I wonder if this relates to the "favour" Comrade Huston wants from ..... what's their name again? ... the syndicate representing the RNZYS ?Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".
Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."
I'd like to think the MC is working closely with, and answering queries from, ORTUSA over their repairs, and just haven't got around to releasing the information publicly. 29.10 certainly demands that MC written approval is obtained before commencing any repairs: I doubt that the MC or Jury will accept that any failure to obtain approval was "inadvertent".Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation
(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.
Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.
To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?
It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.
I hope the MC's failure to provide the interpretations doesn't become an issue for ORTUSA and/or AR, though perhaps not so much for AR. Time is their enemy, and if there is an opportunity to seek more of it, the MC might be providing it....