Yes jack I agree. I did the reval last weekend and it is a sobering reminder of what can go wrong. YA have gone to a huge amount of trouble to develop this course, train and update instructors as a direct response to the coroners findings to help make our sport safer.
For clubs to turn their back on this just to increase the number of starters is appalling. Remember that is the sole reason for this. reduce safety to improve the number of entrants. Not to increase safety, not as the result of a risk management study that proved the race to be too safe, simply because a few good old boys said they didn't feel like doing it. For supposedly experienced people to dismiss the course as not being worth while is even worse. 19 years between the Fastnet and the Hobart disasters. 19 years since the 98 hobart. complacency seems to work in 19 year cycles. But hey it's only the Gladstone race so nothing will go wrong...
Will there be any auditing? Will there be any snap inspections to ensure boats are compiling? Will boats that break the rules, say for instance don't have the reserve water they are required to carry, be penalised? Would a boat that has violated the rules be allowed to win the race?
If you set standards and some competitors use this as a reason for not going then the obvious thing to do is lower standards. Yep the competitors to listen to are the ones that aren't serious about safety.
I think SSSC compliance should remain what it was previously - its not that fucking hard to get crew to do it. Then audit every boat that enters - ala CYCA Syd Hob. This makes sure that all boats are carrying the required gear, if not the required beer, the crew are trained and have the gear (Cat 3 safety audit). The difference then between Cat 2 and 3 is not that great