528 replies to this topic

[K38BOB]

I have only bumped into a very small number of PHRF boats that have actually been weighed. Many boats that were weighed were vastly over their brochure weight.

As the YRA designee for multihull PHRF, BAMA does weigh the boats (that can hang from a load cell or can roll onto a truck scale) and adjust ratings. Range was bigger than expected by some and correlated to performance.

[K38BOB]

]

Thank you for the kind comments it is something I am passrionate about because I don't wish to see my community going through another LSC incident if I can have a hand in helping.

First I'm glad you have passion and are being an agent of change by providing some great new options for the local community.
How much needs to be mandated, if any, and by when is the discussion- not all of it is appropriate to discuss here but I learned some things so thats good.

I would like us to identify real issues and implement effective solutions to those requirements. Many are not equipment.

In your previous SAS you had special discussions on wave formations especially relevant here in the case of LSC who was not indicative of general behavior of local racers by the data in the US Sailing report. Did you repeat it?

BAMA covers that in part by showing the offshore breaking wave in the ad, sailing instructions and skippers meetings. We also do incident reviews in skippers meetings- including those who have gone swimming, lost keels, rescued others. This year we included a basket ride winner (not from the race) so folks could comprehend what happens when you rely on the button on the epirb. We archive and make recommended reading the past events. That all comes with the price of admission to the DHF which of course will be enhanced with new knowledge. Its been surprising to me how few outside DHF knew what we did- when it was explained- a comment was "Thats not a skippers meeting- thats a mini SAS!"

BTW- thats mentioned in the LSC report. Should all clubs and all races have to do them? Maybe not. We can share. Its been offered.

I know about the fastnet- one of my homies won it that tragic year. At the CG meeting it was brought up by an expert on the US sailing panel. Afterwards I approached him and said, you know there is a much more relevant and effective example you could have brought up- after a pause he said DHF 82! Yes. The report is on our stories page. http://www.sfbama.org/fs/index.html

Its been a big part of BAMA legacy and culture. The day the CG ran out of assets and "Was unable to respond". Good seamanship with the equipment of the day kept the losses from being much greater. No GPS. No AIS. No DSC. No handheld VHF. No drysuits. No polar fleece. No news. I'm pretty certain tethers were not commonly used then.

Lots of components to improving and growing the sport and its safety.

[Estar]

http://www.sfbama.org/fs/index.html

Its been a big part of BAMA legacy and culture.

Nice library!

One thing the America Alpine club does very well is publish an annual volume of ALL the incidents (they are aware of) of all American climbers (worldwide). They are typically quite blunt about mistakes and potential lessons. I suspect this help climbers avoid complacency and do better risk assessment.

I was a bit surprised when I learned that the USS safety group has no library or (collected) records of US Sailing incidents/accidents, nor does ISAF. For me, that would be the most basic starting point to determining the sports safety status and needs. Without that fact base, its really just a discussion of personal opinions.

Personally, I believe that 'safety is mostly in the mind', and fatigue, with complacency, and proper risk assessment are the most significant levers.

[K38BOB]

http://www.sfbama.org/fs/index.html

Its been a big part of BAMA legacy and culture.

Nice library!

One thing the America Alpine club does very well is publish an annual volume of ALL the incidents (they are aware of) of all American climbers (worldwide). They are typically quite blunt about mistakes and potential lessons. I suspect this help climbers avoid complacency and do better risk assessment.

I was a bit surprised when I learned that the USS safety group has no library or (collected) records of US Sailing incidents/accidents, nor does ISAF. For me, that would be the most basic starting point to determining the sports safety status and needs. Without that fact base, its really just a discussion of personal opinions.

Personally, I believe that 'safety is mostly in the mind', and fatigue, with complacency, and proper risk assessment are the most significant levers.

Thanks. We've offered it has a foundation for an incident database/reference. We can add a lot more including the video's which are becoming more popular (click on my signature and you can see some- a Moore 24, Santa Cruz 40 and an Open 50). Some more articles are being scanned and stories requested to add

The 3 DHF races with losses are outlined in the last slide https://www.box.com/.../1/f_2801828415

This 2010 report is a good read http://www.sfbama.or...er DHF_2010.pdf

"At the skippers meeting we had consulted with Garry about how (close) to round the island and decided to take it
very wide, particularly since we were quite alone already… What we were not expecting was how close the Middle
Farallones are and that some of the shoals nearby (North) were
also breaking, putting Mavericks to shame… So we carefully
(and nervously) aimed at the middle, set the screecher, jibed
and headed back for the Gate."

Gary is the one who was rescued in 1999 and my inspiration for DSC advocacy based on his experience with flares and the subsequent loss of Daisy in DHLS.

and in case you don't know "mavericks"


mo pics
http://www.google.co...iw=1354&bih=615

[One eye Jack]

...snip....

Boats are supposed to be weighed dry tanks and empty.

so loading your boat with stuff beyond your dry and empty weight doesn't change your rating.

NoStrings, you are correct. In my original post I wasn't at all clear and mis-stated. I apologize. Let me clarify.

I have only bumped into a very small number of PHRF boats that have actually been weighed. Many boats that were weighed were vastly over their brochure weight. These were weighted because they were being rated for some other rule and had a certificate to prove that they were a lot, over 500 lb in one case, heavier than the "standard" PHRF weight for their class. Thus, my recommendation that the biggest difference folks could get in a rating was to get weighed. The NC-PHRF committee refers to displacement as the most "dubious" of brochure numbers in their documents.

Secondly, many boats that have had their ratings adjusted have had it done on the basis of their observed performance. Thus the "Performance" in PHRF's name. This performance observation was made while a boat was sailed with whatever gear it normally carried during the races used for the evaluation of the accuracy of the rating. While "stock" boats don't tend to ever get a rating adjustment, one-off or custom boats often do early in their history. In this case, the rating authority is clearly using the actual performance of the boat to rate it, including its gear, and this is one of the reasons that they are so hesitant to change a rating based on actual performance, despite the intention of the rule.

Sorry not to be more clear.

It is my understanding that there is a list of all of the moore24s at sc sails. All of them were weighed. I don't know about the expresses.All you have to do is either borrow a scale that can be hooked to the hoist, and your boat. Or find a truck scale. That costs about 10 bucks.weigh with, and without, subtract the difference. Don't forget fuel in your Vehicle if it is far away. This will work for any trailerable boats..the bigger ones if they are transported, truck scales again.

[K38BOB]

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

Here's an update with more user reviews. It would be nice to have a look at this gizmo.
http://www.nautilusl...ine.com/reviews

I'm not advocating as a ship to RC/CG solution but could be supplemental as a COB self and fleet rescue aid.The form factor and waterproofing is quite desirable. Might be interesting to test in some swells with a fixed VHF and stern rail mounted antenna?

Even better with a transportable base station at Lands End (fixed VHF, cabinet, high gain antenna (mounted on trailer hitch)?

oh..and Happy Thanksgiving!

[Beau.Vrolyk]

BobJ,

I've got the Nautilus in my chart table. I can bring it up to SF sometime soon if you'd like to have a look at it. Very durable device, just a bit low on power. Seems to work great within about 2 miles.

BV

[NoStrings]

Y'all going to be hating on Ronnie now?

[VALIS]

Y'all going to be hating on Ronnie now?

I had no idea what you were referring to until I discovered that there is a "Front Page" where Ronnie Simpson is quoted on the Moore24 / lifeline issue. Look for "safety dance redux"

[aA]

Y'all going to be hating on Ronnie now?

nope. but two corrections need to be made...

1. paraphrasing "no one wears tethers because they are uncomfortable". utterly false - standing policy is to clip in and stay clipped once passing the gate. the only time the tether comes unclipped is going down below and only done once you are inside the companionway
2. paraphrasing "the days of 20 moores on the line are gone because there were only two last year." that is because the moore fleet uses the dhf in the roadmaster series only on odd years and last year was an off year for the fleet

[Presuming Ed]

Safety dance?

[M48]

Y'all going to be hating on Ronnie now?

nope. but two corrections need to be made...

1. paraphrasing "no one wears tethers because they are uncomfortable". utterly false - standing policy is to clip in and stay clipped once passing the gate. the only time the tether comes unclipped is going down below and only done once you are inside the companionway
2. paraphrasing "the days of 20 moores on the line are gone because there were only two last year." that is because the moore fleet uses the dhf in the roadmaster series only on odd years and last year was an off year for the fleet

(and) 3. Predicted very bad weather with 50? knots at the start. I don't need to prove something when I have the choice (to not race that day). Sensibility (& seamanship) is far superior to lifelines, toerails, jacklines, masthead antenna, life-sling, safety course, and luck. M.

[JumpingJax]

Usual SA ramble around the topic. Usual SA habit of missing the point:

The CG is working from a premise that ISAF/ORC Cat 2 MEL is the base line for NC offshore racing permits and that some modifications, reviewed and approved by the CG, of course, are okay. Whatever YOU think is right or wrong with that approach isn't going to mean very much, since it has become clear that set of criteria will very soon become the "gold standard" for these races. And any departure from that approach is going to have lawyers standing on tip-toe looking for incidents, insurance companies looking to exclude coverage (of the sponsoring club and individual owners) in specific incidents, followed by a broader exercise of authority by the CG to impose standards themselves rather than working with the NC ORC and participating clubs.

For those who feel that those who don't race in NC offshore events should lie low and let the locals work out their own problems, I would point out that the NC CG is setting precedent that the rest of the country will - sooner or later - have to face, so it's very much our concern too. Whether we recognize it or not, we've all got a dog in this fight. That's in addition to the wishful thinking embedded in the notion that any of the local commentators will have any opportunity to work out much of anything in this matter.

The decisions will be made, ultimately, to assure the continuation of access to CG race permits and organizer/RC insurance coverage and with a weather eye out for exposure to litigation and liability. In context, there won't be a lot of concern about the participation of Moore 24s, etc. without lifelines, how well your outboard performs offshore, or the inconvenience of masthead VHF antennae. In the last analysis, the decisions won't defer to how many times you've raced to the Farralones without incident or how many times you've sailed 'round the world. The CG doesn't care if you can't affort the costs. The CG doesn't care if you're worried about the weight aloft of a 9-10 oz antenna and 30 ft of coax. The CG doesn't care if double lifelines are unpopular with Moore 24 owners. Just like they didn't care how little you wanted to have EPIRB requirements imposed.

The decision makers are evidently trying to be reasonable people - and reach reasoned results. They seem willing in some instances to grandfather existing boats or grant particular waivers in constrained circumstances. But fighting the project or even idividual elements of the MEL is pissing up a rope. It's politics, folks, and your only vote is going to be, in the long run, a decision to enter the races involved or not. And no one who counts cares enough (whether you like it or not) to alter the decisions needed to palliate the CG District Commander.

[BobJ]

JJax, well-written but mostly wrong. You aren't close enough to the process to know what you're writing about.

As to Ronnie's opinions, we all have them. I agree with some of what he said.

[JumpingJax]

JJax, well-written but mostly wrong. You aren't close enough to the process to know what you're writing about.

As to Ronnie's opinions, we all have them. I agree with some of what he said.

I'm wrong, but you aren't going to tell me how or why? Pfffft!

[BobJ]

That's right. If you'd read this thread with any attempt at comprehension you wouldn't have written what you did.

[Dixie]

But he has an interesting point.

There could be a more global, well not actually not global, but national issue at stake here. And it's a point that Ashley has said repeatedly in the thread. Why reinvent the wheel? And if the US sailors on the other coast are watching, then why not buck up and use the ISAF Cat 2 rules, with waivers as needed.

I had a chat last night over drinks with a fellow racer at the NYYC about this exactly. And the question posed to me was, why aren't we all (meaning the east coast sailors and the west coast sailors) using the ISAF rules already established?

[BobJ]

Because that's what we had before (with OYRA) and it didn't work on a number of levels, again as discussed early in this thread.

Frankly, I hope NCORC's efforts do spread nationally. Cat 2 (and the other OSR's) is an unwieldy list of requirements that in many cases are marginally effective in improving safety. Meanwhile they threaten to make offshore racing the domain of the rich. We (in SSS) nearly started requiring Cat 2 gear after the DAISY incident, and it quickly became clear we would eliminate many of the usual suspects who have raced successfully here for years.

The problem with Jax's post is his initial premise. The CG has made it clear they don't want to get involved in mandating particular equipment. Locally they've said they would like to see consistency in the equipment requirements among the OA's and that is a big reason for the exercise which is the subject of this thread. Moreover, I've pulled an offshore race permit in this district and there are no equipment requirements in it (other than a requirement to comply with existing reg's). The 406 device was the exception but OYRA required them a year before the CG did. It is very involved and time-consuming for the CG to do that kind of rule-making.

Finally, to my knowledge we are the only CG district in the country where the CG has leveraged the Event Permit process to this extent. Perhaps they know they are on thin ice, and hence are looking to let the NCORC and OA's work out the equipment rules.

My shortness with JJax (besides "history" elsewhere in the Forums) is that we are nearly at the end of this process and he is dragging the conversation back to the beginning. Instead, he should simply study the thread.

[NoStrings]

Y'all going to be hating on Ronnie now?

I had no idea what you were referring to until I discovered that there is a "Front Page" where Ronnie Simpson is quoted on the Moore24 / lifeline issue. Look for "safety dance redux"

Yeah, I haven't figured out how to copy and paste links, or anything else for that matter from my iPad.

[pogen]

FYI for the recent SAS training, we all took an online class (with problem sets) on wave phenomena at

http://www.meted.ucar.edu/marine/SWW/

You have to sign up and create an account, but it is free and worth your time , IMHO. If you have time to rant and bullshit on these forums (as I do) you have time for this!

[Christian]

Because that's what we had before (with OYRA) and it didn't work on a number of levels, again as discussed early in this thread.

Frankly, I hope NCORC's efforts do spread nationally. Cat 2 (and the other OSR's) is an unwieldy list of requirements that in many cases are marginally effective in improving safety. Meanwhile they threaten to make offshore racing the domain of the rich. We (in SSS) nearly started requiring Cat 2 gear after the DAISY incident, and it quickly became clear we would eliminate many of the usual suspects who have raced successfully here for years.

The problem with Jax's post is his initial premise. The CG has made it clear they don't want to get involved in mandating particular equipment. Locally they've said they would like to see consistency in the equipment requirements among the OA's and that is a big reason for the exercise which is the subject of this thread. Moreover, I've pulled an offshore race permit in this district and there are no equipment requirements in it (other than a requirement to comply with existing reg's). The 406 device was the exception but OYRA required them a year before the CG did. It is very involved and time-consuming for the CG to do that kind of rule-making.

Finally, to my knowledge we are the only CG district in the country where the CG has leveraged the Event Permit process to this extent. Perhaps they know they are on thin ice, and hence are looking to let the NCORC and OA's work out the equipment rules.

My shortness with JJax (besides "history" elsewhere in the Forums) is that we are nearly at the end of this process and he is dragging the conversation back to the beginning. Instead, he should simply study the thread.

That is probably because most areas have races that just use the appropriate level of the ORC reqs. I will be frank and say that if you cannot afford to race with a reasonably well equipped boat you probably should stay on a pond. Potentially putting your crew, people trying to help you (both fellow competitors and random boats in the vincinity who are bound by the requirement to help you) just because you don't want to put the right gear on your boat is totally irresponsible and totally against all maritime traditions.

Grow up!

[BobJ]

Low Speed Chase had the "right gear" on their boat, yet here we are. You just don't get it, do you?

As for telling me to grow up, fuck off.

[Christian]

The right gear is not an inpenetrable shield when you screw up royally - but it will enhance your chances when things go pear shaped. And I will tell you to grow up as you sound like a delinquent teenager.

[JumpingJax]

Because that's what we had before (with OYRA) and it didn't work on a number of levels, again as discussed early in this thread.

Frankly, I hope NCORC's efforts do spread nationally. Cat 2 (and the other OSR's) is an unwieldy list of requirements that in many cases are marginally effective in improving safety. Meanwhile they threaten to make offshore racing the domain of the rich. We (in SSS) nearly started requiring Cat 2 gear after the DAISY incident, and it quickly became clear we would eliminate many of the usual suspects who have raced successfully here for years.

The problem with Jax's post is his initial premise. The CG has made it clear they don't want to get involved in mandating particular equipment. Locally they've said they would like to see consistency in the equipment requirements among the OA's and that is a big reason for the exercise which is the subject of this thread. Moreover, I've pulled an offshore race permit in this district and there are no equipment requirements in it (other than a requirement to comply with existing reg's). The 406 device was the exception but OYRA required them a year before the CG did. It is very involved and time-consuming for the CG to do that kind of rule-making.

Finally, to my knowledge we are the only CG district in the country where the CG has leveraged the Event Permit process to this extent. Perhaps they know they are on thin ice, and hence are looking to let the NCORC and OA's work out the equipment rules.

My shortness with JJax (besides "history" elsewhere in the Forums) is that we are nearly at the end of this process and he is dragging the conversation back to the beginning. Instead, he should simply study the thread.

I've read the thread and found myself quite nonplussed by the insularity of views of quite a few of the NC sailors. As I see it, the CG isn't trying to take over the issue, but face it: they are in part in the rule-making business like any other federal agency. It's part of what they do when a need is perceived. And like any other federal rule-making, it's a long drawn out-process no matter what rule they're adopting. You guys have already had a precedent set with the EPIRB requirement; there are no other equipment requirements in permits ... yet.

It isn't the NC ORC effort that will spread nationally. But if backed into it by a failure of the NC ORC to unify the local requirements the CG will be able to pick up the pieces and make rules with the force of law. And we don't need that precedent in NC or nationally. Over here on the right coast, we're doing just fine with Cat 2 and US Sailing reservations and occasional regional or local reservations. We don't need you guys dragging us down with you.

[stranded]

Unwanted comment from a distance.... and I feel I understand the point Ashley is so diplomatically trying to make.


The gear is not in itself the solution.

How you understand and USE the gear is what counts.

Apparently the vhf became unuseable in LSC incident because everyone tried to speak at once,

and showed up the need for a repeater to deal with the vhf blind side of the islands.

Where I come from, there is a system of repeaters all along the coast where hf was previously the only option.

And if a masthead light can be shown, there are actually combination m/h lights that mount a small stainless whip on top.


.... and to keep saying, that in an incident, a man in your cold water can both speak, let alone use a vhf, and not lose line of site for transmission / reception

in what, 3 to 4 metre seas ( or more ),

without CG imposing securite and controlling traffic,

indicates just how much many accomplished sailors need to pause and deal with here and now.

More of the same gadgets are not always an improvement,

and why are the findings from S2H ( twice now ? ), and Fastnet so out of step with SF unique requirements ?

I cannot disagree with the suggestion for cat 2 as a base line.... Exemptions / alternatives can always be allowed ,

if it can be demonstrated that an alternative will suffice.




Bottom line is.... local CG fallback will always be they will be unwilling to risk their men and equipment unnecessarily

for people who put themselves in danger in an irresponsible way

Then they will decide regarding permits, etc.

[tolachi]

Low Speed Chase had the "right gear" on their boat, yet here we are. You just don't get it, do you?

As for telling me to grow up, fuck off.

Ditto. Front paging this discussion hasn't done anything to help it be productive.

At this point I think we've hashed our differences out pretty clearly. The interested parties need to make an effort to honor Ahi Tuna's request to forward their gripes and proposed alternate means for satisfying the requirement in question. The committee has shown open mindedness to reevaluating their suggestions if a good argument can be put forward. That is the most the dissenters can ask of them.

[Ahi Tuna]

I agree with you that there are some things that need changing with Cat 2 OSR for local racing but my point is lets present the cat 2 rules and then waive the following requirements for the following reasons... That way you are showing the compromises already being made and rules don't come as a shock to people who have never heard of the OSR.

Forgive my jumping here a week later, I was out of town and did not have the patience to type on a tiny iPhone keyboard...

I have to admit that I personally came into this process as a big ISAF OSR fan. In roughly 2010 the OYRA board which is responsible for 9 of the 15 races that don't leave the Gulf of the Farallones did a major review of the rules we had prior to that time. We had a checklist that was fairly complete, but the first sentence said if there were any discrepancies then ISAF Cat 2 took precedence. It had not been looked at for many years so it was out of date. You can find the list that was the result of the review here http://www.yra.org/O...inequipment.pdf

Despite the 2006 date on the file name it was 2010 work. This is what you suggest we do, with the full ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing prescriptions, with our own local changes based on some reality. Basically we waived liferafts and lifelines and some other accommodation stuff like stoves and heads in order to appease the smaller boats.

You would not believe the ration of shit I took over this list. Basically lots of boats said they would not race OYRA because of the requirements. A lot like the the discussion here. We also did not inspect, so who really knows how well boats were prepared. I think most of the fleet was in compliance and when we did some spot inspections last year it was 100% good.

When the NCORC was formed I thought it would be appropriate for the Single Handed Sailing Society (SSS) to simply review the OYRA list and let us know what was distasteful and should be removed. The response which was mostly polite was basically 'you've got to be kidding' and used terms like 'non starter' and the reality was that this approach was not going to work.

We have a diverse group of racers and Organizing Authorities here in SF. We have OYRA that now does 9 races and has close to 60 boats signed up for the most popular race (Farallones), we have SSS that does two races , a single handed Farallones and a single handed (maybe double too?) Half Moon Bay race to a destination (~140 boats between the two), we have the Bay Area Multihull Assn (BAMA) that does a single race called the Double Handed Farallones race that draws an average of 67 boats over the last three years (2012 was a big wind day so the numbers are skewed), we have the Island Yacht Club that also does a single race called the Double Handed Lightship race that draws about 40 boats (#s based on the last 3 years). We then have Santa Cruz and Monterey destination races that draw a few dozen boats each. You can count them many different ways to see who has the most boats/starts/racers, etc. The reality is that OYRA has a high sign up number, but low show-up number which is unfortunately pretty typical around here because it is a series that spans 9 races and 6 months. The others show good show up numbers in relation to sign ups since they are all pretty much single race events (SSS does have a season in/out of the bay with some throw outs). This is all just background and not really the point.

We have racers that do a dozen races a year with multiple OA's including races beyond the area, and we have boats that do a single race every year or two, and some that only do a single race ever.

So realistically we had a choice. Take a hard line and nothing changes. OYRA sails with modified OSR's and everybody else does their own thing. We decided to try and find a compromise. The group charged with sorting this out took the SSS list for ocean races and used it as a starting point (BAMA and IYC had even less, other OA's used the OYRA list). We then built a spreadsheet that compared the SSS list item by item with the ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing Prescriptions. We sat in a room and went through it item by item. If the group felt it improved safety and had a reasonable 'bang for the buck' (effort and $) then it stayed on the list. If not it was dropped. We tried very hard to simplify the verbiage of the requirements wherever possible.

For example, ISAF takes a couple of pages to define a radio with a masthead antenna, and we simply said you need a radio with a masthead antenna (yes, we are looking at this).

So the reality is that we most certainly did not ignore the ISAF Cat 2 list, if fact it was the basis for most of what we did. This was not a re-invention but a simplification.

My ISAF OSR centric stance has changed through this process. Do I think that every boat should review the ISAF Cat 2 OSR's and decide what among the requirements makes sense for their boat and their program? Absolutely. Do I think that ISAF Cat 2 should be our take-it-or-leave-it list? No, I don't think that that serves the mission we have been given of standardizing requirements and improving ocean safety in the Gulf of the Farallones.

NCORC can only provide recommendations for what to do. OA's can do whatever they please, just like OA's can choose to use ISAF or not (in the US, most do not). We are trying to come up with a list that has a greater chance of actually being adopted by all of the OA's in our area.

Thanks for your input, we really do want to hear every side of everybody opinion when making this decision.

Andy

[JumpingJax]

[snip]

We then built a spreadsheet that compared the SSS list item by item with the ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing Prescriptions. We sat in a room and went through it item by item. If the group felt it improved safety and had a reasonable 'bang for the buck' (effort and $) then it stayed on the list. If not it was dropped. We tried very hard to simplify the verbiage of the requirements wherever possible.

[snip]

So the reality is that we most certainly did not ignore the ISAF Cat 2 list, if fact it was the basis for most of what we did. This was not a re-invention but a simplification.

[snip]

Andy

The vast majority of your post is very sensible - and hopefully will be successful. I'd encourage you to give consideration to a couple of thoughts that can be brought into focus in light of the above quotes from your post:

One factor with adopting requirements is that they become standards. Standards then become one basis (not necessarily the only basis, of course) for determinations of insurance coverage and legal liability. If an owner or race organizer has followed the standard applicable, it is more difficult for insurance companies to deny coverage for an incident or for the courts to find liablity.

In your quest to "simplify the vergiage" and to come up with a new list that drops certain requirements from the ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing Prescriptions to result in a new list creates a contest of standards: Would you wish to go to court on the basis of "My standard is better than your standard!!!"

On the other hand, adopting the ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing Prescriptions with your own additional local prescriptions accomplishes the same apparent result.

While it may be tempting to dismiss making this an elevation of form over substance, keep in mind, by way of example, that Lloyds of London and Chubb and other underwriters outside Northern California know what the language of Cat 2 mean. They're going to be a lot happier with a single standard. Carefully written local prescriptions - that inherently express an underlying rational for adopting it - will be something they can live with (or not) at the time of underwriting. In addition to removing requirements, a properly drafted prescription can serve your purpose of simplifying the verbiage. And, for another example, there will be a higher level of predictability in litigation when there is a single standard to apply. Think about the disquiet of the courts if there is one body of law for LA and SanDiego and another for SF and environs - they won't have it for long.

If you adopt the international "gold standard" and then adopt appropriate prescriptions as the standard itself contemplates, you are on a very sound basis. As you depart from that approach, you introduce unnecessary and entirely avoidable issues.

[BobJ]

Jax, what's being developed is a new "gold standard" of which a shorter and more effective equipment list is only a part. With OSR Cat. 2, all you've got is an equipment list that among other things excludes quite a few very capable boats.

If you scoff at this notion, you don't know the quality and experience of the people working on the standard. I also suspect you and others underestimate the conditions we sail in on a normal Summer afternoon.

[NoStrings]

Well, I can understand how your (bobJ) logic might confuse anyone reading this thread. One one hand you have an MEL developed over a few decades of offshore sailing, including lessons learned from Fastnet and S-H. On the other hand you're claiming that our summer sailing conditions (which everyone but you ubermenschen seem to underestimate) present challenges SO HEINOUS that you actually need LESS safety equipment than that proscribed under OSR Cat II.

I'll wait for your snarky "f off".

[BobJ]

If you guys want to rehash the arguments made in this thread over a month ago, go ahead. Fortunately the people actually doing the work have made a lot of progress since then.

I'm out until a substantive point or question is asked.

[NoStrings]

I might suggest that you use the rode specifications from the PAC Cup. Otherwise you're going to have someone put 22' of 1/8" titanium chain on his Unobtanium 44 and call it good.

[Christian]

I agree with you that there are some things that need changing with Cat 2 OSR for local racing but my point is lets present the cat 2 rules and then waive the following requirements for the following reasons... That way you are showing the compromises already being made and rules don't come as a shock to people who have never heard of the OSR.

Forgive my jumping here a week later, I was out of town and did not have the patience to type on a tiny iPhone keyboard...

I have to admit that I personally came into this process as a big ISAF OSR fan. In roughly 2010 the OYRA board which is responsible for 9 of the 15 races that don't leave the Gulf of the Farallones did a major review of the rules we had prior to that time. We had a checklist that was fairly complete, but the first sentence said if there were any discrepancies then ISAF Cat 2 took precedence. It had not been looked at for many years so it was out of date. You can find the list that was the result of the review here http://www.yra.org/O...inequipment.pdf

Despite the 2006 date on the file name it was 2010 work. This is what you suggest we do, with the full ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing prescriptions, with our own local changes based on some reality. Basically we waived liferafts and lifelines and some other accommodation stuff like stoves and heads in order to appease the smaller boats.

Removing the requirement for lifelines and liferafts for races in an area with relatively cold water and somewhat frequent high winds and waves borders on a total disregard for any kind of sanity and lessons lerned through the years both in Cali and other parts off the world
You would not believe the ration of shit I took over this list. Basically lots of boats said they would not race OYRA because of the requirements. A lot like the the discussion here. We also did not inspect, so who really knows how well boats were prepared. I think most of the fleet was in compliance and when we did some spot inspections last year it was 100% good.

When the NCORC was formed I thought it would be appropriate for the Single Handed Sailing Society (SSS) to simply review the OYRA list and let us know what was distasteful and should be removed. The response which was mostly polite was basically 'you've got to be kidding' and used terms like 'non starter' and the reality was that this approach was not going to work.

WTF does distasteful mean in the context of OSR?
We have a diverse group of racers and Organizing Authorities here in SF. We have OYRA that now does 9 races and has close to 60 boats signed up for the most popular race (Farallones), we have SSS that does two races , a single handed Farallones and a single handed (maybe double too?) Half Moon Bay race to a destination (~140 boats between the two), we have the Bay Area Multihull Assn (BAMA) that does a single race called the Double Handed Farallones race that draws an average of 67 boats over the last three years (2012 was a big wind day so the numbers are skewed), we have the Island Yacht Club that also does a single race called the Double Handed Lightship race that draws about 40 boats (#s based on the last 3 years). We then have Santa Cruz and Monterey destination races that draw a few dozen boats each. You can count them many different ways to see who has the most boats/starts/racers, etc. The reality is that OYRA has a high sign up number, but low show-up number which is unfortunately pretty typical around here because it is a series that spans 9 races and 6 months. The others show good show up numbers in relation to sign ups since they are all pretty much single race events (SSS does have a season in/out of the bay with some throw outs). This is all just background and not really the point.

We have racers that do a dozen races a year with multiple OA's including races beyond the area, and we have boats that do a single race every year or two, and some that only do a single race ever.

So realistically we had a choice. Take a hard line and nothing changes. OYRA sails with modified OSR's and everybody else does their own thing. We decided to try and find a compromise. The group charged with sorting this out took the SSS list for ocean races and used it as a starting point (BAMA and IYC had even less, other OA's used the OYRA list). We then built a spreadsheet that compared the SSS list item by item with the ISAF Cat 2 with US Sailing Prescriptions. We sat in a room and went through it item by item. If the group felt it improved safety and had a reasonable 'bang for the buck' (effort and $) then it stayed on the list. If not it was dropped. We tried very hard to simplify the verbiage of the requirements wherever possible.

For example, ISAF takes a couple of pages to define a radio with a masthead antenna, and we simply said you need a radio with a masthead antenna (yes, we are looking at this).

Actually it is under a page (and this even includes some advice on how to comply). Requiring just a VHF with a masthead antenna without any qualifiers will allow boats to "comply" by using a handheld connected to a very thin coax and a louse (but leightweight) antenna. One could easily see something like a 90%+ loss in such a setup and even starting out with 5-6W (or even 1W if the the radio Tx power is turned down) leaving maybe 0.1W transmitted via a crappy antenna - basically rendering the whole setup completely useless. If the ISAF Cat2 reqs are followed it "gurantees" a minimum of 15W transmitted power from the antenna - Huge difference. Off course the ISAF OSR's are a little more wordy than "yours" but it also avoids a scenario like the one I just described.

Here is the text from the ISAF OSR for Cat 2:



3.29 Communications Equipment, EPFS (Electronic Position-Fixing System), Radar, AIS **


Provision of GMDSS and DSC is unlikely to be mandatory for small craft during the term of the present Special
Regulations However it is recommended that persons in charge include these facilities when installing new
equipment.
MoMu0,1,2,3
3.29.1 The following shall be provided: **
a) A marine radio transceiver (or if stated in the Notice of Race, an installed satcom terminal), and MoMu0,1,2,3
i an emergency antenna when the regular antenna depends upon the mast. MoMu0,1,2,3
When the marine radio transceiver is VHF: MoMu0,1,2,2
i it shall have a rated output power of 25W MoMu0,1,2,3
ii it shall have a masthead antenna, and co-axial feeder cable with not more than 40% power loss MoMu0,1,2,3
iii the following types and lengths of co-axial feeder cable will meet the requirements of OSR 3.29.1 ((ii): (a) up
to 15m (50ft) - type RG8X ("mini 8"); ( 15-28m (50-90ft) - type RG8U; © 28-43m (90-140ft) - type 9913F
(uses conventional connectors, available from US supplier Belden); (d) 43-70m) 140-230ft - type LMR600 (uses
special connectors, available from US supplier Times Microwave).
MoMu0,1,2,3
iv it should include channel 72 (an international ship-ship channel which, by common use, has become widely
accepted as primary choice for ocean racing yachts anywhere in the world)
MoMu0,1,2,3
e) A hand-held marine VHF transceiver, watertight or with a waterproof cover. When not in use to be stowed in a
grab bag or emergency container (see OSR 4.21)
MoMu1,2,3,4
f) Independent of a main radio transceiver, a radio receiver capable of receiving weather bulletins **
i) An EPFS (Electronic Position-Fixing System) (e.g. GPS) MoMu0,1,2,3
n) An AIS Transponder MoMu1,2
3.29.2 Yachts are reminded that no reflector, active or passive, is a guarantee of detection or tracking by a vessel
using radar.
**
a) The attention of persons in charge is drawn to legislation in force or imminent affecting the territorial seas of
some countries in which the carriage of an AIS set is or will be mandatory for certain vessels including
relatively small craft.




So the reality is that we most certainly did not ignore the ISAF Cat 2 list, if fact it was the basis for most of what we did. This was not a re-invention but a simplification.

My ISAF OSR centric stance has changed through this process. Do I think that every boat should review the ISAF Cat 2 OSR's and decide what among the requirements makes sense for their boat and their program? Absolutely. Do I think that ISAF Cat 2 should be our take-it-or-leave-it list? No, I don't think that that serves the mission we have been given of standardizing requirements and improving ocean safety in the Gulf of the Farallones.

ISAF Cat 2 is pretty much a standard globally for the type of races you are talking about. Your very limited (and with many holes for those who want to be really skimpy on the cost/weight of safety equipment) is not going to improve the safety of those races. It might very well lead to some boats used to carry appropriate safety gear to leave some of it in the dock box to be weight-wise competitive with the boats that carry the token safety gear. If you look at the Chi-Mac race as an example where CYC came up with the harebrained idea that they should write their own safety requirements thay basically gave people a choice of leaving the life raft ashore if the boat is carrying an EPIRB. A number of boats have choosen not to carry a liferaft (because they now can) to get a competitive edge despite the fact that water temps can be in the low 50's at the time of the race - not f.....g bright. Other boats choose to carry liferafts that are outdated (as in not recently inspected) since they can get away with it if they carry an EPIRB - talk about a false sense of security.
NCORC can only provide recommendations for what to do. OA's can do whatever they please, just like OA's can choose to use ISAF or not (in the US, most do not). We are trying to come up with a list that has a greater chance of actually being adopted by all of the OA's in our area.

Thanks for your input, we really do want to hear every side of everybody opinion when making this decision.

Andy

I have to say that I do find it pretty strange that you can even propose some pretty limited safety reqs while you do believe that what is in the ISAF Cat2 reqs is appropriate. Having raced quite extensively both inshore and offshore I have seen my fair share of people trying to "bend" the rules (and intent thereof) to gain a competitive advantage and/or save money - and in some cases with fatal outcomes. Seeing some of the comments from your fellow Cali sailors you can expect a fair bit of this kind of behavior since it appears that a number of people are not ready to accept that they should equip their boats appropriately. And you are helping them out.

[BobJ]

I have seen my fair share of people trying to "bend" the rules (and intent thereof) to gain a competitive advantage and/or save money - and in some cases with fatal outcomes.

Specifics please - with names and dates. Surely if there were "fatal outcomes" you have this data. Specifically, explain how the bending of rules led to those fatal outcomes.

Ante up if you want to criticize the work of those who HAVE done their homework.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

A few points that seem to be overlooked by a lot of folks in the most recent discussion here:

1) USCG has no interest, and has explicitly said so, in writing equipment regs for racing sailboats. Where it's easy and obvious, like the mandate for an EPIRB and a predicted mandate for AIS, they will transfer regulations from ships to sailboats. They don't write or mandate any MER or OSR now, and have said they don't intend to start. For a copy of what they actually do require - you can have a look at their web site. It's a darn site less equipment than any list discussed on this thread.

2) USCG has steadily and consistently backed off of regulations that have been de facto rejected by boaters. One need only look at the history of how PFDs have been dumbed-down to realize that USCG understands that safety equipment that gets used is a lot better than safety equipment that no one uses. Yes, OAs with significant assets have required a lot of equipment, but it is not USCG forcing that. It is the OA motivated by fear of lawsuits. (I find it interesting that not one person posting here has provided any data on how many lawsuits there have been and what they've cost. Data would be interesting and perhaps useful. Given the amazingly low insurance premiums charged to OAs, the number of successful suits must be vanishingly small.)

3) The sailors working on this project are bound to upset the status quo, that is the point. This is exactly and precisely because a large number of them don't like or agree with ISAF's OSR for various reasons. Complexity is cited, but there are plenty of substantive items that are pretty obviously either left-over from a prior time or far less than optimal. Many are documented in the thread above. Many of those sailors working to upset the status quo are highly qualified and have worked with the ISAF OSR and US Sailing Prescriptions for decades. These aren't hacks.

4) It is clearly and explicitly stated by USCG that they will either issue or not issue a permit for an event. As a result, some OAs may revert back to their earlier roots and simply have "cruises" to certain places and around certain islands. This was done for years off of San Francisco. Further, the OAs involved in those "cruises" typically had no buildings, officers and assets for precisely the reasons that no one wanted any asset large enough involved to entice a lawyer to action. I believe the first of these "cruises" did occurr this last summer following the LSC incident - perhaps this is actually the future of off-shore sail boat racing for "normal" people (See PFD item above). Of course, it's difficult for a Yacht Club with a great deal of assets to be an OA for such an event, but their members don't seem to have any trouble participating. Indeed, some have commented privately that this will get the sport a lot closer to its roots.


In conclusion, Northern California is an area well known for not having a tremendous amount of respect for traditions in yacht design, computers, biotech, and a lot of other areas having nothing to do with sailing. For those of you from other parts of the US, you could have expected that a group proposing an alternative to the ISAF OSR would come from this area. Resistance to change in this field seems to be running a course identical in political nature to that run by the introduction of things like ULDB boats an lots of other changes to sailboat racing that were viewed as either unnecessary or downright dangerous over the years. The current debate about safety in AC-72s comes to mind. There's nothing new here. The greatly simplified MER being worked on by the NC-ORC will either be accepted or rejected broadly by the OAs involved, the USCG will not be expressing an opinion and have said so. Time will prove out the adoption, or not, of what is being proposed. We'll get a chance to see what happens. The current level of pontification about the future is just so much hot air.

[One eye Jack]

These requirements are not maximum requirements, but the minimum. If you want and feel safer with more.. Do it.
Life is all about common sense, whether it is walking a cross the street or sailing around the world. Risk factor.can I cross the street with that car coming? Or should I wait until it passes? Risk factor. Should I have extra safety equipment on my boat, or leave it behind? Doing a race like the transpac, should I have 15 days or 20 days worth of food? Risk factor. Do you feel safer with two VHF radios? Or will it be even safer to have three, just in case? Risk factor. Would I take a sextant, just I case the GPS breaks, or shuts down? Risk factor. Should I have a double floor, and canopy liferaft? Or a single floor, open raft? Risk factor. Does that ship see me? Is that watch ,really watching? Risk factor. Everything that you do carries a risk to it. Just how far do you feel safe and able to do it? Some people won't feel safe leaving that life raft at home going past point Bonita. Just how much of a risk do you and your crew want to take? Take that raft, or leave it at home. So to give a base line of risk factor, comes minimum safety gear requirements. If you want more take it. How many of you want a lot more required safety equipment as a minimum, but will do 80 in their car, when the speed limit is 65? Or draft behind the car in front of you? AKA tailgating. And then one has allof this SAFETY equipment, and something happens, so you demand more, and more and more, until you are so safe , that you have a false sence of security, you are no longer safe at all, as you are now in a state of Nirvana, and will believe that you will never get into trouble,because you are SOOO safe. It all boils down to common sense, and risk factor. Where you want to be, isn't where I want to be, as long as the minimum requirements are met.

[CrushDigital]

I have seen my fair share of people trying to "bend" the rules (and intent thereof) to gain a competitive advantage and/or save money - and in some cases with fatal outcomes.

Specifics please - with names and dates. Surely if there were "fatal outcomes" you have this data. Specifically, explain how the bending of rules led to those fatal outcomes.

Ante up if you want to criticize the work of those who HAVE done their homework.

Talk about latching onto the least important part of the post. Christian raised some very good points about the way standards are being set and instead of engaging on those you choose to ask for citations regarding folks bending the rules in yacht racing.

[Estar]

Talk about latching onto the least important part of the post. Christian raised some very good points about the way standards are being set and instead of engaging on those you choose to ask for citations regarding folks bending the rules in yacht racing.

No, he asked for examples where equipment rules were bent and there were fatal outcomes. He asked that because that is the ultimate fact base for setting minimum equipment regulations.

As to setting standards . . . first, you all should realize that the head of US Sailing's safety at sea committee (which oversees the ISAF OSRs in the us) is on this group. So this is not being done in isolation of the ISAF OSR's but in fact with help from the group responsible for them in the US. second, there is a hope among some that the results of this group will in fact set a new 'gold standard', and will be adapted elsewhere, and that will be in actual fact as safe as the ISAF OSR's while being both easier for the owner to understand and less difficult in effort and cost. We of course don't know whether they will achieve that aim but it will not be for lack of smart and knowledgeable and experienced people being involved.

[CrushDigital]

Talk about latching onto the least important part of the post. Christian raised some very good points about the way standards are being set and instead of engaging on those you choose to ask for citations regarding folks bending the rules in yacht racing.

No, he asked for examples where equiopment rules were bent and there were fatal outcomes. He asked that because that is the ultimate fact base for setting minimum equpment regulations.

As to setting standards . . . first, you all should realize that the head of US Sailing's safety at sea committee (which oversees the ISAF OSRs in the us) is on this group. SO this is not being done in isolation of the ISAF OSR's but in fact with help from the group responsible for them in the US. second, there is a hope among some that the results of this group will in fact set a new 'gold standard', and will be adapted elsewhere, and that will be in actual fact as safe as the ISAF OSR's while being both easier for the owner to understand and less difficult in effort and cost. We of course don't know whether they will achieve that aim but it will not be for lack of smart and knowledgeable an experienced people being involved.

I'm not doubting that those involved are both smart and qualified. I guess after reading five pages of this, I just can't get my head around the idea of a gold standard that omits such things as lifelines and liferafts, Sure Cat 2 can be pricy, but so is just about every other aspect of yacht racing and it already is viewed as a gold standard just about everywhere else. I can't see what this accomplishes that local prescriptions do not.

Something of an aside, I come from an accounting background, and the big talk in terms of regulation is convergence. Accounting policy was traditionally set at the national level however in the era of multinationals, it beecame completely unwieldy. It's interesting to me to see the exact opposite happening here.

[BobJ]

FWIW, I do not support the omission of lifelines. Since none of the subject races exceed 25-30 miles offshore, the consensus is that a liferaft requirement is excessive.

I suffer under the same professional background as Crush, but I'll wager that Olson, Express and SC owners are grateful for George's, Carl's and Bill's willingness to ignore any "convergence" in yacht design.

[JumpingJax]

Jax, what's being developed is a new "gold standard" of which a shorter and more effective equipment list is only a part. With OSR Cat. 2, all you've got is an equipment list that among other things excludes quite a few very capable boats.

If you scoff at this notion, you don't know the quality and experience of the people working on the standard. I also suspect you and others underestimate the conditions we sail in on a normal Summer afternoon.

One problem you face is that you neglect to recognize that there is an existing "gold standard" with a world-wide international provenance. The proposed new standard adopted for NC is, by comparison, going to end up being treated as a "tin standard."

We all know you SF saiors are special, but I'm not sure the federal courts and New York, boston and London insurance underwriters will all agree.

[BobJ]

From Beau's excellent post above:

"I find it interesting that not one person posting here has provided any data on how many lawsuits there have been and what they've cost. Data would be interesting and perhaps useful. Given the amazingly low insurance premiums charged to OAs, the number of successful suits must be vanishingly small."

Got any data to support your argument, Jax?

[Presuming Ed]

...omits such things as lifelines...

Not massively keen on the idea of swapping down from the 2 to the 3 (or even down to the storm jib) on a boat without lifelines. Um.... no thanks!

[JumpingJax]

These requirements are not maximum requirements, but the minimum. If you want and feel safer with more.. Do it.
Life is all about common sense, whether it is walking a cross the street or sailing around the world. Risk factor.can I cross the street with that car coming? Or should I wait until it passes? Risk factor. Should I have extra safety equipment on my boat, or leave it behind? Doing a race like the transpac, should I have 15 days or 20 days worth of food? Risk factor. Do you feel safer with two VHF radios? Or will it be even safer to have three, just in case? Risk factor. Would I take a sextant, just I case the GPS breaks, or shuts down? Risk factor. Should I have a double floor, and canopy liferaft? Or a single floor, open raft? Risk factor. Does that ship see me? Is that watch ,really watching? Risk factor. Everything that you do carries a risk to it. Just how far do you feel safe and able to do it? Some people won't feel safe leaving that life raft at home going past point Bonita. Just how much of a risk do you and your crew want to take? Take that raft, or leave it at home. So to give a base line of risk factor, comes minimum safety gear requirements. If you want more take it. How many of you want a lot more required safety equipment as a minimum, but will do 80 in their car, when the speed limit is 65? Or draft behind the car in front of you? AKA tailgating. And then one has allof this SAFETY equipment, and something happens, so you demand more, and more and more, until you are so safe , that you have a false sence of security, you are no longer safe at all, as you are now in a state of Nirvana, and will believe that you will never get into trouble,because you are SOOO safe. It all boils down to common sense, and risk factor. Where you want to be, isn't where I want to be, as long as the minimum requirements are met.

You're talking seamanship, which is somewhat off point. You are absolutely correct in all you say, but look in a slightly different direction. The best of seamanship results in no need for any of the safety equipment to be used. On the other hand, should you have the misfortune of permanently losing crew overboard while rounding the Farallones and with no lifelines, your insurance company has quite the incentive to, and is quite capable of, saying, "TILT! Do Not Pass Go! Do Not Collect .... You didn't follow the international gold standard." And the judge is going to hit you for a BIG damage award and punitive damages for gross and willful negligence because the international gold standard says you shouldn't be racing out there without life lines. And they don't care a bit about "some jackleg local list."

No one I know of thinks complying with your NC list or the ORC Cat 2 list makes you or anyone else safe. All that is stuff and has to be used, if at all, with competence and good seamanship to contribute to safety. But if you end up in court, it won't be sailors deciding your fate.

At a certain level, these requirements have only a little to do with safety itself and a lot to do with the perceptions of safety. It is and has been my position that you should negotiate among yourselves what local prescriptions you can decide are appropriate and rely on all those wise men leading the effort to write clear, unambiguous prescriptions to Cat 2. If you choose to do without life lines, that's up to you. Perhaps unwise, perhaps not. But if you follow the NC ORC plan to create a new list derived from Cat 2, you're moving into uncharted waters. You're turning your back on the (hopefully unneeded) protection of compliance with that Cat 2 gold standard thingy (except where modified for good reasons stated in the prescriptions). In my view, those wise men are choosing poorly at present.

[Ahi Tuna]

Talk about latching onto the least important part of the post. Christian raised some very good points about the way standards are being set and instead of engaging on those you choose to ask for citations regarding folks bending the rules in yacht racing.

No, he asked for examples where equiopment rules were bent and there were fatal outcomes. He asked that because that is the ultimate fact base for setting minimum equpment regulations.

As to setting standards . . . first, you all should realize that the head of US Sailing's safety at sea committee (which oversees the ISAF OSRs in the us) is on this group. SO this is not being done in isolation of the ISAF OSR's but in fact with help from the group responsible for them in the US. second, there is a hope among some that the results of this group will in fact set a new 'gold standard', and will be adapted elsewhere, and that will be in actual fact as safe as the ISAF OSR's while being both easier for the owner to understand and less difficult in effort and cost. We of course don't know whether they will achieve that aim but it will not be for lack of smart and knowledgeable an experienced people being involved.

I'm not doubting that those involved are both smart and qualified. I guess after reading five pages of this, I just can't get my head around the idea of a gold standard that omits such things as lifelines and liferafts, Sure Cat 2 can be pricy, but so is just about every other aspect of yacht racing and it already is viewed as a gold standard just about everywhere else. I can't see what this accomplishes that local prescriptions do not.

Something of an aside, I come from an accounting background, and the big talk in terms of regulation is convergence. Accounting policy was traditionally set at the national level however in the era of multinationals, it beecame completely unwieldy. It's interesting to me to see the exact opposite happening here.

Thanks CD for reading this thread from the beginning. I know it can be a bit much and I have read it a couple of times...

For those who are not willing to do so or have simply forgotten the discussion of a month ago let me try to repeat and rephrase how we got to this point.

In the SF area there are 15 local ocean races that venture from about 20-58nm off shore. Most are run in daylight (all start in daylight, only 3 have deadlines after midnight) and 6 of the 15 races are actually run along the shore line to harbors or anchorages outside the SF bay. These 15 races are run by 6 different Organizing Authorities (OA's). The OYRA that runs 9 of the 15 races uses member yacht clubs to provide the race committee personnel needed to run the races (host YC's). This has led to much inconsistency in how races are run and what, if any, equipment is required.

The reality is that many of the same boats compete in races by multiple or all of the OA's.

In response to the LSC incident the NorCalORC was formed by these OA's and host YC's so that we can be more consistent in how races are run, and to adopt the best practices of the group.

Training of the race committees, either host YC's or the OA's themselves is part of the puzzle. That committee is developing standard procedures with input from all of the OA's and host YC's.

Training opportunities and requirements for the racers is part of the puzzle. As of now the intent is to use a US Sailing approved Safety at Sea seminar and skippers/competitors meetings combined with online video presentations and other material available online.

Communications infrastructure improvements (remote VHF repeaters etc) and standardized protocol are part of the puzzle, and will be part of the training.

Safety equipment is the final piece. This list was developed as a compromise between what the very diverse OA's do now.

OYRA used a slightly modified ISAF Cat 2 OSR list, and two of the OA's that used to be part of the OYRA schedule used the OYRA list. The problem is that the other three OA's, SSS, BAMA and Island YC did not and refused to adopt the OYRA list.

The alternative was to take a hard line and insist on ISAF, and thus fail at any sort of standardization, or to meet with the other OA's and reach a compromise. We tried to start with ISAF OSR's but there is just so much overhead and detail in the requirements that it was not possible. We instead started with a list from SSS that was in the middle and then compared that to the full ISAF Cat 2 OSR's and then simplified the wording where possible.

The hard reality is that NorCalORC is not and has never been a regulatory group. US Sailing does not have the authority to force any OA to do anything they don't want to and so NorCalORC sure can't.

For that reason we are trying to make the list as painless and acceptable as possible. We think we do more good with a lesser list adopted by more OA's and boats than a more strict list adopted by only a few. That is where we are at now so this provides no progress.

Sorry to repeat myself, but for the ISAF stalwarts that is our reality and the task we were given.

[JumpingJax]

From Beau's excellent post above:

"I find it interesting that not one person posting here has provided any data on how many lawsuits there have been and what they've cost. Data would be interesting and perhaps useful. Given the amazingly low insurance premiums charged to OAs, the number of successful suits must be vanishingly small."

Got any data to support your argument, Jax?

It ain't lawsuits against OAs you should be worried about. See above post about risk to boat owners. Of course if you're a single handed sailor, you don't have to worry about getting sued for losing crew, but it only takes one bad day and your poor widow might get screwed by the insurance company before she gets screwed by some foredeck guy. And we all know how quick they are.

I don't off hand know of any suits against OAs, win, lose or draw. As a former trial lawyer, I can tell you from experience that paying for your own case to collect on insurance could bankrupt a lot of small boat racers. No contingent fees for plaintiffs, sorry. Cash only. Defending a suit by the survivors of a lost crew - if your insurance denies coverage - could be just as expensive (and a lot less optional). And that's the cost of litigation alone. When you ask about contingent fees, once your legal eagle has done his preliminary interview with you, he's going to look cross eyed and change the subject. When you lose against the insurance company and get nothing from them and then lost your defense and get hit with a big judgment, it all gets a lot worse.

One reason I don't know of any lawsuits that fit the present scenario is that I don't know of any venue that has wilfully kicked the ORC Cat 2 list out the door in favor of local wisdom. All the venues I know of here on the Right Coast stick with Cat 2 with US Sailing prescriptions and a local prescription here and there. There may be departures, and I'm not keeping totally up to date these days as I don't race offshore any longer. Chicago, I think, may have adopted their own local list, but I'm not sure of its format.

I think Mr. Vrolik's post above is short-sighted. Not wrong, just short sighted.

The CG has avoided getting involved in equipment lists and hopes to continue to do so. Point granted. And let's all hope it stays that way.

If the CG has coasties injured or killed - heaven forfend - trying to save racing sailors and it turns out to be relatable to either the present chaotic state of equipment requirements or some unique local list that leaves a big hole for tragedies, as the lifeline question has the potential to do if not treated with great care, the CG point of view could change on a dime. When they perceive an unwarranted risk, to their men or to the public, they will act. Their actions will be via federal rule making that will have the force of law. Violations, if caught, will lead to (always substantial) fines, not a DSQ. In civil litigation, violations will always be found out by competent counsel for the plaintiff, will quickly become per se evidence of gross negligence, and will become per se grounds to deny coverage by your insurer. .

[JumpingJax]

Talk about latching onto the least important part of the post. Christian raised some very good points about the way standards are being set and instead of engaging on those you choose to ask for citations regarding folks bending the rules in yacht racing.

No, he asked for examples where equiopment rules were bent and there were fatal outcomes. He asked that because that is the ultimate fact base for setting minimum equpment regulations.

As to setting standards . . . first, you all should realize that the head of US Sailing's safety at sea committee (which oversees the ISAF OSRs in the us) is on this group. SO this is not being done in isolation of the ISAF OSR's but in fact with help from the group responsible for them in the US. second, there is a hope among some that the results of this group will in fact set a new 'gold standard', and will be adapted elsewhere, and that will be in actual fact as safe as the ISAF OSR's while being both easier for the owner to understand and less difficult in effort and cost. We of course don't know whether they will achieve that aim but it will not be for lack of smart and knowledgeable an experienced people being involved.

I'm not doubting that those involved are both smart and qualified. I guess after reading five pages of this, I just can't get my head around the idea of a gold standard that omits such things as lifelines and liferafts, Sure Cat 2 can be pricy, but so is just about every other aspect of yacht racing and it already is viewed as a gold standard just about everywhere else. I can't see what this accomplishes that local prescriptions do not.

Something of an aside, I come from an accounting background, and the big talk in terms of regulation is convergence. Accounting policy was traditionally set at the national level however in the era of multinationals, it beecame completely unwieldy. It's interesting to me to see the exact opposite happening here.

Thanks CD for reading this thread from the beginning. I know it can be a bit much and I have read it a couple of times...

For those who are not willing to do so or have simply forgotten the discussion of a month ago let me try to repeat and rephrase how we got to this point.

In the SF area there are 15 local ocean races that venture from about 20-58nm off shore. Most are run in daylight (all start in daylight, only 3 have deadlines after midnight) and 6 of the 15 races are actually run along the shore line to harbors or anchorages outside the SF bay. These 15 races are run by 6 different Organizing Authorities (OA's). The OYRA that runs 9 of the 15 races uses member yacht clubs to provide the race committee personnel needed to run the races (host YC's). This has led to much inconsistency in how races are run and what, if any, equipment is required.

The reality is that many of the same boats compete in races by multiple or all of the OA's.

In response to the LSC incident the NorCalORC was formed by these OA's and host YC's so that we can be more consistent in how races are run, and to adopt the best practices of the group.

Training of the race committees, either host YC's or the OA's themselves is part of the puzzle. That committee is developing standard procedures with input from all of the OA's and host YC's.

Training opportunities and requirements for the racers is part of the puzzle. As of now the intent is to use a US Sailing approved Safety at Sea seminar and skippers/competitors meetings combined with online video presentations and other material available online.

Communications infrastructure improvements (remote VHF repeaters etc) and standardized protocol are part of the puzzle, and will be part of the training.

Safety equipment is the final piece. This list was developed as a compromise between what the very diverse OA's do now.

OYRA used a slightly modified ISAF Cat 2 OSR list, and two of the OA's that used to be part of the OYRA schedule used the OYRA list. The problem is that the other three OA's, SSS, BAMA and Island YC did not and refused to adopt the OYRA list.

The alternative was to take a hard line and insist on ISAF, and thus fail at any sort of standardization, or to meet with the other OA's and reach a compromise. We tried to start with ISAF OSR's but there is just so much overhead and detail in the requirements that it was not possible. We instead started with a list from SSS that was in the middle and then compared that to the full ISAF Cat 2 OSR's and then simplified the wording where possible.

The hard reality is that NorCalORC is not and has never been a regulatory group. US Sailing does not have the authority to force any OA to do anything they don't want to and so NorCalORC sure can't.

For that reason we are trying to make the list as painless and acceptable as possible. We think we do more good with a lesser list adopted by more OA's and boats than a more strict list adopted by only a few. That is where we are at now so this provides no progress.

Sorry to repeat myself, but for the ISAF stalwarts that is our reality and the task we were given.

So it's all a popularity contest? Sad.

[Ahi Tuna]

Huh?

How is a compromise a popularity contest?

My way or the highway will not work here. It is true that some of the boats in the mix will be sailing with reduced requirements compared with today. In this compromise some OA's are adding significant new requirements. Read the thread and see how passionately they are arguing about it.

If we do as you suggest some of the OA's will simply choose to not adopt the list and continue to do their own thing. Trust me, we are negotiating just to get this list adopted and we still might not.

If you don't like it, don't sign up for any of the races here.

[Estar]

I don't know of any venue that has wilfully kicked the ORC Cat 2 list out the door in favor of local wisdom. All the venues I know of here on the Right Coast stick with Cat 2 with US Sailing prescriptions and a local prescription here and there. There may be departures, and I'm not keeping totally up to date these days as I don't race offshore any longer.. .

Just FYI, in what I believe is your neck of the woods, just off the top of my head, these races do NOT use ISAF OSR's:

Larchmont YC annual distance race - EDLU
Riverside YV Annual Stratford Shoal Distance race
Around Long Island Regatta
Vineyard Race

Overall in the USA, "ISAF w/USS" prescriptions are used by 57% of the cat 1 & 2 type races

[Occams Razor]

5 pages of content- and I have a basic question.

1) How much of the work is to ensure we have a unified set of procedures so as to help the racers, the Organizing Authorities and the CG altogether.

2) How much is because there is a perceived lack of safety equipment on the boats?

It seems to me that its really 1), and if so, there shouldn't be much of a push to increase the requirements. I don't think increased boat equipment would have helped any of the recent Ocean incidents, with the possible exception of personal communication gear on each and every sailor.

Maybe we need a reset back to the goals of the MEL. A)Keep the boat floating, B)keep people on the boat, and C) enable rescue when either A or B fail and D) at a cost that maximizes the participation of worthy competitors.

It seems we get sent down these tangents when there isn't yet agreement on what the basic goal of the MEL is.

Of course, this could just be SA, since knowing who is on the committee I'm confident that they do have the basic goals in mind.

[NoStrings]

If you read the OSR Special Regs with a holistic view, you can see that there is a staged approach to the requirements based upon the accidents of the past.

First, the goal is to send to sea a sea worthy vessel that is capable of operating in severe conditions, including the use of heavy weather sails, drogues, etc. Clearly it was intended that racing yachts be able to survive on their own.

Second, it was intended that vessels in extremis be able to communicate their situation, while keeping the crew safely aboard, or to recover someone who had left the yacht.

Finally, they had to make allowances for those situations where he crew had no choice but to depart the boat. They needed requirements that would increase the probability of survival if a sailor ended up in the water.

Obviously that's a lot to stuff into one requirements document, and clearly many here on SF Bay are chafing under the oppressive yoke of enforced safety requirements.

I find it "interesting" that the process has been driven by the shorthanded sailing community, particularly after watching a couple of Vendee boats nail a couple of my countrymen out fishing.

So I propose that ALL single handed sailing vessels SHALL be equipped with a Class B AIS transponder (that is turned on) so that other vessels can be aware of their presence, because we know for a damn fact that you can't maintain a 24/7 watch as required under the COLREGS.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

JJax,

I judge the risk of a lawsuit by the premiums I have to pay to my insurance company for my boats and the liability coverage and that paid by the OAs. Both are vanishingly small when compared to the insurance on an automobile. As a result, from this empirical evidence I conclude that the actual risk of a lawsuit of the type you describe is proportionately small. Again, data would be terrific as it would really be informative as to what the actual documented risk of such a lawsuit really is.

Finally, on the insurance front, my insurance carrier knows a great deal about my boats and what I do with them. For example, they know I race the boats, do so across oceans, and (most importantly to this discussion) know that I do not use lifelines or pulpits on the boats unless required to do so by the OA. I specifically corresponded with them on this point, the carbon rig, and a number of other items that "sailor lore" has held have been grounds for either higher premiums or a disallowance of insurance. None of these items were a problem.

The response of the insurance company is instructive here, they simply asked if the boat was equipped with everything USCG required. It is, so there was no more discussion. You might want to discuss this topic with your insurance carrier if you are concerned and discover what they think about the issue. My case, obviously, is just two policies on two boats and not a large sample size. However, it is important in the sort of discussion we're having in this thread, because if the insurance carriers don't care you don't have an argument; whereas if they do care, then there may be a number of sailors who think they are insured when they are not.

Secondly, Estar beat me to the punch, but there are numerous other races in the US of Cat 1 and 2 that do not use ISAF OSRs or use them with extremely heavy modifications. Indeed, it's just under half the races - many on the east coast. In this thread, many pages ago, we discussed the willful disregard of the OSRs by the folks in Chicago amongst others, again the specter of insurance issues was raised and no one was able to document anything.

Finally, in your post you've predicted how the USCG will act if sailors or one of their own service is injured or killed due to what you've described as:

When they perceive an unwarranted risk, to their men or to the public, they will act. Their actions will be via federal rule making that will have the force of law. Violations, if caught, will lead to (always substantial) fines, not a DSQ. In civil litigation, violations will always be found out by competent counsel for the plaintiff, will quickly become per se evidence of gross negligence, and will become per se grounds to deny coverage by your insurer. .

Once again, this is not anything like what the USCG has done to date despite fatalities on a number of occasions, nor does your prediction bear any resemblance to what the USCG in SF Bay has told sailors during conversations I was able to sit in on and conversations reported to me by people I have a lot of trust in. I'll repeat, the USCG has a set of safety regulations that they have developed over time, they want us to conform to those regulations and they want us to do a better job of managing competitors (something that has nothing to do with the MER or OSRs).

I do wish you'd let us know why you feel that you have such a different understanding of what the USCG will do when something bad happens. It doesn't match what they've done in the past, nor is it what they have said they'll do in the future. My primary goal is to understand the facts and why we believe they are indeed facts. Knowing why you believe something that is do different from our own experience is critically important, you might be right. If so, we need to know it.

Standing by.

BV

[BobJ]

I don't understand why we are arguing with people who hide behind screen names and who, as is said, are "neither part of the problem nor part of the solution." Andy asked, I believe, for specific responses to the proposed MER's and if there were objections to a particular requirement, how the objecting skipper would solve the problem.

If the retired East Coast trial lawyers want to weigh in, they'll have a chance to do that if these new rules ever get to their area.

[Ahi Tuna]

I find it "interesting" that the process has been driven by the shorthanded sailing community, particularly after watching a couple of Vendee boats nail a couple of my countrymen out fishing.

I would say that OYRA and SSS worked together on this process, with help from EYC, SCYC and PCYC and US Sailing where many members of the committee were involved in more than one organization. OYRA and SSS represent 11 of 15 races. BAMA, IYC, MPYC and SCYC represent one each. I have rough numbers of how many boats are effected by each over the last 3 years if anybody cares. On average, 688 boats signed up to do an ocean race per year over the last three years, excluding Spin Cup and Windjammers, or an average of 46 per race start, where some were over 70 and some only about a dozen that actually started. 67% of the sign ups were for crewed races (OYRA) and 33% were short handed (SSS, IYC, BAMA). OYRA clearly has a much higher no-show rate than some of these single race sign ups so you can spin the numbers however you wish. The short handers sign up more individual boats since they are single races, but OYRA racers sign up for a 9 race series.

IYC and BAMA were not excluded in this process, they simply did not choose to send a volunteer for the committee. That is precisely why we have posted this for public comment, and boy have we gotten it.

We have gotten both ends of the spectrum from "use full ISAF because they are smarter than you are" to "you can't tell me what to do because I am smarter than you are" and many variations on the theme in between. We have heard from sailors from all over the area, Express 27 sailors, Moore 24 sailors and even have a formal memo from the Moore 24 National Association.

I think at this point it is safe to say that using full ISAF Cat 2 OSR's is off the table. I also think requiring next to nothing as some would like, and trusting sailors to equip their boats with no guidance whatsoever is also off the table.

The time available for comment is drawing to a close. Constructive suggestions from folks that know the situation and have actually read this thread are welcome through Friday. This weekend we will meet and hope to stick a fork in this thing, at least for now.

[M48]

I find it "interesting" that the process has been driven by the shorthanded sailing community, particularly after watching a couple of Vendee boats nail a couple of my countrymen out fishing.

I would say that OYRA and SSS worked together on this process, with help from EYC, SCYC and PCYC and US Sailing where many members of the committee were involved in more than one organization. OYRA and SSS represent 11 of 15 races. BAMA, IYC, MPYC and SCYC represent one each. I have rough numbers of how many boats are effected by each over the last 3 years if anybody cares. On average, 688 boats signed up to do an ocean race per year over the last three years, excluding Spin Cup and Windjammers, or an average of 46 per race start, where some were over 70 and some only about a dozen that actually started. 67% of the sign ups were for crewed races (OYRA) and 33% were short handed (SSS, IYC, BAMA). OYRA clearly has a much higher no-show rate than some of these single race sign ups so you can spin the numbers however you wish. The short handers sign up more individual boats since they are single races, but OYRA racers sign up for a 9 race series.

IYC and BAMA were not excluded in this process, they simply did not choose to send a volunteer for the committee. That is precisely why we have posted this for public comment, and boy have we gotten it.

We have gotten both ends of the spectrum from "use full ISAF because they are smarter than you are" to "you can't tell me what to do because I am smarter than you are" and many variations on the theme in between. We have heard from sailors from all over the area, Express 27 sailors, Moore 24 sailors and even have a formal memo from the Moore 24 National Association.

I think at this point it is safe to say that using full ISAF Cat 2 OSR's is off the table. I also think requiring next to nothing as some would like, and trusting sailors to equip their boats with no guidance whatsoever is also off the table.

The time available for comment is drawing to a close. Constructive suggestions from folks that know the situation and have actually read this thread are welcome through Friday. This weekend we will meet and hope to stick a fork in this thing, at least for now.

Standing by for the fork sticking ......

[tolachi]

Hopefully constructive, possibly totally impracticable:

Require a DSC call for check in when the racing is in the gulf of the farallones and beyond.

This springs from two things that came up at the SAS seminar (thank you again Paul & Ashley)

#1 Paul (instructor) felt that DSC was the single greatest advance in maritime safety in his lifetime. He totally sold me on that.

#2 Apparently in Sidney/Hobart to check in you must have your storm jib & trisail up. This proves that you both have them and know how to rig them, eliminating a past cause of catastrophe.

Requiring a DSC call to RC to be used for checkin would ensure that people both have it and know how to use it. Possibly integrating a valuable safety exercise into a routine part of the day.

My DSC radio is still in the mail, so I can't attest to how practical this is. However, it sounds relatively simple from what I have been told.

[Total Slacker]

Wow. What a thread. As you prepare to stick a fork in it, some general thoughts from a guy outside NorCal & no business commenting:

In the PSSA we try to dance among a few factors:
1) What would a prudent mariner carry aboard, and not punish the prudent mariner for carrying these items due to weight.
2) Don't stray too far from ISAF "standards" (largely for insurance purposes)
3) Strive to limit requirements (and costs) wherever possible to encourage participation.

Of course, the whole debate here is about what is prudent, but there is clearly a lot of thought going on and the draft MER reflects pretty good thinking.

With the Tom Kirschbaum incident, we realized all the equipment on the boat in the world doesn't do any good if you are separated from your boat. We voluntarily responded by making at least 1 PLB manditory, with a recommendation to wear it while on deck. With the LSC incident, we are responding by tightening our procedures so folks on shore know who's actually in the race. We're all getting better at this, even without government pressure and licensing.

So far at least, we don't try to regulate how or when items are used as we believe each skipper should actively think about her safety gear. Instead, we emphasize mentoring & education.

Final opinions (I can't resist)
OEJ is a jerk.
Radar reflectors suck because they don't work when you're heeled over.

[One eye Jack]

Wow. What a thread. As you prepare to stick a fork in it, some general thoughts from a guy outside NorCal & no business commenting:

In the PSSA we try to dance among a few factors:
1) What would a prudent mariner carry aboard, and not punish the prudent mariner for carrying these items due to weight.
2) Don't stray too far from ISAF "standards" (largely for insurance purposes)
3) Strive to limit requirements (and costs) wherever possible to encourage participation.

Of course, the whole debate here is about what is prudent, but there is clearly a lot of thought going on and the draft MER reflects pretty good thinking.

With the Tom Kirschbaum incident, we realized all the equipment on the boat in the world doesn't do any good if you are separated from your boat. We voluntarily responded by making at least 1 PLB manditory, with a recommendation to wear it while on deck. With the LSC incident, we are responding by tightening our procedures so folks on shore know who's actually in the race. We're all getting better at this, even without government pressure and licensing.

So far at least, we don't try to regulate how or when items are used as we believe each skipper should actively think about her safety gear. Instead, we emphasize mentoring & education.

Final opinions (I can't resist)
OEJ is a jerk.
Radar reflectors suck because they don't work when you're heeled over.

and what did I do to you to get such a response?

[Ahi Tuna]

Hopefully constructive, possibly totally impracticable:

Require a DSC call for check in when the racing is in the gulf of the farallones and beyond.

This springs from two things that came up at the SAS seminar (thank you again Paul & Ashley)

#1 Paul (instructor) felt that DSC was the single greatest advance in maritime safety in his lifetime. He totally sold me on that.

#2 Apparently in Sidney/Hobart to check in you must have your storm jib & trisail up. This proves that you both have them and know how to rig them, eliminating a past cause of catastrophe.

Requiring a DSC call to RC to be used for checkin would ensure that people both have it and know how to use it. Possibly integrating a valuable safety exercise into a routine part of the day.

My DSC radio is still in the mail, so I can't attest to how practical this is. However, it sounds relatively simple from what I have been told.

I have a DSC radio, with AIS, networked with my chart plotter. In fact I have everything to meet ISAF Cat 2 since that is what I sailed under this year. I don't plan any wholesale removal of gear from my boat. We are requiring DSC by 2016, and I think we should do it sooner, but it is all part of the compromise. You actually can't buy a VHF without DSC now and I think it has been that way for several years.

We want DSC, at some point check in might be via DSC. Being able to do a location request of a DSC radio is part of the long term plan. Yes, we all need to actually learn how to use the DSC functions on our radios and practice with them so if the shit hits the fan we are not fumbling for the instructions.

Constructive? Yes. Impracticable? Certainly not given a short amount of time to implement. We hope everyone takes the initiative that you have and upgrades as soon as possible.

[Ahi Tuna]

Wow. What a thread. As you prepare to stick a fork in it, some general thoughts from a guy outside NorCal & no business commenting:

In the PSSA we try to dance among a few factors:
1) What would a prudent mariner carry aboard, and not punish the prudent mariner for carrying these items due to weight.
2) Don't stray too far from ISAF "standards" (largely for insurance purposes)
3) Strive to limit requirements (and costs) wherever possible to encourage participation.

Of course, the whole debate here is about what is prudent, but there is clearly a lot of thought going on and the draft MER reflects pretty good thinking.

With the Tom Kirschbaum incident, we realized all the equipment on the boat in the world doesn't do any good if you are separated from your boat. We voluntarily responded by making at least 1 PLB manditory, with a recommendation to wear it while on deck. With the LSC incident, we are responding by tightening our procedures so folks on shore know who's actually in the race. We're all getting better at this, even without government pressure and licensing.

So far at least, we don't try to regulate how or when items are used as we believe each skipper should actively think about her safety gear. Instead, we emphasize mentoring & education.

Final opinions (I can't resist)
OEJ is a jerk.
Radar reflectors suck because they don't work when you're heeled over.

All very good points, and I hope we have already hit all of them. We started with rough versions of 1, 2&3 ourselves. We also tried to simplify the wording.

We still expect every skipper to use their head in preparing his/her boat for the races they plan to do. We are simply suggesting a minimum list. If more than a few items on this list prevent a boat from participating then perhaps the boat and the venue are not a good fit for each other.

The USCG is not mandating any of this. They don't want to be our nanny. They simply want to know we have our house in order and because we have proven to them we don't on a few occasions that have resulted in SAR and fatalities they are encouraging us to work a little harder and look a little deeper. Admittedly something we should have done already.

[BobJ]

and what did I do to you to get such a response?

From his last couple of posts I think Jack is starting to get it - but he's been replaced by a couple others who don't yet. I suppose it's the SA way.

I've been thinking the locals should all get together after this is over and hoist a couple, hopefully for and with Ahi and the NCORC MER team. I say this regardless of what they ultimately come up with. I'll certainly buy a round in payment for the grief and agro I've added to the process.

[K38BOB]

Not quite true and not appropriate here. Reread it and your 1st post and lets discuss IRL

[Presuming Ed]

#2 Apparently in Sidney/Hobart to check in you must have your storm jib & trisail up. This proves that you both have them and know how to rig them, eliminating a past cause of catastrophe.

With the LSC incident, we are responding by tightening our procedures so folks on shore know who's actually in the race. We're all getting better at this, even without government pressure and licensing.

Also required at the Fastnet. Through the RORC season, before each race you have to display a required piece of safety equipment, which is specified for each race in the SIs. So, for example, it would be lifejackets and tethers for one race, handheld VHF for another, fire extinguishers for a third etc. For the Fastnet, it's the storm jib and trysail. Number of crew onboard is also given to the check in team; before the race, the crew for each boat register online.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Andy,

Thank you for doing this - stick a fork in this turkey and call it done!

Beau

[Dixie]

I find it "interesting" that the process has been driven by the shorthanded sailing community, particularly after watching a couple of Vendee boats nail a couple of my countrymen out fishing.

I would say that OYRA and SSS worked together on this process, with help from EYC, SCYC and PCYC and US Sailing where many members of the committee were involved in more than one organization. OYRA and SSS represent 11 of 15 races. BAMA, IYC, MPYC and SCYC represent one each. I have rough numbers of how many boats are effected by each over the last 3 years if anybody cares. On average, 688 boats signed up to do an ocean race per year over the last three years, excluding Spin Cup and Windjammers, or an average of 46 per race start, where some were over 70 and some only about a dozen that actually started. 67% of the sign ups were for crewed races (OYRA) and 33% were short handed (SSS, IYC, BAMA). OYRA clearly has a much higher no-show rate than some of these single race sign ups so you can spin the numbers however you wish. The short handers sign up more individual boats since they are single races, but OYRA racers sign up for a 9 race series.

(this sentence redacted in case you edit) That is precisely why we have posted this for public comment, and boy have we gotten it.

We have gotten both ends of the spectrum from "use full ISAF because they are smarter than you are" to "you can't tell me what to do because I am smarter than you are" and many variations on the theme in between. We have heard from sailors from all over the area, Express 27 sailors, Moore 24 sailors and even have a formal memo from the Moore 24 National Association.

I think at this point it is safe to say that using full ISAF Cat 2 OSR's is off the table. I also think requiring next to nothing as some would like, and trusting sailors to equip their boats with no guidance whatsoever is also off the table.

The time available for comment is drawing to a close. Constructive suggestions from folks that know the situation and have actually read this thread are welcome through Friday. This weekend we will meet and hope to stick a fork in this thing, at least for now.

This has been a remarkable job and I do hope the resulting minimum requirements list is one that's adopted by the local OAs, otherwise you (and we, by extension) are back to square one. Moreover if appropriate, I hope it's accepted as a starting point for races in the US, if not full Cat 1, 2, etc.

My sticking point is still lifelines, which is why I jumped into all of this. Clipping in, or even agreeing to, for an entire race off shore doesn't seem a tenable alternative. But I'm one person, and you are sorting through many many diverse voices. Thank you.

We do have a lot of fantastic sailors in our bay and sprung from our bay who have lived without these sorts of harnesses and survived. But we've also lost some. I think this is as much respect for the lessons from the dead as it is for the hearty souls who cast off thier lines for a day on the mighty sea.

Much appreciated.

[Christian]

Andy,

Thank you for doing this - stick a fork in this turkey and call it done!

Beau

I agree - let's not get too safe out there - the gene pool obviously needs a little cleaning up

[stranded]

On a side note,

It seems to be the ones who might do less than 3 or 4 cat 2 races a year who are reluctant to outlay the bigger bucks.

Fair enough !

I don't remember seeing in this discussion anything about borrowing / renting / club owned and provided arrangements for more expensive items , however ......

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Stranded,

I believe you'll find earlier references in this thread to renting all manner of safety equipment from a local place called Sal's. They've done this for years for Nor Cal folks, primarily Pac Cup and Coastal Cup competitors who require much more safety gear than Gulf of the Farallons races will ever need.


Christian,

Can we assume you won't be racing around here and that you don't live anywhere near here. If those two things are true, then thank you for your comments we'll carry on doing what we see fit in our bit of the ocean.

Everyone on SA has had more than enough time to make their views known, even those who have nothing whatsoever to do with sailing in the Gulf of the Farallon. Andy's team has rationally and reasonably answered where it sought further clarification and appropriately ignored people who didn't make sense. This was a course that was, in many of our opinions, overly generous of his time. Frankly, I'm impressed that Andy and his team give a tinker's dam about what various folks on SA from out of the area think; but I'm glad he asked and I think we did learn something from all the comments. Even those that will clearly be ignored.

BV

[stranded]

+1

[Dixie]

And PS: Contrary to Beau's view, I think people from outside the Bay who don't sail in the Farallones contributions are welcome. It helps to understand how those in the rest of the world have handled similar problems.

Honestly, I hope this discussion doesn't stop with the launch of the MER. I hope we continue to exchange gear and technology questions, price check, gut check, review safety issues, calamities etc here. And if one is only comfortable doing that anonymously, this is a good place to start.

[Beau.Vrolyk]

And PS: Contrary to Beau's view, I think people from outside the Bay who don't sail in the Farallones contributions are welcome. It helps to understand how those in the rest of the world have handled similar problems.

Honestly, I hope this discussion doesn't stop with the launch of the MER. I hope we continue to exchange gear and technology questions, price check, gut check, review safety issues, calamities etc here. And if one is only comfortable doing that anonymously, this is a good place to start.

Dixie,

I really do agree that substantive and realistic suggestions that HELP are always welcome. The moaning carping and satire is neither helpful nor constructive. Also, a constructive and helpful suggestion on any topic is fine when provided anonymously, but one does have to wonder why in the world someone who is genuinely trying to help would insist on doing so in this manner. As to those who are just in it for the anarchy, I think we know why they are anonymous.

BV

[casc27]

I've been thinking the locals should all get together after this is over and hoist a couple, hopefully for and with Ahi and the NCORC MER team. I say this regardless of what they ultimately come up with. I'll certainly buy a round in payment for the grief and agro I've added to the process.

Bob, I'll gladly attend that get together and buy a round for those involved.

[Greyhawk (pka Catamount)]

FWIW, I do not support the omission of lifelines. Since none of the subject races exceed 25-30 miles offshore, the consensus is that a liferaft requirement is excessive.

So are these races really Cat 2, or would they be better classified as Cat 3?

ETA: a later post says the races are conducted primarily during daylight, etc... Sounds even more like maybe Cat 3 would be a better way to look at them.

[BobJ]

I suspect that had the powers-that-be been able to agree the races are Cat 3, we might have avoided all this. But then you'd have the next administration wanting to increase the requirements to Cat 2 and we'd be back where we started. Many of us feel the OSR's are like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I think we're getting a more effective result - assuming the other committees are coming up with equally effective race administration, communication and training protocols. Everyone here wants to focus on comparing equipment lists but that is just one piece of the puzzle.

I've heard nothing regarding the work of these other NCORC committees. Are proposals forthcoming?

[Ahi Tuna]

The other NorCalORC committees are also making progress. They are sharing their progress within the NCORC as needed, much like the safety committee did before we went public.

Most were making progress long before the safety committee got it's act together. PRO training and a Safety at Sea seminar are tentatively scheduled for February on days when almost no races are held.

There is a skippers/competitors meeting to be scheduled soon, also before the first ocean race in March. The plan is to video tape it and put it up on line for those that might be unable to attend or decide to get wet after the meeting. There will likely be other skippers meetings by individual OA's prior to their races as well, much like has happened in the past.

I don't know if they have any plans to take the radical and goofy step to put their drafts on SA for public scrutiny. Most of what they are working on is the nuts and bolts of how it all works behind the scenes to most racers. Hopefully that is not as controversial as equipment, but I guess on SA everything is up for discussion

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Ahi Tuna,

Given many of the NC-ORC members have been either reading or participating in this discussion - I think it pretty unlikely that they'll want the sort of "help" that we at SA seem so good at providing. Some of what has been provided as constructive feed back and assistance has actually been exactly that, but much of this.... 'nuff said.

BV

[tolachi]

FWIW, I do not support the omission of lifelines. Since none of the subject races exceed 25-30 miles offshore, the consensus is that a liferaft requirement is excessive.

So are these races really Cat 2, or would they be better classified as Cat 3?

ETA: a later post says the races are conducted primarily during daylight, etc... Sounds even more like maybe Cat 3 would be a better way to look at them.

I noticed the same thing after actually reading through the Cat 2 & 3 rules. Regardless, some of the most controversial points are included in both. And there is the odd race that seems more Cat 2 thrown in.

[Estar]

I was just looking at the Vendee Globe SIs (to see the ice gates) but noticed relevant to this thread the IMOCA class exceptions to the IFAS ORC's. Its interesting . . . no storm sails required, and no passive radar reflector (but AIS & an active one), and no toilet required

full listing

[stranded]

french.

[Christian]

I was just looking at the Vendee Globe SIs (to see the ice gates) but noticed relevant to this thread the IMOCA class exceptions to the IFAS ORC's. Its interesting . . . no storm sails required, and no passive radar reflector (but AIS & an active one), and no toilet required

full listing

From IMOCA 60 class rules:

C.4: STORM and HEAVY WEATHER SAILS
a) Materials:
Aromatic polyamides, carbon and similar fibres shall not be used in a storm jib but
spectra/dynema and similar materials are permitted.
The following equipment is mandatory:
A foresail of area inferior to 20m², made of strong highly visible coloured material. This sail
shall have:
- Sheeting positions on deck.
- A strong securing method, which does not comprise or depend upon a luff groove device,
for attachment to a stay. The use of a storm jib with a free luff is authorised.

In addition - their mains can be reefed to a miniscule size.

[Estar]

From IMOCA 60 class rules: . . .

Thats from the 2008 class rules - right? There have been big changes since then. Google is letting me down and I can't find the 2012 class rules .... but the Vendee SI's say (direct quote):

"Set out below is an exhaustive list of the equipment required under the OSR 2012 - 2013 in the « 0 Monohull» category and which are not detailed in the IMOCA 2012 Class Rules, nor in the race documents of the Vendée Globe.
.......
- OSR 4.26.4 defines how to calculate the surface are of the storm jib and the storm staysail for sails made after 01 01 2012
Not compulsory in the IMOCA Class
Exemption OSR
- OSR 4.26.4.c) Storm staysail
Not compulsory in the IMOCA Class
Exemption OSR
- OSR 4.27.2 Sea anchor
Not compulsory in the IMOCA Class
Exemption OSR"

So, thats what the SIs say. I would be interested if you can point me at a copy on the 2012 class rules. I guess its possible that the above mean that the ISAF storm jib and staysail are not compulsory because there is a compulsory IMOCA storm jib . . . but one of the french on the vendee globe thread said not . . . no compulsory storm sails now.

[fogmachine]

Well, the first wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against the owner of LSC. The results of the legal action will probably effect this thread eventually.

Not that it matters, but as one that's done many of the OYRA races over the years (and have had the poop in the aerial spreader a few times) I find the NC-ORC work good and the MER reasonable for our near-shore races. Thanks, guys!

[casc27]

Well, the first wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against the owner of LSC. The results of the legal action will probably effect this thread eventually.

Not that it matters, but as one that's done many of the OYRA races over the years (and have had the poop in the aerial spreader a few times) I find the NC-ORC work good and the MER reasonable for our near-shore races. Thanks, guys!

The lawsuit (or any results) will never "effect" this thread. They may, however, affect this thread. (But I doubt it.)

[amperrin]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

There are lots of valid arguments for removing some items from ISAF OSR if someone is singlehanded but only as long as it doesn't effect the boats ability to assist others if needed... IMHO

We are working on another set of ISAF Sea Survival courses at SFYC which I can't officially announce until I get a report out to US Sailing about the last bunch. But they will happen in March.

Also we are doing another set of VHF operators license and Radar Training.

We have an experience Marine Lawyer (who races small boats) coming as well for a discussion on Maritime Law and Race Boat owner Liability issues which will be held on Wednesday 20th March I believe this is an area which we all need to be aware of and really is not discussed. This event will be at no cost.

[casc27]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

There are lots of valid arguments for removing some items from ISAF OSR if someone is singlehanded but only as long as it doesn't effect the boats ability to assist others if needed... IMHO

We are working on another set of ISAF Sea Survival courses at SFYC which I can't officially announce until I get a report out to US Sailing about the last bunch. But they will happen in March.

Also we are doing another set of VHF operators license and Radar Training.

We have an experience Marine Lawyer (who races small boats) coming as well for a discussion on Maritime Law and Race Boat owner Liability issues which will be held on Wednesday 20th March I believe this is an area which we all need to be aware of and really is not discussed. This event will be at no cost.

What's the deal with the VHF and radar training? Details, please. (And, "operator's license" for marine VHF??)

[BobJ]

Years ago you had to have a restricted radiotelephone operator's license to use a VHF. Now you don't, but it would be nice for folks to take the class. Many use their VHF like it's a walkie-talkie or CB. R/C decks and mark-setters could especially use the training, in my observation.

[pogen]

Years ago you had to have a restricted radiotelephone operator's license to use a VHF. Now you don't, but it would be nice for folks to take the class. Many use their VHF like it's a walkie-talkie or CB. R/C decks and mark-setters could especially use the training, in my observation.

And half-drunk weekend fishermen who bullshit on Ch 16.

[Occams Razor]

how about the commercial fisherman on the chatter channels (where we go for Race Committee work)? Always worth a laugh.

[casc27]

Years ago you had to have a restricted radiotelephone operator's license to use a VHF. Now you don't, but it would be nice for folks to take the class. Many use their VHF like it's a walkie-talkie or CB. R/C decks and mark-setters could especially use the training, in my observation.

BobJ, thanks. I'm aware of the historical requirement for station/ship licenses for marine vhf. (If I recall correctly the FCC changed the rules in 1996 for non-commercial vessels.) I was wondering what the specifics were with the class, why amperrin called it a "licensing" class, and what the content was. Just out of curiosity.

[BobJ]

Yep, weekend fisherman take the prize but you won't get them to a class. They really don't like being told to clear the channel.

[casc27]

My favorite fisherman vhf story (listening to the vhf while working on one of the boats in the rental fleet):

Some fisherpersons start a conversation on 16 and continue after making contact.

Another party jumps in and reminds them to move to a different channel.

Yet another party jumps in and tells the fisherpeople to read the manual before using the radio.

At this point the first interrupting party says: "if they could read they wouldn't need to fish."

Next the CG chimes in and tells everybody to clear the channel. I almost hurt myself laughing.

[BobJ]

Classic!

Several weeks ago folks on an R/C boat from RYC were having a nice chat while their mike was keyed. It went on for about ten minutes - all about kids, jackets, what they had last night for dinner etc. It must have been a 25 watter w/masthead antenna because I was up in Vallejo and it was loud and clear. Fortunately not on 16.

[NoStrings]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

There are lots of valid arguments for removing some items from ISAF OSR if someone is singlehanded but only as long as it doesn't effect the boats ability to assist others if needed... IMHO

We are working on another set of ISAF Sea Survival courses at SFYC which I can't officially announce until I get a report out to US Sailing about the last bunch. But they will happen in March.

Also we are doing another set of VHF operators license and Radar Training.

We have an experience Marine Lawyer (who races small boats) coming as well for a discussion on Maritime Law and Race Boat owner Liability issues which will be held on Wednesday 20th March I believe this is an area which we all need to be aware of and really is not discussed. This event will be at no cost.

I've wrestled with the mainsail off of Truth (ex Pegasus). There is no way that one human is going to get the main off of a 60 by his or herself. The damn thing weighs 300 lbs.

[Estar]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

I've wrestled with the mainsail off of Truth (ex Pegasus). There is no way that one human is going to get the main off of a 60 by his or herself. The damn thing weighs 300 lbs.

There are a couple good possibilities/alternatives to set a trysail without taking the mainsail off.... but a good storm jib is probably very sufficient for these boats.

[Christian]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

I've wrestled with the mainsail off of Truth (ex Pegasus). There is no way that one human is going to get the main off of a 60 by his or herself. The damn thing weighs 300 lbs.

There are a couple good possibilities/alternatives to set a trysail without taking the mainsail off.... but a good storm jib is probably very sufficient for these boats.

Problem is that the IMOCA's have square head mains and you have to either disconnect the top car from the sail or remove the diagonal batten - neither which you want to do singlehanded when it's blowing stink; unless you are a superhuman. I have wrestled enough with sails on an IMOCA 60 to know that it would be a loosing proposition without help.

P.S. I am 99% sure the current IMOCA rules require a storm jib

[K38BOB]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

I've wrestled with the mainsail off of Truth (ex Pegasus). There is no way that one human is going to get the main off of a 60 by his or herself. The damn thing weighs 300 lbs.

There are a couple good possibilities/alternatives to set a trysail without taking the mainsail off.... but a good storm jib is probably very sufficient for these boats.

Problem is that the IMOCA's have square head mains and you have to either disconnect the top car from the sail or remove the diagonal batten - neither which you want to do singlehanded when it's blowing stink; unless you are a superhuman. I have wrestled enough with sails on an IMOCA 60 to know that it would be a loosing proposition without help.

P.S. I am 99% sure the current IMOCA rules require a storm jib

I've seen a 2nd track for a trysail next to main track

[Christian]

I am sure they don't require trysails in the IMOCA class because with the box top mains it would be a super human effort to get that down and a trysail in place. Generally you have to go up the mast a bit to get the top section of the main lashed to cars can you imagine doing that singlehanded. It is obviously going to need doing in the dark when it is blowing like stink!! :-)

I've wrestled with the mainsail off of Truth (ex Pegasus). There is no way that one human is going to get the main off of a 60 by his or herself. The damn thing weighs 300 lbs.

There are a couple good possibilities/alternatives to set a trysail without taking the mainsail off.... but a good storm jib is probably very sufficient for these boats.

Problem is that the IMOCA's have square head mains and you have to either disconnect the top car from the sail or remove the diagonal batten - neither which you want to do singlehanded when it's blowing stink; unless you are a superhuman. I have wrestled enough with sails on an IMOCA 60 to know that it would be a loosing proposition without help.

P.S. I am 99% sure the current IMOCA rules require a storm jib

I've seen a 2nd track for a trysail next to main track

On an IMOCA 60?

[K38BOB]

I've seen a 2nd track for a trysail next to main track

On an IMOCA 60?

No.

[amperrin]

I've seen a 2nd track for a trysail next to main track

On an IMOCA 60?

No.

K38BOB you are correct about second tracks however, with the diagonal battens and square top mains you could hoist a trysail up another track but would still have to send someone up the mast to get the rest of the main down by disconnecting the full length batten from the car. Obviously if you didn't you would have two sails up which would negate the effect of a trysail!

The problems with having kevlar, carbon mainsails reefed to the same size as a trysail is that the fabric doesn't have any give and therefore can't take the shock load of inconsistent wind (which is what you have a lot of in storm conditions). Also the mainsail is low down with no gap between the boom and the fabric and large waves will fill the reefed mainsail rememeber a cubic meter of water = 1 ton this effects the vessels stability.

The V70 rule requires trysails but they also had square top mains... Obviously with crew you have more people to deal with getting the sail down but I still wouldn't want to have to deal with it.

casc27 This is course gives you a VHF license which is required outside US territorial waters. Strictly speaking you go outside them when going to Hawaii and therefore if you were to speak to a foreign vessel without one you would be illegally operating the VHF. If you were to go to Europe, Mexico, Canada then you would require the license or have someone aboard with one. But the license is beside the point what is important is teaching people proper radio useage including mayday relays, pan pans, maydays and the use of DSC. All the course participants we just put through the course last month told me they learnt a lot.

[K38BOB]

K38BOB you are correct about second tracks however, with the diagonal battens and square top mains you could hoist a trysail up another track but would still have to send someone up the mast to get the rest of the main down by disconnecting the full length batten from the car. Obviously if you didn't you would have two sails up which would negate the effect of a trysail!

The problems with having kevlar, carbon mainsails reefed to the same size as a trysail is that the fabric doesn't have any give and therefore can't take the shock load of inconsistent wind (which is what you have a lot of in storm conditions). Also the mainsail is low down with no gap between the boom and the fabric and large waves will fill the reefed mainsail rememeber a cubic meter of water = 1 ton this effects the vessels stability.

The V70 rule requires trysails but they also had square top mains... Obviously with crew you have more people to deal with getting the sail down but I still wouldn't want to have to deal with it.

Full battens and square top low stretch sails have been on multihulls for some time (before popularized by IACC boats etc). Pull a pin/shackle on the head and lay down the angled batten. Lash it securely. Better of course to remove it.

Good job on the courses!