Sydney to Hobart 2019

jack_sparrow

Super Anarchist
37,393
5,094
It is the annual tar and feather Fonzie time....he never disappoints.

Like this race the 12 month anniversary of aliens from outa space frying his AIS, 24 months since he thought the "keeping clear and circle work rules" didn't apply to him, a thought well engrained over the 9 years since his Green Cape HF notification rule reinvention which saw him keep the sponsors LH watch. 

Not to forget of course his sidekick the RC, who in response to all the above incidents postured and preened at the time, but when the dust had settled, then quietly changed the applicable provisions in the SI's relating to each of those WOXI incidents above for the following year.

So this year you all thought this annual celebration of a 50k rated hairdo getting out of shape was no more? Rest easy I have found one potential incident plus one pending that had an insurance plan in place to bluff the Jury.

Outside Help

Everyone knows RRS 41 Outside Help

Well imagine my surprise when dialing up my Weekend Australian online account for a news catchup to find David McNicol, an old Oatley family friend writing this. He said Team WOXI in response to seeing WOXI going backwards on Friday morning rang them up on the Sat Phone, but said they couldn't raise them!!! 

Now with the RC not "time-barred" from lodging a protest for the purposes of obtaining Sat Phone records to put that "no contact" beyond doubt, I can only assume the RC don't read race reports in Australia's national newspaper so are in the dark. Bit like last year not knowing WOXI's AIS ceased transmitting 11.10am in the harbour on the day of the start and until after it had finished, thus a protest killed off and not being heard. 

Now let's assume that Team WOXI's failure to raise them is bona-fide being honest folk and therefore no instance of Outside Help has transpired, it does raise however raise an interesting conundrum of revisiting the ghosts of Green Cape 2010 again.

The Green Cape Protest Set-Up

You see last week Richo drafted off a brain fart from a fellow 100' Club member, Witty who claimed bushfire smoke has been found to interfere with HF marine radio signals – prompting him to write a letter to the RC seeking a SI relaxation to allow the use of their back up satellite phones to avoid the mandatory DSQ. This letter and the RC's rejection on these Grounds then became the subject of a media bushfire stoked by the Witty and Richard's.

Syd Morning Herald 24 Dec - "Skipper threatens to never return to Sydney to Hobart over bushfire smoke ruling"

Syd Morning Herald 26 Dec - 'Safety reasons': Sydney to Hobart organisers reaffirm smoke haze ruling.

Wild Oat XI skipper Mark Richards said; "the (RC's) call was a "big deal....stopping the reliance on marine radio signals during the Sydney to Hobart has been talked about "for years" but "nothing has ever happened".

This all emanated from the RO's 100 footer media briefing last Tuesday (Witt @ 5.50 and 11.45)  Also followed up by a post briefing interview with Witt @ 0.20.

It even made it to SA's FP last Wednesday titled "Pre-Race Bitching"

Richard's and Witt ensured the "scene was set" for any Green Cape protest that may eventuate to give the RC and or the IJ the grounds not to prosecute a protest as has occured in the past or put them in the corner of public humiliation. 

While now obviously hypothetical it would have been interesting whether the RC/IJ assembled the necessary evidence in the event the SI's would be upheld to the letter and automatic DSQ applied plus defend their position publically. That is but not limited to the following evidence regarding S2H Race Communications:

- Race duration between vessels and weather forecast probabilities in relation to that duration rapidly reducing with that time span. 100 footers are there in one/two sleeps others up to five+ days. 

- The RO's Special Committe Report into the 1993 S2H.

- The RO's Special Committee Report into the 1998 S2H.

- The Brief of Evidence provided by the NSW Police Service to the State Coroner's Office for the Inquest into 6 deaths during the 1998 S2H. This included evidence from AMSA and various SAR and Communication bodies.

- The NSW State Coroner's Findings and Recommendations with regard to the 1998 S2H.

- The RO's response to both its own Committee Report and the Coroner's findings and recommendations noting the 1999 Race preceeded the latter.

- Material tendered/prepared/RO position established in legal action against the RO emanating from the S2H Race where in both cases the RO agreed to settle out of court. 

- WS and AS mandatory requirement (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried, noting Race Category differences and mandatory use of DSC equipped HF's currently don't apply in Australia.

- Noting HF is mandatory for Category 2 Races, evidence that some RO's are down grading their races to Cat 3 with the result the regulatory safety provisions are arguably longer matching the race course.

-  Evidence a Sat Phone is not compatible with International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's.

- Minutes from AYF/AS Offshore Keelboat Policy and National Safety Committee Meetings including submissions recieved from state bodies/clubs and submissions made to SAR and communication bodies.

- National Marine Safety Committee and AusSAR Consultative Council findings.

-  Advice of the Maritime Agencies Forum (MAF - a national forum for marine safety agencies)  over the National Coast Radio Network (NCRN) established in 2002 following the decommissioning of some HF Voice monitoring services subsidised by the Government. This coincided with AMSA beginning to provide a HF DSC monitoring service in accordance with its international obligations followed by DSC Transceivers being approved by the Aust Communications and Media Authority and available for non-commercial use.

Note: NCRN HF Voice monitoring of distress and safety communications will cease in Australia on 1 January 2022. From then on only a GMDSS DSC enabled HF will be supported. This indicates the RO has no option but to make DSC HF mandatory after next year's race, noting a majority of competitors have a DSC transceiver already installed, albeit most without a seperate DSC receive antenna and or don't know how to use it or know of its GMDSS functionality matching that of Sat Com C/mini C or pending GMDSS approved Iridium terminals. This begs the question as to why has the RO perservered with HF Voice for so long and not made DSC HF mandatory?

- And probably last but not least there is no evidence bushfire smoke effects Marine HF as claimed. 

Three minutes on Google will show many instances of fire services complaining of radio issues. Further Googling of reports and studies show the weakly ionized high temperature environment of the bushfire itself together with the emission the compound potassium (associated with grass fires, not bush fires) in the smoke creates a radio "sub-refractive" environment for UHF and VHF or "line of sight" radio wave propagation only. It obviously has no effect offshore on lower frequency Marine HF "ground" or higher frequency "sky waves" relying on the ionosphere up to 300 klm above the earth. 

- And one last twist....reminding Richards about his team ringing him on Friday morning on the Sat Phone, but not getting through is hardly evidence of a reliable safety communication device surely???

It would appear some of those that lead the fleet to Hobart each year are utterly fucking clueless if their protest "smokey" is any guide and have little regard for the fleet other than providing themselves with a colourful backdrop.

View attachment 339087

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matagi

Super Antichrist
It is the annual tar and feather Fonzie time....he never disappoints.

Like this race the 12 month anniversary of aliens from outa space frying his AIS, 24 months since he thought the "keeping clear and circle work rules" didn't apply to him, a thought well engrained over the 9 years since his Green Cape HF notification rule reinvention which saw him keep the sponsors LH watch. 

Not to forget of course his sidekick the RC, who in response to all the above incidents postured and preened at the time, but when the dust had settled, then quietly changed the applicable provisions in the SI's relating to each of those WOXI incidents above for the following year.

So this year you all thought this annual celebration of a 50k rated hairdo getting out of shape was no more? Rest easy I have found one potential incident plus one pending that had an insurance plan in place to bluff the Jury.

Outside Help

Everyone knows RRS 41 Outside Help

Well imagine my surprise when dialing up my Weekend Australian online account for a news catchup to find David McNicol, an old Oatley family friend writing this. He said Team WOXI in response to seeing WOXI going backwards on Friday morning rang them up on the Sat Phone, but said they couldn't raise them!!! 

Now with the RC not "time-barred" from lodging a protest for the purposes of obtaining Sat Phone records to put that "no contact" beyond doubt, I can only assume the RC don't read race reports in Australia's national newspaper so are in the dark. Bit like last year not knowing WOXI's AIS ceased transmitting 11.10am in the harbour on the day of the start and until after it had finished, thus a protest killed off and not being heard. 

 Now let's assume that Team WOXI's failure to raise them is bona-fide being honest folk and therefore no instance of Outside Help has transpired, it does raise however raise an interesting conundrum of revisiting the ghosts of Green Cape 2010 again.

The Green Cape Protest Set-Up

You see last week Richo drafted off a brain fart from a fellow 100' Club member, Witty who claimed bushfire smoke has been found to interfere with HF marine radio signals – prompting him to write a letter to the RC seeking a SI relaxation to allow the use of their back up satellite phones to avoid the mandatory DSQ. This letter and the RC's rejection on these Grounds then became the subject of a media bushfire stoked by the Witty and Richard's.

Syd Morning Herald 24 Dec - "Skipper threatens to never return to Sydney to Hobart over bushfire smoke ruling"

Syd Morning Herald 26 Dec - 'Safety reasons': Sydney to Hobart organisers reaffirm smoke haze ruling.

Wild Oat XI skipper Mark Richards said; "the (RC's) call was a "big deal....stopping the reliance on marine radio signals during the Sydney to Hobart has been talked about "for years" but "nothing has ever happened".

This all emanated from the RO's 100 footer media briefing last Tuesday (Witt @ 5.50 and 11.45)  Also followed up by a post briefing interview with Witt @ 0.20.

It even made it to SA's FP last Wednesday titled "Pre-Race Bitching"

Richard's and Witt ensured the "scene was set" for any Green Cape protest that may eventuate to give the RC and or the IJ the grounds not to prosecute a protest as has occured in the past or put them in the corner of public humiliation. 

While now obviously hypothetical it would have been interesting whether the RC/IJ assembled the necessary evidence in the event the SI's would be upheld to the letter and automatic DSQ applied plus defend their position publically. That is but not limited to the following evidence regarding S2H Race Communications:

- Race duration between vessels and weather forecast probabilities in relation to that duration rapidly reducing with that time span. 100 footers are there in one/two sleeps others up to five+ days. 

- The RO's Special Committe Report into the 1993 S2H.

- The RO's Special Committee Report into the 1998 S2H.

- The Brief of Evidence provided by the NSW Police Service to the State Coroner's Office for the Inquest into 6 deaths during the 1998 S2H. This included evidence from AMSA and various SAR and Communication bodies.

- The NSW State Coroner's Findings and Recommendations with regard to the 1998 S2H.

- The RO's response to both its own Committee Report and the Coroner's findings and recommendations noting the 1999 Race preceeded the latter.

- Material tendered/prepared/RO position established in legal action against the RO emanating from the S2H Race where in both cases the RO agreed to settle out of court. 

- WS and AS mandatory requirement (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried, noting Race Category differences and mandatory use of DSC equipped HF's currently don't apply in Australia.

- Noting HF is mandatory for Category 2 Races, evidence that some RO's are down grading their races to Cat 3 with the result the regulatory safety provisions are arguably longer matching the race course.

-  Evidence a Sat Phone is not compatible with International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's.

- Minutes from AYF/AS Offshore Keelboat Policy and National Safety Committee Meetings including submissions recieved from state bodies/clubs and submissions made to SAR and communication bodies.

- National Marine Safety Committee and AusSAR Consultative Council findings.

-  Advice of the Maritime Agencies Forum (MAF - a national forum for marine safety agencies)  over the National Coast Radio Network (NCRN) established in 2002 following the decommissioning of some HF Voice monitoring services subsidised by the Government. This coincided with AMSA beginning to provide a HF DSC monitoring service in accordance with its international obligations followed by DSC Transceivers being approved by the Aust Communications and Media Authority and available for non-commercial use.

Note: NCRN HF Voice monitoring of distress and safety communications will cease in Australia on 1 January 2022. From then on only a GMDSS DSC enabled HF will be supported. This indicates the RO has no option but to make DSC HF mandatory after next year's race, noting a majority of competitors have a DSC transceiver already installed, albeit most without a seperate DSC receive antenna and or don't know how to use it or know of its GMDSS functionality matching that of Sat Com C/mini C or pending GMDSS approved Iridium terminals. This begs the question as to why has the RO perservered with HF Voice for so long and not made DSC HF mandatory?

- And probably last but not least there is no evidence bushfire smoke effects Marine HF as claimed. 

Three minutes on Google will show many instances of fire services complaining of radio issues. Further Googling of reports and studies show the weakly ionized high temperature environment of the bushfire itself together with the emission the compound potassium (associated with grass fires, not bush fires) in the smoke creates a radio "sub-refractive" environment for UHF and VHF or "line of sight" radio wave propagation only. It obviously has no effect offshore on lower frequency Marine HF "ground" or higher frequency "sky waves" relying on the ionosphere up to 300 klm above the earth. 

- And one last twist....reminding Richards about his team ringing him on Friday morning on the Sat Phone, but not getting through is hardly evidence of a reliable safety communication device surely???

It would appear some of those that lead the fleet to Hobart each year are utterly fucking clueless if their protest "smokey" is any guide and have little regard for the fleet other than providing themselves with a colourful backdrop.
So Richards is a possible rulebreaker in your eyes because someone from the landshore team tried to contact WOXI offshore? And he still is, even though landshore team didn't get through?

Nonono.

Richards is maybe culpable of many things, but not in this case: Rule 41 says: "A boat shall not receive help from any outside source" [rest: exceptions, unapplicable here]. And they, as even the article apparently states, did not receive. No collusion, no quid pro quo, witch hunt :)  

And just because WOXI was not reachable by sat phone from offshore doesn't say that it would be just as useless the other way around as well. It also does not make WOXI idiots for pointing out the advancements in communication technology. I, too, think, that given bushfires and debris in the air will heavily reduce HF reach. Watch some wildfire documentaries, the Yarnell fire, e.g. You can sure hear the interferences in the recorded communications. So they were sureley wrong in many cases (mostly tactics, though), but not this. 

 

jack_sparrow

Super Anarchist
37,393
5,094
So Richards is a possible rulebreaker in your eyes because someone from the landshore team tried to contact WOXI offshore? And he still is, even though landshore team didn't get through?
Point out where I say he is a rule breaker or potential rule breaker if no contact occured? You are making shit up.

And just because WOXI was not reachable by sat phone from offshore doesn't say that it would be just as useless the other way around as well.
Putting aside that recognised SAR communication is two way and one of between multiple parties that a Sat Phone can't satisfy, can you care to explain that interesting thought further?

It also does not make WOXI idiots for pointing out the advancements in communication technology.
Putting aside SAR authorities don't support Sat Phone use as primary communication platform as I have pointed out, what are these advancements in technology you speak of?

First you might like to reference your opinion to vessels that had Sat Phones in the 1998 S2H, the vessels that had them and their particicular circumstances? 

Then in so far as the overall incident enlighten us to how Sat Phones would have both complied with the Coroner's Findings & Recommendations and the RO's own Special Committee Report AND produce a superior outcome compared to HF?

..I, too, think, that given bushfires and debris in the air will heavily reduce HF reach. Watch some wildfire documentaries, the Yarnell fire, e.g. You can sure hear the interferences in the recorded communications...
Reading is not your strong point it would appear, nor is your knowledge of radio. Air born debris do not create a "sub-refractive" radio environment. Direct heat and the compound potassium attached to grass burning do. Neither impact upon offshore radio use where the radio relay vessel is offshore and RO's principal land station is located in Tasmania. It also has zero impact upon HF "sky waves."

Also Yarnell is in Arizona and HF Radio was not employed. 

Three minutes on Google will show many instances of fire services complaining of radio issues. Further Googling of reports and studies show the weakly ionized high temperature environment of the bushfire itself together with the emission of the compound potassium (associated with grass fires, not bush fires) in the smoke creates a radio "sub-refractive" environment for UHF and VHF or "line of sight" radio wave propagation only. It obviously has no effect offshore on lower frequency Marine HF "ground wave" or higher frequency "sky waves" relying on the ionosphere up to 300 klm above the earth. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matagi

Super Antichrist
Point out where I say he is a rule breaker or potential rule breaker if no contact occured? 

Putting aside that recognised SAR communication is two way and one of between multiple parties that a Sat Phone can't satisfy, can you care to explain that thought further.

Putting aside SAR authorities don't support Sat Phone use as primary communication platform as I have pointed out, what are these advancements in technology you speak of?

First you might like to reference your opinion to vessels that had Sat Phones in the 1998 S2H, the vessels that had them and their particicular circumstances? 

Then in so far as the overall incident enlighten us to how Sat Phones would have both complied with the Coroner's Findings & Recommendations and the RO's own Special Committee Report AND produce a superior outcome compared to HF?

Reading is not your strong point it would appear, nor is your knowledge of radio. Yarnell is in Arizona and HF Radio was not employed.
Before we dig deeper into this 'who is better at reading' kid fight, let's not get personal, please.

And if you love precision this much: Look closely. I was asking the question, whether I got you right, as I couldn't believe it myself. However, your citation of the rule made your implication quite obvious.

Besides that: I believe ANY form or tool of communication that helps in an emergency is great. 1:n is best, sure, but if 1:n transmits crappy and 1:1 gets out crystal clear, I know what I would chose. Oh, and so do others. Look what I found in Howorth's Sea Survival Manual

image.png

No-one has asked to replace HF with Satphones. Not even Richards. As I see, it, the fear was that the compulsory HF radio check at Green Cape might not get through because of interferences, resulting in the compulsory abandoning of the race for the respective entrant. WOXI asked for the possibility to use sat phones as a back up in this case. 

As for the rest: Everyone knows that the Arizona fire dpts mainly transmit around 155 and 490, so yes, my reference was crap.

But your reference to 1998's S2H certainly is not the pinnacle of your intelligence, either, I trust?

 

jack_sparrow

Super Anarchist
37,393
5,094
Besides that: I believe ANY form or tool of communication that helps in an emergency is great. 1:n is best, sure, but if 1:n transmits crappy and 1:1 gets out crystal clear, I know what I would chose. Oh, and so do others. Look what I found in Howorth's Sea Survival Manual

 View attachment 339103
4 Questions.

1. Why do all the SAR & Communications Authorities disagree with your opinion?

2. Why do WS and AS with the mandatory requirement  (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried and Sat Phone treated as a back up disagree with your opinion?

3. My guess Howorths Sea Survival Manual references a single vessel not multiple vessels subjected to say the same weather event and SAR resources are finite. Does it reference any other two way communication device (such as DSC HF) and if so, is it speaking of a Sat Phone as a redundancy or back up or the sole and primary means of safety communication? BTW what is the phone number of that vessel you can see on the horizon? 

4. Explain how a Sat Phone complies with the International Aeronautical and Maritime  Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's?

I think you will struggle answering those 4 questions and my guess ignore.

No-one has asked to replace HF with Satphones. Not even Richards.
How much you want to bet on that?

As I see, it, the fear was that the compulsory HF radio check at Green Cape might not get through because of interferences, resulting in the compulsory abandoning of the race for the respective entrant. WOXI asked for the possibility to use sat phones as a back up in this case. 
The fear was bush fires would cause interference. As that fear is completely unfounded there should be no problem other than failure of a device that the RO deems to be in working order as a mandatory requirement to enter Bass Strait. If you lost a one of two liferafts should you be allowed to continue? 

My opinion a DSC enabled HF far superior in that regard, but HF Voice is the RO's choice and for only one more outing then it has no choice.

But your reference to 1998's S2H certainly is not the pinnacle of your intelligence, either, I trust?
I'm simply using 1998 as it is what the RO (amoungst many others) has consistently referenced for the last 20 years on this subject matter when it has been raised and as late as last week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matagi

Super Antichrist
3 Questions.

1. Why do all the SAR & Communications Authorities disagree with your opinion?

2. Why do WS and AS with the mandatory requirement  (Special Offshore Regulations) for a working HF radio to be carried and Sat Phone treated as a back up disagree with your opinion?

3. My guess Howorths Sea Survival Manual references a single vessel not multiple vessels. Does it reference any other two way communication device (such as DSC HF) and if so, is it speaking of a Sat Phone as a redundancy or back up to something else or the sole and primary means of safety communication?

4. Explain how a Sat Phone complies with the International Aeronautical and Maritime  Search and Rescue Manual and the international standard telephony procedures for SAR called for in Special Offshore Regulations and the S2H SI's?

How much you want to bet on that?

The fear was bush fires would cause interference. As that fear is completely unfounded there should be no problem other than failure of a device that the RO deems to be in working order as a mandatory requirement to enter Bass Strait.

I'm simply using 1998 as it what the RO (amoungst many others) has consistently referenced for the last 20 years on this matter when it has been raised and as late as last week.
"3 Questions"

Lists five questions.

I'll get back to you as soon as I have my HF radio working agaicherrhchrh...ello?

:)

 

jack_sparrow

Super Anarchist
37,393
5,094
Thanks for that, fascinating stories indeed of Katwinchar, King Billy, and I think Fidelis qualifies too. The determination to restore, keep up, and race these boats in the S2H is very admirable.
Coincidently this just popped up on Tuber recommend to complete the Trilogy. She has had an interesting life and clearly has been in very good hands this last 25 years.




 
Last edited by a moderator:


Latest posts





Top