up the inside of the mast than running it from the cabin to the stern then up the backstay. While the boom doesn't hit the backstay on this design, the top battens do and there would be a bit of chafe on the COAX if it were along the backstay. In the Moore fleet folks kill for a half a pound of weight reduction in the rig, so (IMHO) this requirement really is going to result in folks removing the antenna and the COAX after each ocean race before going buoy racing in the bay. (Or, not going ocean racing at all.)

Agreed. FWIW 30' LMR 240 cable (1 lb) and a 15' shakespeare 5216 antenna (6oz) plus some fittings... = not as heavy as I had thought and < $100 in materials. And, I would put it up the mast and take it out for fleet racing.

Based on the comments about LSC with the SAS experience, professional crew, lifelines, jack lines... How much are these rules going to mediate risk? Would simply requiring people to to stay clipped in to jacklines throughout the race do more to improve safety than all the masthead antennas, engines, etc...? I'm all for doing things that will significantly decrease fatalities in the gulf of the farallones. Not so excited about spending a lot of time and money just to have fewer boats to race against.

[pogen]

Here are the Moore registrations for DHF the last few years. 2010: 6 2011:10 2012:2
I'm not sure how the safety gear reqs have changed over this time. And this is only one race.

40 feet of RG-58 coax weighs 1.04 lb.

An EPIRB I checked weighs 580 gram. Is this too much?

Edit: Maybe you guys should consider how many boats you will loose if you cannot preserve even the illusion of fairness

[tolachi]

Hence my comment earlier in the thread that a small boat highly optimized for OD racing may not be a good candidate for conversion to an ocean racer. The Express 27's and Moore 24's that regularly race outside are not also at the top of their OD fleets, correct?

2011 Moore 24 DHF winner also won 3 other roadmaster events and the season overall. Same for place #2, and #3 that year.
2009 Moore 24 DHF 1st, 2nd, 3rd were in top 5 for the roadmaster season.
2007 Moore 24 DHF 3 of the top 5 top 1,2,3 for the roadmaster season. All of the top finishers had heavy participation in overall series.

Looking at the Express 27 site I see a lot of DHF winners that I recognize from fleet racing: El Raton, MC Irene, Diane

BobJ, I still think your statement is inaccurate though I can see it would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.

Pogen, the race is only officially part of the Moore 24 schedule on odd years. 2007 pre-crash = 21 registrants..., 2009 = 15

I know there are some differing opinions, but that I assume that was the point of a public discussion. And, now that OEJ has disappeared, I think the participants are people who these rules will actually affect that would like to see the best outcome for ocean racing and safety.

Edited by tolachi, 13 November 2012 - 01:28 AM.

[NoStrings]

Then don't race on the ocean. It's really that simple. If you want to play, then play by the rules. NCORC is going way over and above what should be required to get you guys out there. You seem to neglect the fact that if EVERYONE is similarly equipped, there's no real weight advantage. To the contrary, you guys are more focused on weight/performance...which is frankly irrelevant. Stay in the damn bay. Those lightweight boats that have been adequately equipped in past years will continue to participate...Why? Because the NCORC has bent over backwards to keep them involved. The rest of you wankers that want EVERYTHING your way...well who the hell really cares about you selfish pricks anyway.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

BobJ - I'll only point you at El Raton that has won multiple season championships in the Express-27 fleet and races outside the bay a LOT, as one of many counterexamples. It is NOT the case that the boats that race outside are not at the top of the OD fleet. This is because the fleets race inside and outside and have for many years often included ocean races as a part of their annual championship season. Thus, the fast boats inside the bay are also the fast boats outside. If this were up to me, we'd all have 25 watt radios and they'd all be at the masthead. That's what I did with my bigger boat, but the Moore, Express and Santa Cruz 27 fleets don't currently have such gear, so we run the risk of excluding them. (Thanks for the birthday wishes - I feel pretty OLD!!!)

Nick - I have never ever complained about weight per se. I am complaining about weight in the rig. Sure, if everyone had a 2' whip with a coil, mounting bracket and COAX in their rigs all the time - it wouldn't be a problem. The difficulty is that for these three very successful ocean racing classes, which have done multiple Hawaii races and even won them, almost none of them have antenna atop the mast. So, by requiring this, the organizing authority may de facto eliminate three perfectly competent and well proven classes from the competition. It's not something one should do lightly or because folks think this is whining.

Each of these classes has weight limits, their boats are weighted, their crews are weighed (all things that I doubt you can say about the weight claims made on PHRF certificates) so they know exactly what the boats should and do weigh. If the fleets were to agree to add 25lb or 50lb of gear, then this would be a no-brainer (other than the expense). But, the vast majority of these fleet members don't seem to think it's necessary and point to their long and successful history as racers on exactly these waters as evidence. As a result, what is being discussed could result in loosing three affordable great sailing boat designs from these events. It's not a consequence that any of the organizing authorities would enjoy, nor would the fleets.

Nick, don't say silly stuff like "you should be ashamed" when your attributing motives to me that I don't have and haven't given any indication of having. A quick look at the history of the last few years will show that I haven't raced my Moore in a while, I've been focused on another boat. I personally don't care about the weight or the cost. My motives are a desire to see the sport survive and attendance actually grow rather than shrink.

Thankfully, regardless of what we say here and whatever the NC-ORC settles on for a MER, it really will be up to the Organizing Authority and ultimately up to the competitors. I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I'm just gravely concerned about loosing well qualified boats from our fleet and retaining crab crushers with a lot of gear and only a fraction of the actual seaworthiness.

Beau

[Beau.Vrolyk]

...snip... The rest of you wankers that want EVERYTHING your way...well who the hell really cares about you selfish pricks anyway.

Nick, are you off your meds? What's with this? This is, after all, Sailing Anarchy. We are, as stated at the very beginning, trying to have a discussion about a proposed set of regulations. These are NOT the rules, and haven't even been proposed to be the rules. They are a set of recommendations on how to make things simpler and easier for folks. NC-ORC doesn't write rules. Part of the discussion is to examine the consequences of what has been proposed.

Exactly who asked for "EVERYTHING" and just what justifies you to talk about my "prick" anyway??

Geesh, have a beer and calm down.

BV

[Estar]

Personally

Regarding flares...My friend Ashley recommends that when you fire your flares, that you do it in pairs.

Firing two at a time is a good idea - if you have enough - but of course it burns thru them twice as fast.

My suggestion/comment regarding flares is that you have someone fire one off 4nm from your position so you actually see what they look like from a realistic rescue distance. The typical seminar flare firing, right in front of your face, is pretty misleading as to their visibility/effectiveness. I have suggested Ashley try to orgainze this for her seminar - not sure if she is able to.

There was one boat, mentioned above, that lost its keel and flipped, a trimaran flipped near South Farallon, and there have been a handful who have lost their rigs. ..... In those cases a handheld VHF would be better.

We can certainly agree that masthead antenna are not very useful if the boat is flipped or dismasted.

Personally, I carry a spare antenna and coax for the latter possibility.

[casc27]

Estar,

Despite casc27 saying that they could hear everything Green Buffalo was saying from Richmond, I know from personal experience aboard various Race Committee boats, the StFYC and GGYC race decks and various other places that hunting down competitors who are much beyond Pt. Bonita by VHF is sketchy at best form inside the SF Bay.

Not to quibble, but that was NoStrings who claimed to have heard Green Buffalo et. al. from Richmond. And it seems to me he was mentioning this in support of masthead antennae as the presence of such on Green B was explicitly mentioned. You will never hear a thing from me in favor of an alternate to a proper MH antenna. Besides, I'd hate to take credit for NoStrings insights.

[casc27]

Finally, casc27 is right that an outboard is useless in a Moore, Express-27 or a Santa Cruz 27 in any chop above about 3'; which means that it's useless most of the time in the Gulf of the Farallon in the spring and summer except late at night and very early in the morning. It is particularly useless when there is an ebb tide running against the wind. I'd suggest that people consider what sort of food and water requirements should be included if engines aren't required, of if ineffective engines are allowed. It took us two days to get in once on our Moore, in precisely this situation.

BV

That's one of the reasons I have a towing insurance policy that will send a boat out to the rocks. I don't feel like spending a week out there. But mostly because I know if I lose the mast there is no way I am going to be able to motor home unless it's practically flat calm. And if a rescue is coordinated I will have to abandon my boat, which I do not want to do. I do bring enough food for an extra day (MRE type nasty junk, but you won't starve) and extra water (about 2 liters per person). I suppose if I had been trying to return for long enough that we were out of food and water, well, that's an emergency that might require an evacuation rescue. On the other hand, I heard a story years ago about a Cal 20 becalmed a few miles from Oahu after sailing across from the mainland purchasing a paddle to finally make it to the island. Maybe a paddle works better than an outboard...

[BobJ]

I clearly stand corrected on the top OD class boats also winning in the ocean. So that means they have already been complying with a much longer MEL, right? Or did they only do the DHF?

An aside - I took several long looks at the photo of Gilles' Moore. Beautiful prep/optimization. Then I remembered that photo of the two Cal 40's coming back past Mile Rock one year (in short seas so high you could only see their sails) and I thought, "No I wouldn't go out there in Gilles' boat - no way Jose."

Getting old I guess.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

BobJ,

The Moore, Express and SC-27 fleets have been complying with the various Min Equip Regs that have been in effect, but to the best of my knowledge those haven't involved a few things like masthead antennas, permanently mounted VHF, electronic depth finders, higher lifelines, and the longer powering distance. Look, I personally think that a masthead antenna is a great idea - I put one on my bigger boat for precisely that reason. It is a great idea. (Sorry to confuse you and NoStrings, casc27) I just don't want us to eliminate a set of boats that have a great racing and safety record for something unless we really REALLY believe that it's critically important; or we can become convinced that we can show them how they can comply with the tougher rules easily.

I think a concrete step that some of us could do is actually show folks how to build a quick instal/removal radio, life-lines, pulpits etc.... After a little work I got it down to 15 minutes to completely remove my lifelines from my bigger boat - that isn't a big deal. Going up the mast or taking the mast down is a bigger deal, but as I said about the Moore, they do that often for traveling Roadmaster regattas. Boats with keel stepped masts would be tougher, but not impossible, so even the O-30 could probably pull it and put it up when needed.

BV

[casc27]

BobJ,

The Moore, Express and SC-27 fleets have been complying with the various Min Equip Regs that have been in effect, but to the best of my knowledge those haven't involved a few things like masthead antennas, permanently mounted VHF, electronic depth finders, higher lifelines, and the longer powering distance. Look, I personally think that a masthead antenna is a great idea - I put one on my bigger boat for precisely that reason. It is a great idea. (Sorry to confuse you and NoStrings, casc27) I just don't want us to eliminate a set of boats that have a great racing and safety record for something unless we really REALLY believe that it's critically important; or we can become convinced that we can show them how they can comply with the tougher rules easily.

I think a concrete step that some of us could do is actually show folks how to build a quick instal/removal radio, life-lines, pulpits etc.... After a little work I got it down to 15 minutes to completely remove my lifelines from my bigger boat - that isn't a big deal. Going up the mast or taking the mast down is a bigger deal, but as I said about the Moore, they do that often for traveling Roadmaster regattas. Boats with keel stepped masts would be tougher, but not impossible, so even the O-30 could probably pull it and put it up when needed.

BV

BV,

That second paragraph is a very nice idea. This thread has already served a bit of that kind of purpose in that some good ideas about was to meet these requirements have already been exchanged. It might even be worth pointing out that a house VHF is not really very permanent in its installation. I could remove mine in about 10 minutes (discounting dropping the mast).

The bottom line here is that we are going to have to have MH antennas to race outside in 2013. (Personally I think this is a good thing.) And more gas (I hate gas, it burns and it scares me but at least I don't smoke) and longer anchor rodes. At least BobJ has told me ho w to make dealing with the large coil easier by splitting it in two. And I read something about plaited anchor line, which was also news to me. Hey, I even learned how pushpit originated (and that it rankles B. Perry).

Thanks again to the committee for getting the MEL out publicly so early. And thanks to all the insightful and useful posts from people like BobJ, BV, NoStrings et. al.

[NoStrings]

BV, I stand by my statements because the only rationale that you've proposed for waiving particular requirements is weight...I.e. performance. You can't argue that a handheld radio is as food as a masthead radio because that dog just won't hunt. You're talking about a pound of cable and a radio that has significantly greater ERP. That ERP translates in the ability to communicate over greater distances. You know it, don't even try to argue the point.
You guys are already getting waivers for lifelines etc., when the Moore 24 was originally delivered with pulpits and lifelines. Hell man, you're responsible for the OD optimization that has made the boat non compliant under ORC.
So yes, if I sound pissed, it's because I am. I spent an enormous amount of energy and capital to make my boat ORC compliant, and now I'm watching you gentlemen kicking the door open to allow boats equipped as day sailors to compete with the boats that are seriously invested in ocean racing safety.

I have a serious issue with fairness, and I'm not seeing it.

[NoStrings]

I'm not done. You're griping about the egregious fuel requirement, claiming that in any sea state greater than 2' the outboard is useless. No argument...except that in a 2' sea state you guys are almost planing. The only time you have a real problem is when there is NO wind...and then sea state isn't as much of an issue is it? In Puget Sound, you guys would have that outboard permanently mounted on the stern. I'd say that ya'll are getting by pretty easy here in SF.

Yes, I am coming on kind of strong, and no, I'm not on any kind of meds. The fact is that the OYRA had an MEL based upon the experience of the 79 Fastnet and 98 Hobart races, and many of us made the investments to prepare our boats and crews to that standard. The SSS MEL frankly was the lowest common denominator...it worked for the singlehanders because for the most part no one gave a damn if they killed themselves. (sorry Bobby, but that's the damn truth). NCORC, in the quest to appease everyone used the SSS MEL as the point of departure for this exercise, largely because of the numbers game...IOW there are more shorthanded than crewed boats racing in the Gulf of the Farallones.

This entire exercise just galls me. We either learn from the experiences of our tragedies or we don't. IMHO, waivers from the lowest common denominator of safety equipment isn't the direction that we should be moving, and making exceptions for boats that have been configured as inshore OD daysailors (in spite of their historic record as offshore racers) isn't the direction we should be moving.

[BobJ]

I have spent hundreds of hours working on the SSS requirements (both for SHTP and the other races) because I DO give a damn about the single-handers. I'm certainly not alone.

You think you're smarter than a guy like Evans because you've done a couple Summer races to Hawaii? I don't think so. I think it's time for you to STFU Nick.

[casc27]

NS, you can rant all you want. In the end it won't change a thing. Just like BV can plead for special allowances for the Moore fleet. That also won't change a thing. No doubt those Moore sailors who really want to race on the ocean will figure out how to make the needed changes. You can bet your next month's pay that we will be required to have MH antennas and life-lines and toe rails from the bow back to the breasts sitting abeam the mast etc. next year. Unfortunately, none of this noise adds anything constructive to the conversation.

[amperrin]

Evans, regarding the radar reflector, does it change your opinion if AIS transceivers are not in the mix? Also remember it's foggy out the Gate much of the season.
First, I think (based on the tests and experience) the passive reflectors are so ineffective in the real world to be not much more than lucky charms.

Unfortunately radar reflectors give a false sense of security. For every one degree off the vertical you lose 10% of the reflection.
So no heeling people and putting a MOBI on your diagonals makes them even more useless than they already were especially if you have two on your rig and are in radar stealth mode.

[K38BOB]

Any chance the Moore 24 class rule includes masthead VHF in the near future?
and the Moore 24 fleet btw is important to the viability of DHF..we could always raise fees to compensate if we lose the fleet.
Hard to believe that we routinely had 120 boats in this race for decades up to the dot com bubble burst.

[sailingisforfaggytwats]

do you even sail bruh

[VALIS]

Unfortunately radar reflectors give a false sense of security. For every one degree off the vertical you lose 10% of the reflection.
So no heeling people and putting a MOBI on your diagonals makes them even more useless than they already were especially if you have two on your rig and are in radar stealth mode.

Agreed, radar reflectors are largely useless. The Mobri-type are almost completely useless. A few points though:
1) My Davis radar reflector doesn't give me a false sense of security, because I understand how poorly it functions.
2) 10% per degree off-axis isn't correct. Starting with the Davis in the "catch rain" orientation, the effective return (based on cross section) drops by about 6dB with a 15-degree tilt. 6dB is 1/4 power, or 25%. At a 30-degree tilt the return is about -20dB (5%), which is really, really, bad.
3) The only way the Mobri works at all is when it is tilted, so on the diagonals might be best. It is still fairly useless though.

About VHF and AIS coverage to the Farallones, the USCG has a tower above Pt. Bonita, so they have a good VHF signal and reception. A friend of mine has been looking into a permanent VHF remote station on the Marin headlands, for race committee use. I don't know how far this project has gone, but it seems like a good idea.

I believe that VTS has an AIS base station above Pt. Bonita, but I don't know if USCG SAR has access to this AIS data. The hobbyist AIS receiver network has some coverage holes around the Farallones. I think my own AIS site in the hills above Bodega Bay may have the best ocean coverage, and I have a hard time seeing Class-B signals to the SW of the Islands. Class-A is a little better. If we did eventually require AIS transponders, a receive site near Pt. Bonita could be very useful (unless your boat loses its mast-mounted AIS antenna).

[Presuming Ed]

The Qinetic radar reflector report commissioned by the UK MAIB after the loss of the Ouzo.5 years old now, admittedly. http://www.maib.gov....tors report.pdf

5 Conclusions
The following is concluded;
· The Sea-Me is a good example of an active reflector (RTE) exceeding the requirements of the current and future ISO 8729 at heel/elevation angles of up to 15&#730;, it is also very small and light. Drawbacks are that it requires power to operate (which on a yacht is at a premium), it will only operate at X-Band and will offer no performance at S-Band.

· The POLARef shows excellence is possible but at a price, technically it just fails meet current ISO8729 [1] or its replacement [2]. The main drawbacks are it is very costly at £2000 and its quite heavy at around 5kg. It is currently used as a radar measurement standard although it could possibly be re-engineering forcommercial production which could reduce the price.

· The Large Tri-Lens performs well especially at larger angles of heel and elevation, it just falls short of ISO8729 [1] having a peak RCS of 8.5m2 but otherwise performs well. It is the heaviest reflector supplied for test at 5.5kg and costs around £300.

· The Echomax 230 narrowly failed to meet ISO8729 during this testing, but showed good peak and average RCS performance. The reflector is reasonably priced at £130 and weighs 2.4kg; the main drawback was a RCS drop-off above an elevation angle of 10&#730;.

· The Firdell Blipper 210-7 narrowly failed to meet ISO8729 during this testing, but showed good peak and average RCS performance. The Blipper is priced at £130 and weighs 1.8kg; the main drawback was a RCS drop-off above an elevation angle of 10&#730;.

· The Standard Tri Lens does not meet ISO8729 as the peak RCS was too low at 4m2. However its consistent RCS response outperformed most of the other reflectors when heeled over beyond 10&#730;; it is reasonably priced at £130 and weighs 2.5kg.

· The Plastimo 16” octahedral is inexpensive at £16 and lightweight at 0.65kg but failed to meet ISO8729 in either tested position. It had reasonable peak and average performance averaging around 2m2 but had wide nulls which kept its stated performance level down. Other drawbacks are that its mounting arrangement is by suspension only (often in an unfavourable position) and could be subject to damage.

· The Davis Echomaster failed to get close to ISO8729 during this testing. Its peak RCS is too low at 7.5m2 and its average performance is only 1.75m2. This reflector is priced at £60 and is lightweight; it can be mounted on a rod as well as by suspension (in the correct catch-rain position).· The 4” tube reflector performed very poorly.

· It is concluded that either the active Sea-Me, POLARef and the Standard or Large Tri-Lens radar reflectors are the best reflectors at heel and elevation angles of over 10&#730;.6

Recommendations
·Based on the results of this report it is recommended that yachtsmen always fit a radar reflector that offers the largest RCS practicable for their vessel.
· The RCS of the radar reflector should have a minimum consistent RCS of 2m2.
· The Sea-Me is the recommended product if power is available· If power is not available then the passive Large Tri-Lens reflector is recommended· The 4” tube reflector is not considered suitable due to its poor performance. It is also recommended that the 2” tube reflector is not suitable since the performance of this target will be even lower.
· It is recommended that poorly performing radar reflectors are not fitted as it is possible that the user could be lulled into a false sense of security believing that their chances of detection has been enhanced.

[Estar]

Unfortunately ....

Welcome back from the mountains!

Do I remember correctly that you are a Moore 24 owner? Do you have a masthead vhf antenna?

NS, you can rant all you want. Just like BV can plead for special allowances for the Moore fleet.

The committee may have hit some sort of sweet spot, if we have balanced rants from both ends of the spectrum

[Estar]

If we could require 100% DSC compliance today, Rescue 21 would allow paring back a bit more on the communications side - but the USCG has struggled for years to get DSC into wide use.

Just as a bit of an aside, Rescue21 does not entirely depend on DSC compliance. One expensive part of the Rescue 21 project was much improved RDF capability for regular VHF signals. The USCG does not play it up much, but they now (with Rescue21) have automatic graphic RDF displays with 2 degree accurate bearings from multiple towers which gives them an essentially immediate position on VHF signals. The accuracy of this out at the farallones, which is at the extreme end of the rescue 21 RDF specification, is apparently about a 1/2 miles sort of box, with increased accuracy as the signal comes closer to the mainland.

That said, a DSC mayday obviously significantly improves on this - with a say 10m accurate gps position.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Estar,

Thanks for the info on RDF capabilities for Rescue21, I was wondering about that as it makes a lot of sense. As you know, I'm a big fan of DSC because it solves both the local boat-2-boat and the USCG needs. I must say that one could write a pretty simple "location and tracking" rule that said something like:

All boats shall be equipped with at least DSC when racing within XX (pick your number) miles of shore and EPIRB when racing beyond that limit.

I wonder what you'd choose for XX in the above? Would it work out to 20 miles? Also, while a VHF antenna on the USCG tower on the Marin headlands would be great for RC use - really great! - why wouldn't the USCG just put a Rescue21 antenna on South Farallon? I haven't asked them, but think it's a reasonable idea. They have the power - it runs the light - but it may be that the backhaul is fiber or something similar and a microwave link to S. Farallon would be too expensive. Comments?

BV

[Estar]

I wonder what you'd choose for XX in the above? Would it work out to 20 miles?

The USCG had a committee trying to require beacons (Epirbs) for all vessels going beyond 3nm from shore. A civilian advisory board pointed out that was not necessary or reasonable given the rescue 21 capability, and that requiring vhf for 3-20nm + beacons past 20 or 25nm would be more reasonable.

Hawaii has a reg that requires either a vhf or epirb beyond 1nm. They recommend an epirb past 25nm from shore but it is not a requirement. Hawaii does have distinctively 'offshore' coastal waters.

The plain fact is that there are relatively few incidents and lives lost beyond 20nm - although when they happen they can be extensive/expensive rescue efforts.

Also, while a VHF antenna on the USCG tower on the Marin headlands would be great for RC use - really great! - why wouldn't the USCG just put a Rescue21 antenna on South Farallon? I haven't asked them, but think it's a reasonable idea. They have the power - it runs the light - but it may be that the backhaul is fiber or something similar and a microwave link to S. Farallon would be too expensive. Comments?

I don't know much about the technical aspects of remote antenna . . . Paul or one of the radio experts might better comment on the pros and pitfalls of that.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

NoStrings,

Perhaps I should put smily faces in when making jokes about "meds". However, there are some things in your post that are quite disturbing. I apologize to everyone for the length of this post, but this has to be answered, IMHO.

BV, I stand by my statements because the only rationale that you've proposed for waiving particular requirements is weight...I.e. performance. You can't argue that a handheld radio is as food as a masthead radio because that dog just won't hunt. You're talking about a pound of cable and a radio that has significantly greater ERP. That ERP translates in the ability to communicate over greater distances. You know it, don't even try to argue the point.

NoStrings, I have repeatedly said (when having exactly this discussion with Estar) that I agree that a Masthead Antenna would work better than a handheld. You may have missed that. I'll say it again, I agree. But, that's not the point. The real question is what is the minimum that is required to have folks reach an acceptable level of safety. This is why the NC-ORC document is titled: "Minimum Equipment Requirements". It is not the maximum or even the best equipment requirements - it's the minimum.

As I'm sure you're aware, it is simply not possible to insure that everyone will be safe at all times. So, by setting out on any sailboat race one assumes some level of risk. The question is not is X better or safer than Y, the question is about the minimum that should be required and what level of risk of injury or death a competitor is willing to take. There are numerous great examples of technologies that used to be required for ocean racing and aren't any longer. Each time the Minimum Equipment Requirements are discussed, the desire of most people is to reduce the expense and complexity for an acceptable level of risk.

You may have a different view of what acceptable is, which is just fine, but don't expect everyone to agree with you and get pissy about it when they don't.

You guys are already getting waivers for lifelines etc., when the Moore 24 was originally delivered with pulpits and lifelines. Hell man, you're responsible for the OD optimization that has made the boat non compliant under ORC.
So yes, if I sound pissed, it's because I am. I spent an enormous amount of energy and capital to make my boat ORC compliant, and now I'm watching you gentlemen kicking the door open to allow boats equipped as day sailors to compete with the boats that are seriously invested in ocean racing safety.

I have a serious issue with fairness, and I'm not seeing it.

When you say "you're" I assume you mean "you all" or "you guys" as opposed to me personally, because if you think I'm responsible for changes in the Moore or any other fleet you've vastly overestimated my influence. Why don't we say that "Moore sailors" and be bit less ambiguous? Further, when you say "ORC compliant" I assume you mean the OYRA version of the "ISAF Offshore Special Regulations" which is a highly modified subset of the the complete OSRs.

First, I bought my Moore-24 as a new boat right from the factory and still have the original invoice around here someplace from 1981. Lifelines and pulpits were an option for sailing offshore. I did order them. Deleting them was not then, and is not now, an optimization for one design racing; it is simply complying with the class rules. Further, there are plenty of Moores, Expresses, and Santa Cruz 27s that have always complied with the off shore regs as modified by the various local organizing authorities. For the races they have entered. Those boats have not been "OD optimized" to make them "non compliant", rather those of us who want to go in off shore races have added a lot of stuff to make our boats legal under the regulations being applied by the OA. Like you, this took a lot of money, time and effort.

Second, The POINT of this discussion is to bring up situations where the NC-ORC proposal goes BEYOND what has previously been required for these races. These are not items that where required previously nor is anyone is asking that an item be removed from the Minimum Regulations for that race. You need to read through the regulations that we've been sailing under again if you missed it. But to help out what the BAMA regulations say (to use lifelines as an example) is:

"Lifelines or safety lines leading from both sides of the cockpit forward and well secured at each end."

Note that either lifelines or safety lines are required under the long standing BAMA rules. Thus, the ADDITION of lifelines and pulpits to the minimum requirements to "surround" (to quote the NC-ORC) is a stronger requirement and will cost sailors additional money, energy and effort to comply. Your comment that someone is trying to "kick the door open" is simply incorrect with respect to the DHF and BAMA races. It is precisely and exactly the opposite of what you've claimed. The same is true of fixed VHF and masthead antennas.

While the OYRA version and modifications to the ISAF Special Offshore Regs do include Lifelines, pulpits etc... there are many here in this discussion and racing outside of the Gate who don't participate in OYRA races. The NC-ORC has attempted to provide a standard MINIMUM set of requirements which all ocean racers could conform to. It is up to the Organizing Authority to decide if it wants to use the NC-ORC recommended minimum or do something else. In addition, every Organizing Authority is perfectly capable of adding additional requirements they feel are important, the addition of a life raft to the Long Pac being a great example.

Now, as to "fairness". Precisely what is unfair about discussing an INCREASE in the regulations and requirements for equipment? One, I might add, that favors racers who as a result of racing in other races already have the equipment. Again, you've got it precisely backwards. The Moore, Express and Santa Cruz 27 fleets are (most of them) perfectly legal under the current BAMA regulations. This is a discussion about forcing currently legal entrants in a long standing race to buy more stuff and modify their boats to make them conform to ADDITIONAL requirements. No one is kicking any door open to a race. What you are proposing is that racers who have raced in the DHF under BAMA's current regulations be eliminated from the race because they don't conform to a set of requirements that you do conform to.

Explain exactly what's fair about your proposal that current competitors be eliminated while you get to continue to race?

It is hypocrisy in the extreme to hide behind outrage when, in fact, it is you who are proposing something that is obviously self-serving and unfair to competitors who have been competing successfully and safely under the rules for years.

I'll stop ranting now, but this was really too much.

Beau

[K38BOB]

If we could require 100% DSC compliance today, Rescue 21 would allow paring back a bit more on the communications side - but the USCG has struggled for years to get DSC into wide use.

Just as a bit of an aside, Rescue21 does not entirely depend on DSC compliance. One expensive part of the Rescue 21 project was much improved RDF capability for regular VHF signals. The USCG does not play it up much, but they now (with Rescue21) have automatic graphic RDF displays with 2 degree accurate bearings from multiple towers which gives them an essentially immediate position on VHF signals. The accuracy of this out at the farallones, which is at the extreme end of the rescue 21 RDF specification, is apparently about a 1/2 miles sort of box, with increased accuracy as the signal comes closer to the mainland.

That said, a DSC mayday obviously significantly improves on this - with a say 10m accurate gps position.

Here's an interesting graphic found while looking into Rescue 21 (and what does it take to implement? have to believe a cellular modem type device would work at the top of Maintop/SEF) Heres the ref link http://www.navcen.us...?pageName=mtNds


and if you drill down in the above link to our Sector SF of District 11 (btw- the Farallones are part of San Francisco)

you get this graphic


Seems like the Drakes Bay blackout would be served well by Rescue 21 on Maintop/SEF too. Maybe we should have a minimum crew reach requirement of 2 M in the case of dismasting? :-)

[pogen]

Let's all try to reduce the emotional temperature here, shall we?

I think in the conversation we have lost track that the goal of the regs is to have a uniform minimum standard for OYRA, DHF, DHLS, SSS Ocean, Spin Cup and Windjammers. The DHF has historically had a lighter standard of gear. Overall, the proposed regs represent a reduction of gear needed. I strongly support the idea of a uniform standard for all races, otherwise racers will be out buying 200' rode to do one race and replace the 180' of rode they just bought to do some other race.

And to say, "we didn't need such and such back in the good old days", well these aren't the good old days. These are the days where you can be shut down if your fleet does not have EPIRBS and all sorts of other stuff.

[K38BOB]

^ and Coastal Cup and the Hawaii races. Essentially any ocean race permit issued in Sector SF (oregon to big sur to tahoe) which includes those races that finish outside the sector- 24 races last year (the Hawaii races have a permit for each day so some races are multiple permits). But yes generally.."agree where you can and make it easy to see where you are different"

Here's the list in the cloud with private info deleted
https://www.box.com/...xx0jnlotj5r9xz4

[amperrin]

Welcome back from the mountains!
Do I remember correctly that you are a Moore 24 owner? Do you have a masthead vhf antenna?

The mountains were amazing I know there isn't any sailing but you should go to Nepal.

Yes I own a moore but I dont race on the ocean so it is not set up for offshore so no masthead VHF. I have a masthead VHF on the Capo 30 and went exactly with the rules on the 40% loss on coax the result is that I can hear the Norwegians when I am off Ireland and I get no sleep! (maybe an exaggeration :-)) but seriously with the heavier coax in my rig I actually ended up with a very effective VHF set. The AIS antennae is at deck level I didn't go with a splitter.

I have a spare coax running down the starboard side of the boat and out the stern so if my mast comes down I have an VHF one ready to go and if my AIS antennae isn't working it can be used as a spare AIS.

[amperrin]

When we went out the gate during nationals to Bonita I had a hand held with DSC - Standard Horizons. It said VHF in the race rules for nationals but they didn't specify inbuilt with masthead or handheld so I clarified with race committee. I also told my crew if I wasn't happy with the conditions we wouldn't go out the gate as we had no lifelines or masthead antennae.

[Estar]

The mountains were amazing I know there isn't any sailing but you should go to Nepal.

That's one of only two things left on my 'bucket list' (the other is seeing a polar bear cub in the wild). But I need to get my legs in better shape for Nepal - offshore sailing has killed them - working on it.

[tolachi]

Here's an interesting graphic found while looking into Rescue 21 (and what does it take to implement? have to believe a cellular modem type device would work at the top of Maintop/SEF) Heres the ref link http://www.navcen.us...?pageName=mtNds

So... Is the whole rescue 21 thing actually in effect? Am I wrong in observing that most of the area around the Farallones is covered by the existing system? If so that makes it look like handheld DSC would be one of the cheapest ways to increase safety/response time dramatically.

[NoStrings]

Gentlemen, and ladies,

I do truly recognize the concept circulating around the use of the word "minimum". I get it, I do. I've been railing against the proposals for waivers from what the SSS considered to be "minimum", those requirements being significantly less than those we prepped for in 2009 and 2010. I just remember Stork and I writing checks and installing gear because it was required. At the end of the day it really doesn't affect me...I have a boat that is Cat II equipped. I apologize for the drama and remove myself from the discussion.

Regards.

[BobJ]

So... Is the whole rescue 21 thing actually in effect? Am I wrong in observing that most of the area around the Farallones is covered by the existing system? If so that makes it look like handheld DSC would be one of the cheapest ways to increase safety/response time dramatically.

Yes (it's in effect), no (you're not wrong that our playground is covered) and yes (a DSC-enabled handheld would be quite effective). If a MOB had one in his foulies and pushed the distress button, his boat, all the DSC-enabled boats nearby and the CG (via Rescue21) would know where he was. If his boat also had a wire run from the ship's VHF back to a chartplotter, the position of his soggy self would show thereon = easy to navigate back to him in any conditions/visibility. Cool eh?

[tolachi]

So... Is the whole rescue 21 thing actually in effect? Am I wrong in observing that most of the area around the Farallones is covered by the existing system? If so that makes it look like handheld DSC would be one of the cheapest ways to increase safety/response time dramatically.

Yes (it's in effect), no (you're not wrong that our playground is covered) and yes (a DSC-enabled handheld would be quite effective). If a MOB had one in his foulies and pushed the distress button, his boat, all the DSC-enabled boats nearby and the CG (via Rescue21) would know where he was. If his boat also had a wire run from the ship's VHF back to a chartplotter, the position of his soggy self would show thereon = easy to navigate back to him in any conditions/visibility. Cool eh?

Way cool. This the the kinda thing I can get excited about.


<jk>Of course that is only because a handheld VHF is essentially movable balast.</jk>

Edited by tolachi, 14 November 2012 - 05:24 AM.

[BobJ]

It would be expensive to outfit every crew member with one (although some are carrying PLB's now, and that's similar $$$). I wonder if boats could be strategic about which crew are more likely to fall over and have a couple just for them. One other complication is that I think the DSC-enabled handhelds (which also need to have GPS) probably don't have the battery life for a Farallones race for example. Ahi, maybe you could get Chuck H. to lean on ICOM, Standard-Horizon et al to work on this issue?

[K38BOB]

So... Is the whole rescue 21 thing actually in effect? Am I wrong in observing that most of the area around the Farallones is covered by the existing system? If so that makes it look like handheld DSC would be one of the cheapest ways to increase safety/response time dramatically.

Yes (it's in effect), no (you're not wrong that our playground is covered) and yes (a DSC-enabled handheld would be quite effective). If a MOB had one in his foulies and pushed the distress button, his boat, all the DSC-enabled boats nearby and the CG (via Rescue21) would know where he was. If his boat also had a wire run from the ship's VHF back to a chartplotter, the position of his soggy self would show thereon = easy to navigate back to him in any conditions/visibility. Cool eh?

If you click on the pic, zoom, pan to the scale bar- seems Farallones is well covered.
I think the attempt to have a single list is causing some of the angst. We essentially have Coastal day races, coastal overnight races, and real ocean races (Longpac/Hawaii). What is great for a faralones race may be inadequate for a Hawaii race. Same argument for different boats and crew (and mono vs multi).
That being said- for a Farallones race I imagine a Handheld VHF DSC GPS on the crew member would provide fastest (and more certain) rescue/recovery.

Some choices http://www.google.co...chrome&ie=UTF-8

[K38BOB]

It would be expensive to outfit every crew member with one (although some are carrying PLB's now, and that's similar $$$). I wonder if boats could be strategic about which crew are more likely to fall over and have a couple just for them. One other complication is that I think the DSC-enabled handhelds (which also need to have GPS) probably don't have the battery life for a Farallones race for example. Ahi, maybe you could get Chuck H. to lean on ICOM, Standard-Horizon et al to work on this issue?

DHF states it needs to be on and to carry extra batteries if necessary

[BobJ]

Hard to change batteries while you're floating around - the manufacturers need to improve the batteries and/or power draw.

I'm ready to spring for one of these - my 10 year-old HX460S will need to be replaced before long.

[tolachi]

Hard to change batteries while you're floating around - the manufacturers need to improve the batteries and/or power draw.

I'm ready to spring for one of these - my 10 year-old HX460S will need to be replaced before long.

Not sure how to get 2m off the water while floating around. I guess it seems unclear how useful this item will be to someone actually in the water. However, having this capability on the boat is going to be hard not to justify.

[K38BOB]

Hard to change batteries while you're floating around - the manufacturers need to improve the batteries and/or power draw.

I'm ready to spring for one of these - my 10 year-old HX460S will need to be replaced before long.

Good point for the MOB app. Maybe change battery more frequently?
or a new product for that app

Here's one thats more PLBish http://www.mobilarm....wsafe_v100.html



there was another one at the end of LSC thread

[BobJ]

Not sure how to get 2m off the water while floating around. I guess it seems unclear how useful this item will be to someone actually in the water. However, having this capability on the boat is going to be hard not to justify.

2m high is for the CG to pick up a one-watt signal 20nm away. The boat he fell off of, and hopefully several others, will be a lot closer than that.

[K38BOB]

Not sure how to get 2m off the water while floating around. I guess it seems unclear how useful this item will be to someone actually in the water. However, having this capability on the boat is going to be hard not to justify.

2m high is for the CG to pick up a one-watt signal 20nm away. The boat he fell off of, and hopefully several others, will be a lot closer than that.

heres the other gizmo mentioned above - originally for divers
http://www.alertdive.../?articleNo=480

[NoStrings]

I ran a bunch of Longely Rice prop models this evening and it appears to show that there is little substantive difference in coverage with a 25W radio using a stern rail mounted VHF antenna or a masthead antenna mounted 9m up. Neither will reliably reach shore from the Farallones unless the rx station is mounted about 250m up.

1w handhelds aren't so hot.

http://lrcov.crc.ca/main/

Run the thing for yourself...BV, my apologies...

[K38BOB]

I ran a bunch of Longely Rice prop models this evening and it appears to show that there is little substantive difference in coverage with a 25W radio using a stern rail mounted VHF antenna or a masthead antenna mounted 9m up. Neither will reliably reach shore from the Farallones unless the rx station is mounted about 250m up.

1w handhelds aren't so hot.

http://lrcov.crc.ca/main/

Run the thing for yourself...BV, my apologies...

Thanks NS, glad to see you engaged- your vm was full this afternoon btw

[Estar]

http://lrcov.crc.ca/main/

Nice tool . . . useful to have some facts

So, output from that model for a typical MOB situation:

Range for Handheld in the water to 12m masthead:

TX antenna height .5m to RX height 12m, using 1watt power: strong* signal 500', weaker** signal .5nm (9% of 12m 25watt signal)
TX antenna height .5m to RX height 12m, using 2.5watt power: strong signal 660', weaker signal .6nm (11%)
TX antenna height .5m to RX height 12m, using 5watt power: strong signal 720', weaker signal .7nm (13%)

Handheld in the cockpit to 12m masthead:

TX antenna height 2m to RX height 12m, using 1watt power: strong signal 1000', weaker signal .9nm (17%)
TX antenna height 2m to RX height 12m, using 2.5watt power: strong signal 1570', weaker signal 1.2nm (22%)
TX antenna height 2m to RX height 12m, using 5watt power: strong signal 1640', weaker signal 1.6nm (30%)

12m masthead to 12m masthead:

TX antenna height 12m to RX height 12m, using 1watt power: strong signal 4224', weaker signal 2.6nm (48%)
TX antenna height 12m to RX height 12m, using 25watt power: strong signal 5800', weaker signal 5.4nm (100%)

The specific ranges quoted will depend on the specific definition of strong and weak signals, which is arguable, but the % decline from the 25watt masthead system is independent of this. So a 5watt handheld in the water will have 13% the range, and a 5watt handheld in the cockpit will have 30% the range, of a 25watt 12m masthead system.

* 75-100 dBµV/m
**45-60 dBµV/m

[K38BOB]

http://lrcov.crc.ca/main/

Nice tool . . . useful to have some facts

So, output from that model for a typical MOB situation:

Range for Handheld in the water to 12m masthead:

TX antenna height .5m to RX height 12m, using 1watt power: strong* signal 500', weaker** signal .5nm (9% of 12m 25watt signal)
TX antenna height .5m to RX height 12m, using 2.5watt power: strong signal 660', weaker signal .6nm (11%)
TX antenna height .5m to RX height 12m, using 5watt power: strong signal 720', weaker signal .7nm (13%)

Handheld in the cockpit to 12m masthead:

TX antenna height 2m to RX height 12m, using 1watt power: strong signal 1000', weaker signal .9nm (17%)
TX antenna height 2m to RX height 12m, using 2.5watt power: strong signal 1570', weaker signal 1.2nm (22%)
TX antenna height 2m to RX height 12m, using 5watt power: strong signal 1640', weaker signal 1.6nm (30%)

12m masthead to 12m masthead:

TX antenna height 12m to RX height 12m, using 1watt power: strong signal 4224', weaker signal 2.6nm (48%)
TX antenna height 12m to RX height 12m, using 25watt power: strong signal 5800', weaker signal 5.4nm (100%)

The specific ranges quoted will depend on the specific definition of strong and weak signals, which is arguable, but the % decline from the 25watt masthead system is independent of this. So a 5watt handheld in the water will have 13% the range, and a 5watt handheld in the cockpit will have 30% the range, of a 25watt 12m masthead system.

* 75-100 dBµV/m
**45-60 dBµV/m

Thanks. How does that reconcile with this http://forums.sailin...00#entry3936641 ? The CG "hears" and "speaks" from the bluffs (elevation?)" very well (at least the near coastal races)

And again we have many venues, crew sizes, boat types, duration (day, overnight), Organizing clubs, trying to be addressed with one list. The minimum could be the minimum and then let each club season to taste. Or perhaps this list should define the topics that need to be defined in each SI?

[Beau.Vrolyk]

NoStrings - forget it - the goal is the right answer not the path. I'm wrong about a lot of stuff. For example,


Estar,
I've got one of those Diver Radios that xmits at 1watt (Nautilus Lifeline) posted above and after you told me it wouldn't work from the water I've gone to a more powerful handheld for the crew. But, if I'm reading your table above is 1w xmitting from 0.5m to a 12m high antenna only showing a range of 0.5nm with weak signal? That seems unlikely and doesn't really reflect my experience with these things. Am I misreading your post? I have had folks in a dingy, slightly higher and a lot dryer than swimming, use the Nautilus Lifeline and I could easily converse with them from over a mile away using a handheld VHF on 1watt. Perhaps, as you say, the definition of "weak" is different and could also be quite different in an RF noisy area vs a mile off of Santa Cruz where I tried this.

Edit: Two items (first my experiment with the Nautilus was done in flat water, for obvious reasons, the large swell we get in the Pacific could radically alter the range as when the MOB is in the trough they are surrounded by a wall of water - no line of sight. Second, I looked up the altitude for the Post Ranch Rescue21 antenna which the Coast Guard disguised as a tree. For what it's worth the antenna is at about 400m of altitude. I can't find the altitude of the Rescue21 antenna in the Marin headlands.


BobJ,
Aboard my boat the radios in the lifejackets of the crew are turned off unless they fall in the water - as a result battery life is just fine. The boat's radio is left on all the time and is attached to the boat's battery that support running lights etc.... Yes, I know that means three radios for a double handed boat, but a DSC enabled waterproof VHF is now down to $219, and that's about what new jib sheets cost so I'm ok with it. The one shown below also has NEMA from the re-charge socket so you could run the GPS into a iPad/iPhone as a backup if you cared to.

West Marine: http://www.westmarin...60#.UKPBlqUQja4

BV

[BobJ]

You guys probably assume this (though I can't tell from the posts) - Rescue21's receive capabilities are greatly enhanced vs. what we're using. Self and fleet rescue procedures should be designed to account for this difference. By the way, skippers/crews need procedures as well as equipment - understood by crew and posted.

BV, I find that it is very easy to bump on the handheld in a bag or in foulies. The volume is usually low so you don't realize it. This is the biggest reason mine runs down. Again, manufacturers need to be told these things so the designs can be improved.

K38, you've recently posted twice about using these new rules as a base to then do your own thing. Do you mean for your own boat or for BAMA?

[Corvo]

^ and Coastal Cup and the Hawaii races. Essentially any ocean race permit issued in Sector SF ...

Bob, the list under discussion is intended to cover only races as far as the Farallones or Monterey. Coastal Cup and Hawaii would have additional requirements, to be set by the OA.

[Estar]

..... if I'm reading your table above is 1w xmitting from 0.5m to a 12m high antenna only showing a range of 0.5nm with weak signal? That ...... Perhaps, as you say, the definition of "weak" is different and could also be quite different in an RF noisy area vs a mile off of Santa Cruz where I tried this.

..... For what it's worth the antenna is at about 400m of altitude. I can't find the altitude of the Rescue21 antenna in the Marin headlands.

I am well beyond my area of direct knowledge here. Those numbers just came straight from the website calculator.

They were all (including even the 25watt/masthead) shorter than I would 'expect', but relatively they were what I expected (height more important than watts and 1watt/in the water about 10% of 25watts/at the masthead). That would suggest the range issue could be simply related to the definition of weak and strong signals - those are user adjustable in the calculator but I don't know enough to intelligently change them from the default settings. Or there could be some other problem with the default settings. I doubt the calculator is simply wrong. Perhaps one of our radio experts could explore it.

[pogen]

These propagation models are great and all, but even better would be real world testing. I'm sure the USCG did a lot when they got the system up; perhaps we could get some better summary of their data, or even coordinate with USCG in next spring's races or some other time to do some live -fire testing? Like actually push the red button on one of these VHF handhelds and see who sees them? Of course USCG needs plenty of forewarning!

[BobJ]

DSC-enabled VHF's sold in the last year or two are required to have a DSC call test function. I see my GX2150 has this but I haven't tried it yet.

[pogen]

Yes, it helps to have at least two boats to test these things.

Though as I found when I went to test my Kannad AIS MOB gizmos, passing the call test is necessary but not sufficient to test the whole system. You need to see that the message is received and interpreted correctly at the other end also.

[VALIS]

These propagation models are great and all, but even better would be real world testing. I'm sure the USCG did a lot when they got the system up; perhaps we could get some better summary of their data, or even coordinate with USCG in next spring's races or some other time to do some live -fire testing? Like actually push the red button on one of these VHF handhelds and see who sees them? Of course USCG needs plenty of forewarning!

I did some unscheduled testing of the Standard Horizon handheld, when I was collecting DSC messages for testing. I had the radio connected to a dummy load, which was apparently not completely shielded. The USCG picked up this extremely weak leakage (from my house, elevation 1000 ft, about five miles NE of Bodega Bay). Anyway, they phoned me at home, using the MMSI registration information on file, to see if everything was OK. This was about two years ago, and they told me that they were seeing a lot of false alarms from people figuring out how to use their new DSC gear.

So, this was a test using very low power (probably much less than a milliwatt ERP), but reasonably good line-of-site. I don't know which USCG antenna picked me up.

One problem with keeping the personal DSC/VHF switched off until you hit the water is that the GPS takes time (I've seen several minutes) to acquire a position. This could be an issue in some rescue scenarios, especially when you consider that the MOB may initially be disoriented for a while.

But again, how close to "perfect" should we be requiring? A good solution that will be accepted and used is better than a "perfect" one that nobody uses. I don't know where we should draw the line.

[BobJ]

VALIS, I could enter your MMSI into my VHF's directory so you can be my test station. If you're willing would you PM that to me, then we can work out a time to try it? A CG station is in spitting distance of my boat so that isn't a good test.

[pogen]

Well I'm not really in favor of requiring 100% on-body location devices for the NCORC fleet. I got interested in the discussion as a useful thread hijack. Though for myself, shorthanding, I thought is very worthwhile to investigate the latest and greatest technologies.

I did safety at sea training last weekend, and in full kit and chilly bay water I was having plenty of trouble doing something as simple as getting into the raft. So, just as one's MOB boat handling exercise has the takeaway lesson "don't fall off the boat", so did this.

[pogen]

VALIS, I could enter your MMSI into my VHF's directory so you can be my test station. If you're willing would you PM that to me, then we can work out a time to try it? A CG station is in spitting distance of my boat so that isn't a good test.

It would be awesome if VALIS could be picked up now from SF!

Bob, you can find my MMSI here on my Emergency Contact web page -- it's near the bottom.

http://temerityracing.org/

[BobJ]

Come to think of it, we should start an MMSI directory of local interested boats. I don't want my "phone" (VHF) ringing all the time while I'm out sailing, but it would be good for testing purposes as we try to get used to DSC.


(For those who assume I don't have a life, I'm doing a CPE webinar in another window. It's tax/accounting - I'd rather exchange posts with you guys!)

[VALIS]

VALIS, I could enter your MMSI into my VHF's directory so you can be my test station. If you're willing would you PM that to me, then we can work out a time to try it? A CG station is in spitting distance of my boat so that isn't a good test.

Bob, I've relocated to the PNW (Friday Harbor). I'm still occasionally in the Bay Area as we complete the move, but we sailed north after the 2012 Pac Cup and VALIS is up here.

The MMSI directory is a great idea though. We should all learn how to use our fancy new radios, and have the MMSI's for "the usual suspects" pre-entered if possible.

That story someone told about the DSC alarm going off and nobody knowing what was going on, well that probably was on VALIS. With our AIS transponder active, other vessels have access to our MMSI. On the return trip I had a ship hail me (using DSC) and ask if I could see their AIS "addressed safety message". I couldn't, since none of my AIS stuff decoded these message types, but since I had been logging all my navsystem data I was able to decode the message when I got home. It said "Test Message pls reply". I would have needed a Class-A transponder to reply, since Class-B doesn't have this capability.

Anyway, we are entering a brave new world of marine communications, and I, for one, haven't trained myself well enough to effectively use my new radios. The user interface seems unnecessarily obscure, but that's not a good enough excuse. Have someone page you using DSC. The alarm is distinctive and should get your attention. Learn what to do when you are paged -- it may not be obvious which buttons to push.

[BobJ]

Ah, that explains pogen's comment above. Yeah, range isn't that good . . .

[K38BOB]

VALIS, I could enter your MMSI into my VHF's directory so you can be my test station. If you're willing would you PM that to me, then we can work out a time to try it? A CG station is in spitting distance of my boat so that isn't a good test.

Bob, I've relocated to the PNW (Friday Harbor). I'm still occasionally in the Bay Area as we complete the move, but we sailed north after the 2012 Pac Cup and VALIS is up here.

The MMSI directory is a great idea though. We should all learn how to use our fancy new radios, and have the MMSI's for "the usual suspects" pre-entered if possible.

That story someone told about the DSC alarm going off and nobody knowing what was going on, well that probably was on VALIS. With our AIS transponder active, other vessels have access to our MMSI. On the return trip I had a ship hail me (using DSC) and ask if I could see their AIS "addressed safety message". I couldn't, since none of my AIS stuff decoded these message types, but since I had been logging all my navsystem data I was able to decode the message when I got home. It said "Test Message pls reply". I would have needed a Class-A transponder to reply, since Class-B doesn't have this capability.

Anyway, we are entering a brave new world of marine communications, and I, for one, haven't trained myself well enough to effectively use my new radios. The user interface seems unnecessarily obscure, but that's not a good enough excuse. Have someone page you using DSC. The alarm is distinctive and should get your attention. Learn what to do when you are paged -- it may not be obvious which buttons to push.

I mentioned and yes VALIS was the SV..

[One eye Jack]

It is kind of funny that the law enforcement agencies when they run VHF. Band right next to marine, have to run repeaters .just to show you that they need that for just a few miles,and you want to be able to go about 15 miles. And you are talking about 25 watts? Ever run a meter on your radio? That is 25 max. Not always what your radio is putting out. Also have you checked your connections for things like corrosion? That will also cut down on your output. As for the masthead, how much wattage do you loose for the extra lenght of the cable? or do you have a good grounding ? or is the power going to the radio with a good size wiring, and what shape is it in?most people install the radios themselves, as it looks so easy and simple... But there can be failures from that.just some things that can cut your radios performance.

[pogen]

I had the same thought about a directory. I think the likelyhood of VHF spam is pretty low. After all , if you are in sight you can be hailed by name anyway! And very few Nigerian scammers will use VHF to try to hook you.

Maybe a .CSV file could be hosted at Jibeset? The info is already in their database...

Unfortunately, since MMSI's are issued by multiple agencies, it seems like there is no universal database for private people to search.

Here is the ITU one though, but it only has FCC-issued MMSIs:. http://www.itu.int/o.../ship_search.sh

[VALIS]

OEJ, law enforcement needs repeaters and remote stations because of the terrain, more than the distance(*). The great thing about the Gulf of the Farallones is that it's flat and full of seawater. Line of sight usually goes out beyond the visual horizon. The USCG has towers placed strategically on the headlands, so in most cases they have very good coverage, with few blind spots.

(*) I used to be on the Jenner Volunteer Fire Department, so I know a bit about radio comms in canyon country.

[BobJ]

Here is the ITU one though, but it only has FCC-issued MMSIs:. http://www.itu.int/o.../ship_search.sh


The FCC issued my MMSI about seven years ago and I can't get it to come up in that database (or my station license/call sign).

[NoStrings]

Here are the model parameters that you want to change:

Freq: 156 MHz
Power: It's in watts, not dB.
Polarization: Vert
Antenna Gain: 1.5dB is usually typical for a vertical monopole at these frequencies. I'm not sure that I believe the 6dB claims of some manufactures.
Pointing: 0. These things radiate poorly in all directions...

Surface refractivity: 350. Maritime temperate over water
Dielectric constatnt: 81 Seawater.
Conductivity of Ground: 5 Seawater
Climatic zone: Maritime temperate over sea

Please note that if you mess with the confidence and availabilities, you will have a significant impact on coverage area. Longely Rice was developed for siting microwave and television systems where reliability and availability need to be around 98.9%...IOW bombproof. That's why you see really high gain antennas on high spots...none of this monopole whip b.s.

Obviously change the colors to something you can see against the background. You can fiddle with the signal strengths by inputting the minimum detectable signal numbers from your specific radio, but for our purposes it's like measuring with a micrometer and cutting with an axe. Use the defaults and it'll show you the relative differences in coverage based upon your selected antenna heights and transmitter output.

Note: I'm pretty certain that this program has a routine running in the background that computes the Noise Figure for the frequency selected, but I don't know if it has a default number for system cable and connector losses in the computation of Effective Radiated Power. I'm guessing that it defaults to 0 because of the variability of installations.

When I ran it last night, I put the Tx just east of SE Farralon, then set the coverage rectangle over the Gulf. The map feature makes changing the propagation coverage area pretty easy.

It's a cool tool. We ran something very very similar to it on an C3CM program that I ran when I worked for a living.

BTW, don't try to use this for your SSB.

[NoStrings]

It is kind of funny that the law enforcement agencies when they run VHF. Band right next to marine, have to run repeaters .just to show you that they need that for just a few miles,and you want to be able to go about 15 miles. And you are talking about 25 watts? Ever run a meter on your radio? That is 25 max. Not always what your radio is putting out. Also have you checked your connections for things like corrosion? That will also cut down on your output. As for the masthead, how much wattage do you loose for the extra lenght of the cable? or do you have a good grounding ? or is the power going to the radio with a good size wiring, and what shape is it in?most people install the radios themselves, as it looks so easy and simple... But there can be failures from that.just some things that can cut your radios performance.

OEJ, RG-58 looses about 2.5 dB in 100', half of that in 50'. If you add in connectors, and god forbid a splitter, you can use HALF of your Effective Radiated Power..meaning your 25W radio would be emitting 12.5W out of the antenna (assuming a 0 dB antenna). Things like corrosion or poor connections just make it worse.

[NoStrings]

Question: I've tried carrying my Icom M88 handheld on my person...the clip on attachment doesn't like to stay fixed to the radio, and the antenna keeps jabbing me in the eye. I tried carrying it in a pocket on the back of my harness, but alas my arms can't get to it if I were to need it. How are you guys affixing your radios to your person? Do we need a PFD (much like a kayaking PFD) that has provisions for these devices? If we're going to be studded with electronic devices, it would be nice if we could carry them securely and still be able to access them when needed. My Mustang harness just doesn't cut it in this regard.

[Occams Razor]

I've got a little waterproof fannypack that holds both the smaller DSC handhelds AND a PLB.

[Estar]

Fanny packs are a solution, if you are willing to wear it all the time. The crew of Ramblier each were issued with a ‘safety pack’ containing a PLB and strobe light; however, they were not carried or attached to PFDs.

An "ALICE type pouche" can be attached to a harness, to fit a radio

I think BV used a foam type vest, which has pockets.

[casc27]

Question: I've tried carrying my Icom M88 handheld on my person...the clip on attachment doesn't like to stay fixed to the radio, and the antenna keeps jabbing me in the eye. I tried carrying it in a pocket on the back of my harness, but alas my arms can't get to it if I were to need it. How are you guys affixing your radios to your person? Do we need a PFD (much like a kayaking PFD) that has provisions for these devices? If we're going to be studded with electronic devices, it would be nice if we could carry them securely and still be able to access them when needed. My Mustang harness just doesn't cut it in this regard.

I've been using a PFD with a zippered pocket on the front for a couple of years. It's still a bit awkward but I can get to what's in there when floating.

Come to think of it, we should start an MMSI directory of local interested boats. I don't want my "phone" (VHF) ringing all the time while I'm out sailing, but it would be good for testing purposes as we try to get used to DSC.


(For those who assume I don't have a life, I'm doing a CPE webinar in another window. It's tax/accounting - I'd rather exchange posts with you guys!)

I'd be in for the MMSI directory for testing purposes.

[M48]

Some Moore 24s, et al have removed the toe-rails and pulpits (sans lifelines) and never had a fathometer and will probably not race the DHF if the NCORC requirements are adopted. For others, a mast head antenna certainly increases the range to report/relay incidents from the Farallones, etc. However, that requirement becomes useless if dismasted; it's the handheld VHF that will be needed. Maybe to compromise, a stern pulpit or deck mounted antenna might be an answer with a more powerful VHF radio requirement. No mention of cell phones?
M.

[Christian]

Some Moore 24s, et al have removed the toe-rails and pulpits (sans lifelines) and never had a fathometer and will probably not race the DHF if the NCORC requirements are adopted. For others, a mast head antenna certainly increases the range to report/relay incidents from the Farallones, etc. However, that requirement becomes useless if dismasted; it's the handheld VHF that will be needed. Maybe to compromise, a stern pulpit or deck mounted antenna might be an answer with a more powerful VHF radio requirement. No mention of cell phones?
M.

And probably shouldn't.............

[BobJ]

I'd be in for the MMSI directory for testing purposes.

I'll do some checking around about this next week.

In the meantime, that ITU database linked above doesn't have the right Temerity or Valis in it either as far as I could tell. Estar's Hawk is listed.

[VALIS]

No mention of cell phones?

I lose my AT&T cellphone coverage about 2/3 of the way to the Farallons. I understand that Verizon is better, but still, cellphones aren't well-suited for the type of emergency communications I believe we're discussing. (We can have a similar argument regarding satphones vs SSB.) If you have one that works, and are able to call in a distress report, by all means do so, but I don't think a cellphone replaces a proper VHF out by the islands. Does anyone have a cellphone that works well in the wind? Mine sure doesn't, but a good VHF is designed for that type of use.

[BobJ]

That's just it - as soon as your "directory" of phone numbers (MMSI's) is set up, the VHF functions a lot like a cell phone. Even the Coast Guard has an MMSI so you can call them specifically.

[Estar]

Here are the model parameters that you want to change:

Thanks. That helps. Using those parameters:

TX 1 watt in the water ( .5m height) to a RX 12m high antenna: 2.5nm 'weak' range
TX 5 watt in the water ( .5m height) to a RX 12m high antenna: 3.9nm
TX 25 watt masthead (12m) to a RX 12m high antenna: 7.8nm (this one still seems less than I would have expected - I would have guessed at least 12 nm)

No mention of cell phones?

Something I have been curious about, but have not ever gotten an official answer to, is whether the USCG can read the E911 location data from cell phones? An official 'mayday' app might be useful if they cannot.

ITU database ..... Estar's Hawk is listed.

Yes, my data is correct there.

The BoatUS MMSI database is not publicly searchable - the USCG has access.

[NoStrings]

Cool. Please remember that the model doesn't account for signal refraction, ducting, etc. I'll look around to see if I can find a VHF/UHF ducting model, but this one works for 90%of the cases.

[WHL]

Question: I've tried carrying my Icom M88 handheld on my person...the clip on attachment doesn't like to stay fixed to the radio, and the antenna keeps jabbing me in the eye. I tried carrying it in a pocket on the back of my harness, but alas my arms can't get to it if I were to need it. How are you guys affixing your radios to your person? Do we need a PFD (much like a kayaking PFD) that has provisions for these devices? If we're going to be studded with electronic devices, it would be nice if we could carry them securely and still be able to access them when needed. My Mustang harness just doesn't cut it in this regard.

I clip my Horizon VHF on my Spinlock and also attach it with a bungee camera tether. When it's really nasty and/or on night watches, I use my drysuit and a Mustang belt pack that carries more useful stuff and can also hold the radio and half a ham sandwich
I also have an ACR RESQ+ PLB in my foulies pocket

I think with this gear, if I do go over the side, I have an excellent chance of floating comfortably, having a snack and a drink, chat on the radio with no need for panic either by me or those on the boat doing the MOB
 PFD and DSC VHF.jpg   38.63K   8 downloads
 Mustang belt pack with rescue equip-cmpr-sm.jpg   80.46K   7 downloads

[NoStrings]

Good lord Jonah, you could get swallowed and come out the other end just fine.

I tried clipping my radio as you did, but the sucker kept hanging up on the lifelines. I'll figure something out.

[tolachi]

Some Moore 24s, et al have removed the toe-rails and pulpits (sans lifelines) and never had a fathometer and will probably not race the DHF if the NCORC requirements are adopted. For others, a mast head antenna certainly increases the range to report/relay incidents from the Farallones, etc. However, that requirement becomes useless if dismasted; it's the handheld VHF that will be needed. Maybe to compromise, a stern pulpit or deck mounted antenna might be an answer with a more powerful VHF radio requirement. No mention of cell phones?
M.

And probably shouldn't.............

Let's see... 2011. First overall is Moore 24 #85. Perhaps the prototypical "overly optimized" one design racing machine in our fleet. I'd like to see you tell Bill Erkelens that he shouldn't have been out racing the DHF that year.

[tolachi]

Some Moore 24s, et al have removed the toe-rails and pulpits (sans lifelines) and never had a fathometer and will probably not race the DHF if the NCORC requirements are adopted. For others, a mast head antenna certainly increases the range to report/relay incidents from the Farallones, etc. However, that requirement becomes useless if dismasted; it's the handheld VHF that will be needed. Maybe to compromise, a stern pulpit or deck mounted antenna might be an answer with a more powerful VHF radio requirement. No mention of cell phones?
M.

I do feel that requiring a boat to have a DSC handheld with GPS would do more than most of the other "new" recs combined. I wonder if there is some compromise to be found by adopting a few items that do the most to increase safety. I am a little concerned that I will be one of 2-3 Moore 24s doing the DHF this year if the Recs are implemented and enforced as is.

[VALIS]

do feel that requiring a boat to have a DSC handheld with GPS would do more than most of the other "new" recs combined.

What exactly is the function of this DSC handheld? The radio is a communications device, and possibly an emergency signaling device. Lifelines, toe-rails, harnesses, tethers, jacklines, and padeyes, are to keep the crew onboard. PFDs are to help the MOB stay afloat and conserve energy. Anchors are to keep your boat off the rocks. Fuel is to get you back home in case of gear failure.

These functions are not exactly related, other than being part of the general "safety" suite. One doesn't replace another, and all should be considered independently.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Some Moore 24s, et al have removed the toe-rails and pulpits (sans lifelines) and never had a fathometer and will probably not race the DHF if the NCORC requirements are adopted. For others, a mast head antenna certainly increases the range to report/relay incidents from the Farallones, etc. However, that requirement becomes useless if dismasted; it's the handheld VHF that will be needed. Maybe to compromise, a stern pulpit or deck mounted antenna might be an answer with a more powerful VHF radio requirement. No mention of cell phones?
M.

I do feel that requiring a boat to have a DSC handheld with GPS would do more than most of the other "new" recs combined. I wonder if there is some compromise to be found by adopting a few items that do the most to increase safety. I am a little concerned that I will be one of 2-3 Moore 24s doing the DHF this year if the Recs are implemented and enforced as is.

Tolachi,

As I understand it, the Organizing Authority (BAMA in the case of DHF) is able to modify these MERs as they see fit for their event. This could mean adding a life-raft (like the SSS will probably do for LongPac) or deleting something they don't think is necessary. While I know, from attending some of the meetings, that NC-ORC has a goal of standardizing on these MERs they can't possibly work for all racers in all races. Ultimately, after all the smoke has cleared, BAMA will need to decide about their race as each other OA will decide about theirs.

BV

[pogen]

As I understand it, the Organizing Authority (BAMA in the case of DHF) is able to modify these MERs as they see fit for their event.

Beau, I hope you are mistaken. As Ahi said in the OP,

It is our hope that these MER are adopted by all organizing authorities that conduct ocean races within the Gulf of the Farallones. We think it is a pretty basic list.

I don't see the point of coming up with a 'standard' if then all the race committees can just freely ignore it.

I think this standard should be used for all races past Pt. Bonita, excluding LongPac, Coastal Cup, and the Hawaii races.

And for all the complaining from the Moores, this proposed standard is less than that required for OYRA races the past several seasons.

[hermitCrab]

Tolachi,

As I understand it, the Organizing Authority (BAMA in the case of DHF) is able to modify these MERs as they see fit for their event. This could mean adding a life-raft (like the SSS will probably do for LongPac) or deleting something they don't think is necessary. While I know, from attending some of the meetings, that NC-ORC has a goal of standardizing on these MERs they can't possibly work for all racers in all races. Ultimately, after all the smoke has cleared, BAMA will need to decide about their race as each other OA will decide about theirs.

BV

If you all in the Bay area need a CG permit to run races, the MER decided on here could become definitive. OAs may add to them, but not subtract.

[Corvo]

Pogen's right. The goal is that all OAs will use the list as is, for all races beyond Bonita but not beyond Monterey/Farallones.

We'd rather not even have OAs add to the list. We don't want entrants having to add equipment for next Saturday's race that they didn't need last Saturday, or thinking: what can I remove for this weekend?

[Christian]

Some Moore 24s, et al have removed the toe-rails and pulpits (sans lifelines) and never had a fathometer and will probably not race the DHF if the NCORC requirements are adopted. For others, a mast head antenna certainly increases the range to report/relay incidents from the Farallones, etc. However, that requirement becomes useless if dismasted; it's the handheld VHF that will be needed. Maybe to compromise, a stern pulpit or deck mounted antenna might be an answer with a more powerful VHF radio requirement. No mention of cell phones?
M.

And probably shouldn't.............

Let's see... 2011. First overall is Moore 24 #85. Perhaps the prototypical "overly optimized" one design racing machine in our fleet. I'd like to see you tell Bill Erkelens that he shouldn't have been out racing the DHF that year.

I would certainly have no problem telling him that a small boat with no lifelines, no toe rails, life raft, etc. has no business doing an ocean race in relative cold water. That many have done so and survived doesn't make it less stupid.

[Speng]

Yet another attempt by US racing orgs to try their own thing rather than just specifying an OSR category and then noting exceptions. Typical equipment requireemts for English offshore races which are at least as dangerous as Nor Cal simply specify OSR Category and a handful of exceptions (for example the RORC requires actual escape hatches for multis a not just a way to cut a hole in the hull). Some of the minimum requirements here are all over the place OSR category-wise... is the racing Cat 1, 2, or 3? and some are lower than Category 3 which is probably the minimum for Nor Cal.

[pogen]

Here are the definitions from the latest ISAF regs

2.01.1 Category 0 Trans-oceanic races, including races which pass through areas in which air or sea temperatures are likely to be less than 5 degrees Celsius other than temporarily, where yachts must be completely self-sufficient for very extended periods of time, capable of withstanding heavy storms and prepared to meet serious emergencies without the expectation of outside assistance. MoMu,0

2.01.2 Category 1 Races of long distance and well offshore, where yachts must be completely self-sufficient for extended periods of time, capable of withstanding heavy storms and prepared to meet serious emergencies without the expectation of outside assistance. MoMu,1

2.01.3 Category 2 Races of extended duration along or not far removed from shorelines or in large unprotected bays or lakes, where a high degree of self-sufficiency is required of the yachts. MoMu,2

2.01.4 Category 3 Races across open water, most of which is relatively protected or close to shorelines. MoMu,3

2.01.5 Category 4 Short races, close to shore in relatively warm or protected waters normally held in daylight.

Except for the Lightship races, and possibly a few like Duxship, Southern Cross, Jr. Waterhouse, the nature of the coast (lee shore, harbors few and far between) puts us in Category 2. In past years, the OYRA has defined all its races as Cat 2, with a number of exceptions made, the biggest being the liferaft, and lifelines not required if <30ft LOA.

See: http://www.yra.org/O...inequipment.pdf

I'm just putting this out for those out-of-towners to have some background.