Rules and protest question

[Steam Flyer]

DO NOT go into a protest hearing with your GPS track and wave it around as thought it proves something, it will only alienate the committee and convince them that you are a computer jockey not a sailor.

I'm going to disagree. It may be useful in 2 ways:

1. To show clearly that time between your tack and contact, to counteract any "he tacked right in front of me" arguments from the other boat.
2. To show that you didn't luff, and likewise avoid any "he luffed right in front of me" arguments. (*)

Helpful to put timings on your print out - time of tack, and time of impact (+ distance between them both)

I would use it as backup to setting out the models. So:

"We rounded the mark, hardened up onto close hauled on port and held that course for xx minutes. We then tacked onto starboard, and the incident occurred xx minutes after our tack - you can see from this GPS track. Seaward was clear astern after we tacked and...."

Then continue with the models and description. Anything you can do to support your story is helpful

* - (given good enough sampling rate/positional accuracy/etc)

... ... ... ...

Ah so! Good points, I would not have thought of that until too late.

The GPS track can be a bit deceptive as it often shows a straight course as a series of wobbles when you zoom in; but it certainly can show the time & distance between the tack and the collision. Hopefully Allen's track does not show a digital artifact 'wobble' just before the collision.

Agree that any supporting evidence is good; I was thinking more about what GPS doesn't show.

FB- Doug

 

[ryley]

I will be involved in a protest hearing. I protested a boat that hit me and destroyed my mast along with some other damage. I have been told the damage to my boat is $50,000 although I do not have an estimate yet.

<snip>

Which rules did you claim they broke on the protest form?

you know that it doesn't matter what rules are on the form, right? you can write down any rule you want. It's up to the PC to determine if a rule was broken, and if so, which rule. What's on the form is irrelevant.

 

[StumbleNola]

<snip>

but I have not seen any occasion where blame assigned by a PC has been ignored by an insurer. I have seen an attempt in court, it failed. If anyone here has a link documenting where a court or insurance company has ignored the fault assignment by a proper RRS PC, please post it for me for reference.

It would not be at all surprising, as JBSF suggested to find that insurers, as considered policy or in error, did not recognise RRS or a protest committee decision.

<snip>

Really? I am asking for evidence, you are offering opinion. So I will ask again.

If anyone here has a link documenting where a court or insurance company has ignored the fault assignment by a proper RRS PC, please post it for me for reference.

No one will be able to. There is no question that a PC and follow up appeals are binding under the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such the ruling of the PC as to fault can not be overturned by a court absent fraud, or a self interested PC. There is still a role for the courts however, since a PC does not calculate damages, so it may be possible for a court case to pivot around how much damage was done, just not who is at fault for it.

An insurance company that wants to challenge the holding of the PC would have an incredibly high burden to even survive summary judgment, and would likely still also be on the hook for the other parties attorney's fees.

 

[random]

I will be involved in a protest hearing. I protested a boat that hit me and destroyed my mast along with some other damage. I have been told the damage to my boat is $50,000 although I do not have an estimate yet.

<snip>

Which rules did you claim they broke on the protest form?

you know that it doesn't matter what rules are on the form, right? you can write down any rule you want. It's up to the PC to determine if a rule was broken, and if so, which rule. What's on the form is irrelevant.

Some protest forms have a field for Rules Alleged to have been broken. I was asking if he cited any.

 

[Presuming Ed]

It's a requirement.

61.2 Protest Contents

A protest shall be in writing and identify

(a) the protestor and protestee;

(b ) the incident, including where and when it occurred;

(c ) any rule the protestor believes was broken; and

(d) the name of the protestors representative.

However, if requirement (b ) is met, requirement (a) may be met at any time before the hearing, and requirements (c ) and (d) may be met before or during the hearing.

But you don't have to be right about which rule.

CASE 22

Rule 61.2(c ), Protest Requirements: Protest Contents

Rule 63.5, Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress Rule 64.1, Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

It is not relevant to the validity of a protest that a rule the protestor believes was broken is not one of the rules that the protest committee later determines to have been broken.

 

[random]

Uh huh ...

 

[Corvo]

Allen, there's a photo sequence of your accident here: http://norcalsailing.com/galleries/201605-mm/201605-mm-Pages/Image44.html . Maybe it'll help.

Sorry about the damage. I have Allstate insurance also, and they've stepped up for several racing claims.

 

[random]

What an incredible sequence. Really hard to believe that they were not seen.

 

[allene222]

Allen, there's a photo sequence of your accident here: http://norcalsailing.com/galleries/201605-mm/201605-mm-Pages/Image44.html . Maybe it'll help.

Sorry about the damage. I have Allstate insurance also, and they've stepped up for several racing claims.

Wow, that certainly tells what happened. WTF was I supposed to do? I guess my crew was right that I would have been t-boned if I fell off. Sure glad I got my color printer working.

 

[fucket]

I can't imagine what allen could have done in that situation that would have a higher likelihood of avoiding collision than what he did do.

 

[random]

It's good to see a discussion on this incident, but it's not a difficult job for a PC.

One boat was hit from behind and from windward. NEXT!

 

[fucket]

I figured out how this happened.

http://norcalsailing.com/galleries/201605-mm/201605-mm-Pages/Image43.html

Guy in the middle of the cockpit has his binoculars backwards, he must think allen is way off in the distance.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Allen, there's a photo sequence of your accident here: http://norcalsailing.com/galleries/201605-mm/201605-mm-Pages/Image44.html . Maybe it'll help.

Sorry about the damage. I have Allstate insurance also, and they've stepped up for several racing claims.

Wow, that certainly tells what happened. WTF was I supposed to do? I guess my crew was right that I would have been t-boned if I fell off. Sure glad I got my color printer working.

Well, you were in a difficult spot. Head up and get T-boned, bear away and swing your stern right under their bowsprit... the only answer is to take action sooner than "the last second" and that requires a high level of situational awareness and the decisiveness to -take action- before it's too late.

Amazing sequence of photos, a real shame it happened.

FB- Doug

 

[familysailor]

It seems like the schooner changed course slightly to windward during the sequence. Could be an optirectical illusion, as they say....

Could have been a big puff, or turning up to try and force the next schooner in the photo to tack...

It's like the L-36 was entirely invisible tho those sailing the schooner. Many of those on deck appear to be passengers rather than aware crew.

 

[Rawhide]

Looking at that photo sequence it looks like right up to the last moment that you would simply cross clear ahead. Are you sure they did not alter course? either way it seems reasonable that if anyone was aware of them that they did not bring it to your attention until the last moment. maintaining a lookout means someone on the boat should have been aware of the other vessel before the last few seconds, but they don't have to be concerned about it or take any action if does not appear required.

 

[WunHungLo]

It's an interesting sequence of pics. Hard to understand how the crew and helmsman on the schooner didn't see Allen.

 

[Brass]

It's an interesting sequence of pics. Hard to understand how the crew and helmsman on the schooner did't see Allen.

Take a look in pic 1 at the number of bozos in the cockpit facing backwards.

 

[familysailor]

Plus it appears the helms-person was sitting to leeward, I think,maybe. (really hard to tell who is driving and by what means. Wheel at the back of the cockpit? Tiller?) No way he could see Allen through the deck-house, the bodies standing on the leeward deck. Not to mention the bow of his own vessel... It's taller than Allen's hull and cabin by a bit.

Really didn't seem like anyone in the cockpit was aware or alarmed by the vessel directly in front of them.

 

[WunHungLo]

It's an interesting sequence of pics. Hard to understand how the crew and helmsman on the schooner did't see Allen.

Take a look in pic 1 at the number of bozos in the cockpit facing backwards.

I count approx 17 heads facing forward out of approx 24 bodies aboard, three of which are in the cockpit. The one person standing on the leeside, forward looks like they had a clear view. It still doesn't explain how the helmsman couldn't see clear ahead unless his head was down staring at the binnacle the whole time. Perhaps cocktails and canapes were being served aft at the time

 

[JohnMB]

Looking at case 107 is worthwhile,

I don't think it necessarily applies (looking at the photos) because by all appearance you had every reason to think that the schooner had seen you and planned to duck your stern.

You should probably ask yourself (and your crew) why no-one hailed her, and at what point it was obvious she was going to snag your back stay as this could be important in deciding whether you broke R14.

(personally I don't think you did, but that's only based on part of the evidence)