Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mad said:

To be fair, there’s nothing Corinthian about the Maxi class, everyone is on the payroll. 

There's nothing Corinthian about any aspect of the sport, you didn't remind me of the vr start you cunt. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In loving memory of Clark and Daw We welcome this evening Mr Richard the skipper of the winning power boat. Hello Brian. Mr Richard, may we call you Dick? Sure Brian, most

If Matt Allen as President of AS has any balls he should put Harburg/Bradford and Oatley/Richards in a room and read them the riot act. Harburg for not protesting but having a cry on national TV and O

Ok I am now caught up on this thread. Yes I went live - first actually - with the news direct from Shipwright Arms where WOXI were having lunch in one room, and BJ in the other. Was the best place to

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

7070, if you are sitting at the nav station, are there any visual indicators that tell you the AIS is transmitting?

Depending on the specific AIS unit, both the transponder and splitter may have TX indicators, though often not visible due to a remote mounting.  

Depending on the unit, silent mode can be engaged with a dedicated switch OR a configuration program running on  a PC.

Question, if TX operation is in doubt, would VHF verification of AIS visibility with another competitor constitute a rule 41 infraction?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WoobaGooba said:

Depending on the specific AIS unit, both the transponder and splitter may have TX indicators, though often not visible due to a remote mounting.  

Depending on the unit, silent mode can be engaged with a dedicated switch OR a configuration program running on  PC.

Question, if TX operation is in doubt, would VHF verification of AIS visibility with another competitor constitute a rule 41 infraction?

 

as i described above - it's easy to check yourself by choosing to display your own AIS icon - if you are transmitting, it will be on your display

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's multiple ways to be actively transmitting at the box level & the signal never goes very far & a self-check (disabling filter) would not necessarily help you if the signal is sufficiently strong for self-detection. If a halyard can chafe an antenna - it has already chewed up the mast first. 

But frankly - you can sit around and make up all these "innocent hardware" possibilities, defending WO before the jury? They need facts not speculative reasons for non-compliance with sailing instructions. 

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

Read the Rules.  Who no one gives a fuck if you are 'totally against' them.

Are you Mark Richards?  Sounds like something stupid he might say.

I am for Boat vs Boat protests.  The RC is not harmed, the RC made no mistake.  Tactically other boats feel they're  effort was impugned by the AIS disappearing.  And the other boats have commented they felt impugned.  Why shouldn't those who believe they were harmed be the one to file this protest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

I am for Boat vs Boat protests.  The RC is not harmed, the RC made no mistake.  Tactically other boats feel they're  effort was impugned by the AIS disappearing.  And the other boats have commented they felt impugned.  Why shouldn't those who believe they were harmed be the one to file this protest?

Doesn't matter what you or I think.  That's the point you are missing.

No one has to agree with the rules,  but everyone has to comply.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, savoir said:

The BJ guys didn't want to look like sore losers.

All competitors are required to uphold the rules.  You have to ask the question, If they saw someone breaking the rules and said nothing, does that make them cheaters as well?

I say yes.

So what BJ did was for the good of the sport, as well as them,

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

But they got the same result by a side comment.  A bit weak really.

No it not weak.  It is a demonstration that they know the RRS.

They knew that the RC would have to act.

Good sportsmanship, reporting people who are not good sportsmen.

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

But this aint a new rule (I don't think) and that group has done a few  :ph34r: S2Hs no?

This is a new rule for this race.  The race is part of the CYCA's Blue Water Series where having an AIS is mandatory but not mandatory to have it switched on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trt131 said:

This is a new rule for this race.  The race is part of the CYCA's Blue Water Series where having an AIS is mandatory but not mandatory to have it switched on.

Thanks!  That will teach me to make an assumption.  Wow, that makes the MR's post race statement and the timing of it even more interesting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Oats can make tactical decisions partly based on data coming from other boats but other boats can’t do the same with Oats, that is a big advantage to Oats.

BJ should be comended for raising this, there should be no latitude for people who cheat in this sport.  If Oats didn’t cheat, it will come out in the protest.

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

I am for Boat vs Boat protests.  The RC is not harmed, the RC made no mistake.  Tactically other boats feel they're  effort was impugned by the AIS disappearing.  And the other boats have commented they felt impugned.  Why shouldn't those who believe they were harmed be the one to file this protest?

If the "winning" boat flouts the rules of the race and thus disparages the authority of the race organizers, then the RO and by extension the RC is harmed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, trt131 said:

This is a new rule for this race.  The race is part of the CYCA's Blue Water Series where having an AIS is mandatory but not mandatory to have it switched on.

i've never done this race.., but my experience with other "big" ocean races is that when there is something new.., like this.., it gets mentioned in the skipper/navigator briefing before the race

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dash34 said:

By the wording of the rule, as long as the device was on in transmit and receive mode for the whole race, it doesn't matter if its effective range was 10 miles or 10 metres.  If WOXI can show that the problem was simply poor transmit range, they are good IMHO.

Not correct. Read the Regs regarding responsibility to not exceed power loss for other than MH antennas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, us7070 said:

the only thing that makes sense is that it was a mistake...

exactly what mistake.., we don't know - navigator didn't read SI's and thought he could turn it off.., crew member leaned against switch.., i could go on...

but it would be idiotic to knowingly and deliberately break the rule to gain an advantage - because you have 100% certainty of getting caught - all the competitors know you aren't transmitting.., as well as anyone at home who looks at online AIS...

so, i discount that possibility.., and conclude it was a fuck up of some sort

Except that it is a pretty job if the naviguesser NEVER checked the AIS for data on the competitors and for that to happen without transmitting you have to put the AIS in listen only mode - which does sort of point in a particular direction.....................just sayin.  I am also pretty sure that a boat in that size is required to both transmit and receive with the AIS at all times - not 100% sure about this in AUS - but for sure in Europe and the US it is mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chuso007 said:

...Unlike Juan fucking Vila.

Interesting that coming from you, please enlighten us.

"He always speaks very highly of you", you know...

Or did you you perhaps mean "fuckup Vila" ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

I am for Boat vs Boat protests.  The RC is not harmed, the RC made no mistake.  Tactically other boats feel they're  effort was impugned by the AIS disappearing.  And the other boats have commented they felt impugned.  Why shouldn't those who believe they were harmed be the one to file this protest?

RC handles the protest because WOXI wasn’t compliant with the safety rules. 

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

Except that it is a pretty job if the naviguesser NEVER checked the AIS for data on the competitors and for that to happen without transmitting you have to put the AIS in listen only mode - which does sort of point in a particular direction.....................just sayin.  I am also pretty sure that a boat in that size is required to both transmit and receive with the AIS at all times - not 100% sure about this in AUS - but for sure in Europe and the US it is mandatory.

i agree - you will find that a lot of this has been discussed in the other thread.

they were _definitely_ receiving - the navigator said he thought the AIS was working.

i always check that we are transmitting when required

someone turned Tx off - it was working before the start. 

my guess is it was a mistake - they didn't read the SI's carefully enough, and thought it was okay to turn Tx off

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dash34 said:

Do the SI's say what a yacht is supposed to do if some of their equipment fails or is lost?  Retire, report to the RC, or what?  Suppose your MOB gear is washed away by a wave - should you retire?  

That's why you sign the declaration form and mention that it was washed overboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, onedesignracing said:

RC absolutely has jurisdiction over safety rules. Competitors do NOT. Even if it overlaps with information available to competitors.

Any competitor can file a separate and distinct protest seeking individual remedy. I do not see that anyone has as of yet.

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

That is about the 1,000th time you have said they made a mistake. Any more to add?

the post i responded to said:
"which does sort of point in a particular direction.....................just sayin"

i wanted to disagree with that implication

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, us7070 said:

 

my guess is it was a mistake - they didn't read the SI's carefully enough, and thought it was okay to turn Tx off

 

And once again to amplify, that POV only holds water if there was not one of those briefing things...perhaps then the response might be "that thingy? I think I fell asleep".

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

Also why didn't anyone call them out on it at the start of the race?

With ability to load tracker data onto Nav program AIS info from other boats often becomes secondary and ignored on longer races, in fact it clutters the screen and some people turn it off. It is however very useful during tight transitions, particularly at night, just like they had at Flinders Is when WOXI got through.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When will the RC file a protest against Infotrack for the same breach?  Blackjack only reported WOIX but not Infotrack who was also racing beside them and not transmitting but finished 2 places behind so I suppose nothing to be gained there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, EddyAllTime said:

I'm not going to add any substance to this debate, other than to say the following;

Anarchist David, you're known around the waterfront for being a wanker.

And to the fucking Queenslanders from Black Jack having a cry over losing - You lost. Go home.

Bring on 2019!

LOL, worth saving.  Too lazy to check and see if you had any equally insightful comments when the red shirted fools sailing WOXI F-ed up last year and got burned for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do have history of turning the AIS off in other races  (where it wasn't a rule to leave it on mind you), with different navigators onboard . In the races I have done against them when we could possibly be close to them their position has disappeared from AIS either just before or just after the start. In one race it disappeared as we were catching  them , and it stayed off until the finish, when it came back on for their delivery. 

On all the race boats I have been on have a switch to turn AIS transmit function off. Normally not obvious and hard to accidentally bump - no flashing lights or alarms but a conscience decision to flick the switch.

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

I'm totally against RC protests, unless they observed an alleged infraction.  They got a report from some competitor who didn't have the cajones to file the protest themselves.  Why didn't the competitor file the protest?  It was their job to.

No one wants to win a race in the protest room.  The RC taking this up after BJ complained has the appearance of doing their unpleasant work for them - different if the RC decided based on their own volition.  And I hope that the RC has checked each of the other boats to ensure that their AIS was transmitting and receiving.  After all it not about profile or how you did its about maritime safety and following the rules right?

Let this protest be a fact finding mission.  If it can be determined that WOXI thought the thing was working and no one who could have told them other wise then I would probably no foul - stuff breaks/gets broken out there all the time.  If on the other hand there was treachery afoot - which is hard for me to contemplate - then DSQ (and even conditions) is the only choice.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

MR is the face of a great family business and yet they seem to put up with an arrogance that seems no bounds. To boast it’s the 10th “win” and to say the AIS thing doesn’t matter is not a great look for a representative of the respected Oatley Family. If it is a second loss it sheets back to MR. Maybe time for them to loose him as you could see Sandy  at the interview saying in his head “ this FW needs to shut up”

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cap't Billy said:

stuff breaks/gets broken out there all the time

but it doesn't always confer an advantage..., this does...

a time penalty is called for.., whether it was equipment failure or not.., 

if it was equipment failure, the time penalty might be less than if they just didn't read the SI's.., but you are supposed to report equipment failure that affects compliance

Link to post
Share on other sites

What implied obligations are there on the RO to retire a boat if they become aware that it is not safety compliant  ?

For example if a boats RF and VHF failed should they let the boat continue in the race?

Whilst AIS is not as critical should the same approach be taken ?

3R

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dash34 said:

By the wording of the rule, as long as the device was on in transmit and receive mode for the whole race, it doesn't matter if its effective range was 10 miles or 10 metres.  If WOXI can show that the problem was simply poor transmit range, they are good IMHO.

Safety equipment is required to function properly and be regularly checked. 

OSR 

2.04.1 All equipment required by OSR shall:
** a) function properly
** b) be regularly checked, cleaned and serviced

...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dash34 said:

Is that an established fact?  Or did it just stop working?  There is a big difference between a failure and intentionally turning it off.

The SI's do not say that the unit has to work - I haven't read the regs lately so can't comment.  They say it has to be turned on in transmit and recieve mode.  The SI wording may be intentional to allow a boat to continue racing in the case where it simply fails.  

 

1 hour ago, sledracr said:

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

In other words, it "shall be... receiving and transmitting."

and the special reqs require an AIS transponder - AND - that all equipment works

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

Except that it is a pretty job if the naviguesser NEVER checked the AIS for data on the competitors and for that to happen without transmitting you have to put the AIS in listen only mode - which does sort of point in a particular direction.....................just sayin.  I am also pretty sure that a boat in that size is required to both transmit and receive with the AIS at all times - not 100% sure about this in AUS - but for sure in Europe and the US it is mandatory.

Obviously I meant ....pretty SHITTY job if.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mark Richards hadn't of opened his mouth in public, I would prob give them a "fucked up, take penalty, move on, nothing to see"

But I cannot abide arrogance AND potential fuckup/cheat incidents. 

Throw the cunt out and let the WoXI crew rightfully have a race where they don't feel dirty wearing their crew shirt at the bar afterwards.

Toss the nav too. He's complicit, his responsibility.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

With ability to load tracker data onto Nav program AIS info from other boats often becomes secondary and ignored on longer races, in fact it clutters the screen and some people turn it off. It is however very useful during tight transitions, particularly at night, just like they had at Flinders Is when WOXI got through.

You can usually filter the AIS data so you just display the 3-4-5 (or whatever number) you really care about.  On VOXI that would obviously only be the handful of boats that are actually in the same zip code as WOXI

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, paps49 said:

No merely pointing out what we all knew, WOXI was non compliant

She has been non compliant since the day she was launched.

tungsten bulb now illegal, she was grandfathered.

powered winches and keel, so much for human powered sailboats.

the rules were never meant to apply to WOXI, MR knows that and was just being consistent.

 

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

Lydia has a very good point WOXI is required by martitime law to have the AIS fully operational. 

Is this really a thing for pleasure boats? Is it AMSA or state regs? If this is correct why would it need to be in the Sailing Instructions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, paps49 said:

True Olaf, hope you didn't get singed the other day.

No, we got a look at Alive and WOX as they flew by,  it was pretty lumpy and blowing over 20 knots at the time.

like seeing the Tour de France, “ was that it?”

The rest of the day was magic, close reaching up and down the Channel..

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

No, we got a look at Alive and WOX as they flew by,  it was pretty lumpy and blowing over 20 knots at the time.

like seeing the Tour de France, “ was that it?”

The rest of the day was magic, close reaching up and down the Channel..

I was thinking of the fire in your neck of the woods.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, farr40 said:

Hit it on the head.  Richard's quote that "it" was not mandatory and his quick excuse that "it didn't matter because we could see each other the whole race" suggests an intentional choice they made to go stealth, knowing all the information AIS provides which visual confirmation does not.  If its wasn't mandatory, nothing wrong with doing it, but  it was and Richards either didin't read the SI's or worse, knowingly turned it off.    Its a low class move similar to (in the days before trackers and AIS) boats that didn't turn on their nav lights until hours after sunset so that nearby competitors would lose visual id. 

Glen is correct, chicken shit by the R/C, but WO should be chucked none the less.

I absolutely love this imbecilic attitude.  So tell us all, what other rules should we simply ignore in sailboat racing because you feel they are "chickenshit".  Perhaps rule 2?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy saying he is the engineer on WO has just given an interview in Hobart. On the subject of deliberately turning off the AIS transmit function he said ' I can't see why anybody would want to do that ".

I should explain the significance of this. All of the regular Navico class B AIS products are sold without a switch for turning off the transmit function. If a unit is fitted as it arrives from the factory then it will transmit all the time it is turned on. Assuming that WO has a Navico product ( B & G, Simrad, Lowrance ) then the ability to receive but not transmit is a deliberate after market decision. The operating instructions tell you how to do it and call the process " silent mode ".

In answer to the " engineer ",  the only boats that even have one of these switches are those that want to receive but not transmit ie appear invisible to their competitors. Boats that are just regular class B users will not have such a switch.

The guy is talking crap.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, savoir said:

In answer to the " engineer ",  the only boats that even have one of these switches are those that want to receive but not transmit ie appear invisible to their competitors.

This may be a valid option in some races where it's not mandatory. I can see why cruising boats would want this option. Not valid in this case but no reason to suggest anything untoward simply because they have the ability to turn it off.

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

I am for Boat vs Boat protests.  The RC is not harmed, the RC made no mistake.  Tactically other boats feel they're  effort was impugned by the AIS disappearing.  And the other boats have commented they felt impugned.  Why shouldn't those who believe they were harmed be the one to file this protest?

If a rule is possibly broken, why does it matter who files the protest?  A rule is a rule.  Either sail by the rules or GTFO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grrr... said:
2 hours ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

I am for Boat vs Boat protests.  The RC is not harmed, the RC made no mistake.  Tactically other boats feel they're  effort was impugned by the AIS disappearing.  And the other boats have commented they felt impugned.  Why shouldn't those who believe they were harmed be the one to file this protest?

If a rule is possibly broken, why does it matter who files the protest?  A rule is a rule.  Either sail by the rules or GTFO.

Glenn thinks it matters what Glenn thinks.  His thoughts over-ride the RRS apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, savoir said:

All of the regular Navico class B AIS products are sold without a switch

with navico AIS, you can turn it off in the config.., or you can fit a hardware switch.

hardware switches for Tx are pretty common, because many races do not require Tx

if someone who knows the boat is saying there s no hardware switch on woxi - that's interesting...

still, they had Tx off and Rx on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it’s a fucking duck. It is beyond coincidence that 1. the AIS was working before the race. 2. Then it ceased transmitting at race start. 3. Then MR says it was not mandatory when confronted about it. 4. Then they say it was switched on all along. 5. Switching it off gives a clear advantage. They are lying bastards and deserve to be fucked over. 

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

When will the RC file a protest against Infotrack for the same breach?  Blackjack only reported WOIX but not Infotrack who was also racing beside them and not transmitting but finished 2 places behind so I suppose nothing to be gained there.

Will the RC go through all the starters and check that AIS was on and hand them all the same penalty?

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

Will the RC go through all the starters and check that AIS was on and hand them all the same penalty?

i don't think they are obligated to go out and look for evidence of wrong doing - but when presented with it they have to act

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are the rules and it was their responsibility to know them.     I can't believe they wouldn't know that AIS was a requirement and I am willing to bet that they were monitoring the other boats.  If they didn't know the rules, then they deserve to lose for stupidity.   My guess is that they will end up with a  time penalty and Black Jack will win.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote;  “Wild Oats XI navigator Juan Vila told News Corp Australia he had turned the AIS on and believed the system had been on for the entire race, which could point to a malfunction.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, corkob said:

Juan Vila the navigator.

he said he thought it was on - probably based on seeing AIS targets in expedition...

but that isn't the same as saying "i saw the tx switch, and it was in the on position the whole time"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, corkob said:

Quote;  “Wild Oats XI navigator Juan Vila told News Corp Australia he had turned the AIS on and believed the system had been on for the entire race, which could point to a malfunction.”

turning it on is one thing...

it can be on, with Tx turned off - which is probably what happened

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The skipper was sure it was not necessary to have it on. That being the case it would be reasonable to conclude that he instructed that it be turned off to enter into silent mode to gain advantage. He fucked up because he hadn’t read the SI’s. Caught by the balls and now trying to wriggle out...

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

This may be a valid option in some races where it's not mandatory. I can see why cruising boats would want this option. Not valid in this case but no reason to suggest anything untoward simply because they have the ability to turn it off.

Then why does the engineer effectively say " I can't see a reason why anybody would want to turn it off " when his boat had a custom fitted switch for exactly that purpose ? He might even have been the guy who fitted the switch.

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

When will the RC file a protest against Infotrack for the same breach?  Blackjack only reported WOIX but not Infotrack who was also racing beside them and not transmitting but finished 2 places behind so I suppose nothing to be gained there.

Infotrack didn’t get line honours

Link to post
Share on other sites