The Australian Sailing and RQYS Kabuki Theatre Thread

[jack_sparrow]

Surely you’re not suggesting some form of collusion has occurred! Are you questioning the integrity of the protest system itself or just the fact that a home IJ chaired the panel?

Ultimate you appear to be a person who never asks a question unless knowing the true answer...so maybe ask yourself those questions and report back here truthfully. Otherwise you will appear to be "jumping the shark" too, just as Couta says.

I think rules are there to be followed...in this case the Kool Aid sucking, Shark Jumping OP and his thread rule about questions.  :lol:

....the only rule is never, ever answer what was asked.

 

[jack_sparrow]

Surely you’re not suggesting some form of collusion has occurred! Are you questioning the integrity of the protest system itself or just the fact that a home IJ chaired the panel?

Ultimate you appear to be a person who never asks a question unless knowing the true answer...so maybe ask yourself those questions and report back here truthfully. Otherwise you will appear to be "jumping the shark" too, just as Couta says.

Ultimate you had so many expert questions.

Don't tell me you are still asking yourself those questions or did you forget the questions?

My goodness. OK to recap.

Somewhere North of 27.6° South

- On the way to the start the life-raft release line was found to be detached from the life-raft. The raft canister can be opened to try and re-fix the gas cartridge release connection/mechanism and then canister securely closed up again, seeking to leave all in safe working order obviously.

- If not fixed and working safely and properly, then a rule breech regarding such operations on a mandated piece of safety equipment will occur upon starting, thus necessitating immediate race retirement obviously.

- Not sure if repair can be done before the start and if so, not sure if repair and will last, so it needs to checked during the race obviously.

- So there is a potential issue with a mandated piece of safety equipment for all or maybe some duration of the race, but won't really be sure until the finish obviously? 

- Race Control contacted and appraised of situation obviously.

Ten Questions - Safety Equipment & RC Protests

1. Having regard to vessel Skipper obligations should they fix and if satisfied start the race? Yes or No.

2. Notwithstanding the Skippers advice the issue has been attended to, completely satisfied and will check it regularly, should the RC allow the boat to start? Yes or No.

3. If vessel does start with Skipper satisfied all is well, should a post race Skipper Declaration, describe the above events in detail incl reference to relevant race documentation? Yes or No.

4. Upon receipt of the Skippers Declaration, should the RC for instance carry out a life-raft inspection, take further statements if considered necessary, seek expert input on life-raft operation etc? Yes or No.

5. If after consideration of the above the RC is of the opinion a rule breech has or may have occured, should the RC Protest? Yes or No.

6. Would the Jury be normally expecting to have presented to it the Skippers Declaration (that instigated the actual RC protest) and any evidence collected by the RC to enable the Jury to make a proper determination? Yes or No.

7. Should a Jury when making a determination have "any regard" for evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make a proper determination, BUT that evidence wasn't presented and or withheld and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

8. If there is any missing evidence a Jury would normally be expecting to be presented with by the RC for it to make a proper determination on their protest; should the Jury DISMISS the RC protest and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

9. Do all your answers including this one end with Yes? Yes or No

10. Are you asute enough to be aware of a serious underlying issue revealed by this QA, so are wondering whether to post your answers OR slink away and ignore this Questionnaire? Yes or No

Chop chop mate.

 

[Livia]

Jack, you don't have the right version, try this one!

This was the one originally posted.

I have marked the changes for you.

Seems to change everything really!



[SIZE=10pt]Fill in and tick as appropriate[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Withdrawal requested [/SIZE]; signed ............................................................... Withdrawal permitted Protest time limit ..1149[SIZE=10pt]..................
Protest, or request for redress or reopening, is within time limit [/SIZE]Y [SIZE=10pt]Time limit extended Protestor, or party requesting redress or reopening, represented by [/SIZE]Mark Gallagher[SIZE=10pt].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Other party, or boat being considered for redress, represented by [/SIZE]Skipper - Barry Cuneo[SIZE=10pt].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Names of witnesses ................................[/SIZE]Nil[SIZE=10pt]..................................................................................................[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Interpreters .......................................[/SIZE]N/A[SIZE=10pt]............................................. [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Remarks[/SIZE]

   

[SIZE=10pt]Objection about interested party
Written protest or request identifies incident[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]‘Protest’ hailed at first [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]reasonable opportunity
No hail needed, protestee informed at first reasonable opportunity Red flag conspicuously displayed at first reasonable opportunity Red flag seen by race committee at finish[/SIZE]
N[SIZE=10pt]............................................. [/SIZE]Y[SIZE=10pt]............................................. [/SIZE]N/A[SIZE=10pt]......................................... [/SIZE]Y[SIZE=10pt].............................................[/SIZE]N/A[SIZE=10pt]........................................ [/SIZE]N/A[SIZE=10pt]........................................[/SIZE]

       

[SIZE=10pt]Protest or request valid, hearing will continue Protest or request invalid, hearing is closed FACTS FOUND[/SIZE]

1. Envy Scooters notified Race Control they had been advised that there AIS was not visible on the Marine Traffic website at 1030 on Friday morning 30 min before the commencement of the race
   
2. The Race committee reported that Envy Scooter’s AIS appeared to be intermittent on Marine Traffic
   
3. Envy Scooters reported their position on all Radio Scheds and were visible on the race tracker at all times while they were racing
   
4. Envy Scooters skipper is a Commercial Mariner - Master Grade 1 and gave expert testimony regarding the reliability of Type B – AIS and confirmed that there is currently no standard or performance criteria for this equipment
   

[SIZE=10pt]Diagram of boat .......................... is endorsed by committee [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Committee’s diagram is [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]attached CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY[/SIZE]

Given that the RC could only provide evidence that Envy Scooters AIS was not visible on the Marine Traffic website and app intermittently, it was not shown that Envy Scooters AIS was not active in both modes at all times as required by NOR – Appendix B5

[SIZE=10pt]DECISION[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Protest [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]is dismissed Boat(s) ........................................................... is (are) disqualified ; penalized as follows : .................................................................................[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Redress [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]is not given ; given as follows : ......................................................................................... [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Request to reopen a hearing [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]is denied ; granted[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Protest committee chairman and other members [/SIZE]Mark Dingley SJ – QLD, Erica Kirby NJ – NSW, Steve Hatch IJ/IU – NSW, Nev Willis IJ – QLD

         




[SIZE=10pt]Chairman’s signature . [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Date and time ....................................................[/SIZE]

 

[Livia]

In case anyone is asking the copy I have is signed by the chairman, Mr Willis, the handwritten signature has not copied across.

 

[jack_sparrow]

Jack, you don't have the right version, try this one!

This was the one originally posted.

I have marked the changes for you.

Seems to change everything really!

WTF.

ONE protest hearing but TWO seperate hearing outcomes, where the current and one standing DELETES paragraph 4 in Facts Found and some words in Conclusion...and with NO explanation for the deletion???

"Seems to change everything.." it changes COMPLETLY what occured at the hearing, by way of the record and expunges COMPLETLY from the record ALL evidence submitted by the protestee. They might as well not have been in attendance now according to the record. 

So post hearing and 1st hearing outcome, is it the Protestor (RC), the Protestee (Envy) and or the Jury thinking that paragraph 4 and words, "and app intermittently" were suddenly unwanted or unpleasant things??? Someone thought so, but who?

Are these people for fucking real. 

@shanghaisailor to the white phone.

 

[Livia]

Once you acknowledge that Marine Traffic was working the whole game goes to shit!

Which is more likely Marine Traffic working intermittently or and AIS Class B transponder working intermittently?

Of course para 4 of the Facts Found has no relevance unless of course your AIS was unreliable.

 

[shaggybaxter]

WTF.

ONE protest hearing but TWO seperate hearing outcomes, where the current and one standing DELETES paragraph 4 in Facts Found and some words in Conclusion...and with NO explanation for the deletion???

"Seems to change everything.." it changes COMPLETLY what occured at the hearing, by way of the record and expunges COMPLETLY from the record ALL evidence submitted by the protestee. They might as well not have been in attendance now according to the record. 

So post hearing and 1st hearing outcome, is it the Protestor (RC), the Protestee (Envy) and or the Jury thinking that paragraph 4 and words, "and app intermittently" were suddenly unwanted or unpleasant things??? Someone thought so, but who?

Are these people for fucking real. 

@shanghaisailor to the white phone.

And that is the reason I have zero respect for Nev Willis. It’s as if RQ gets to write their own facts found  regardless of reality. 
This is why I appealed to AS, who let the lies stand as fact and proved they’re just paper stampers . And that’s why I took AS to CAS, and  AS ran and hid. 
They all deserve each other.

 

[Livia]

To explain, to take AS to the Court ofArbitration for Sport you have to get AS to consent

Of course AS were gutless and refused consent

 

[Livia]

Being a theatre in which disgruntled members, ex members and others with excrement on the liver may don exotic costume and engage in an arcane choreography intertwining Veiled  Allegations, suggestion of Inside Knowledge, and Delphic Prophecies of Doom And Unmitigated Failure, tantalising the audience with the prospect of a glimpse of the Sordid Inner Machinations by Faceless Men and the Karmic Justice that shall imminently be meted out to them, yet all the while remaining shrouded between the Shadow and the Mist such that once the ritual is complete the question remains unanswered and the viewer can only guess at whether the thing is real, or just a half remembered Dream.

Leave your facts at the door as the only currency in this theatre is suggestion, and the only rule is never, ever answer what was asked.

So you want defend this then, play though!

 

[jack_sparrow]

Greasy is now full of remorse for starting this thread...these pesky facts things   :lol:

 

[Livia]

Well if there is a Hobart this year him and I can sort it out sitting on the rail for a few days!

 

[gewoon ik]

or he gets the explanation he always wants to know.

 

[TheUltimateSockPuppet]

Ultimate you had so many expert questions.

Don't tell me you are still asking yourself those questions or did you forget the questions?

My goodness. OK to recap.

Somewhere North of 27.6° South

- On the way to the start the life-raft release line was found to be detached from the life-raft. The raft canister can be opened to try and re-fix the gas cartridge release connection/mechanism and then canister securely closed up again, seeking to leave all in safe working order obviously.

- If not fixed and working safely and properly, then a rule breech regarding such operations on a mandated piece of safety equipment will occur upon starting, thus necessitating immediate race retirement obviously.

- Not sure if repair can be done before the start and if so, not sure if repair and will last, so it needs to checked during the race obviously.

- So there is a potential issue with a mandated piece of safety equipment for all or maybe some duration of the race, but won't really be sure until the finish obviously? 

- Race Control contacted and appraised of situation obviously.

Ten Questions - Safety Equipment & RC Protests

1. Having regard to vessel Skipper obligations should they fix and if satisfied start the race? Yes or No.

2. Notwithstanding the Skippers advice the issue has been attended to, completely satisfied and will check it regularly, should the RC allow the boat to start? Yes or No.

3. If vessel does start with Skipper satisfied all is well, should a post race Skipper Declaration, describe the above events in detail incl reference to relevant race documentation? Yes or No.

4. Upon receipt of the Skippers Declaration, should the RC for instance carry out a life-raft inspection, take further statements if considered necessary, seek expert input on life-raft operation etc? Yes or No.

5. If after consideration of the above the RC is of the opinion a rule breech has or may have occured, should the RC Protest? Yes or No.

6. Would the Jury be normally expecting to have presented to it the Skippers Declaration (that instigated the actual RC protest) and any evidence collected by the RC to enable the Jury to make a proper determination? Yes or No.

7. Should a Jury when making a determination have "any regard" for evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make a proper determination, BUT that evidence wasn't presented and or withheld and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

8. If there is any missing evidence a Jury would normally be expecting to be presented with by the RC for it to make a proper determination on their protest; should the Jury DISMISS the RC protest and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

9. Do all your answers including this one end with Yes? Yes or No

10. Are you asute enough to be aware of a serious underlying issue revealed by this QA, so are wondering whether to post your answers OR slink away and ignore this Questionnaire? Yes or No

Chop chop mate.

View attachment 382481

View attachment 382486

Sorry was bouncing around off the coast - personally at Q1 I would withdraw if I was skipper, I would never risk someone else’s life with a fault in a primary piece of safety equipment. Q2 opens the can of worms as it takes the onus of responsibility question From the skipper to the race committee. Again if anyone ever let me run a race I’d be saying no start. 

But assuming I’m not making those decisions at 1 & 2 then...

3-7. Yes

8. This is another can of worms, the Jury / PC can only deal with the evidence bought before them. The Q is did the RC seek to have a hearing merely to assuage their own fear that other boats knew about the issue and were demanding answers and so accidentally or deliberately failed to provide the evidence that the jury needed to have?

9. No

10. Jack I’ll let you make your own conclusion

 

[jack_sparrow]

- personally at Q1 I would withdraw if I was skipper, I would never risk someone else’s life with a fault in a primary piece of safety equipment.

From the moment a race entry is accepted the skipper is vested with the sole responsibility for crew and vessel safety so it is their call. 

Q2 opens the can of worms as it takes the onus of responsibility question From the skipper to the race committee. Again if anyone ever let me run a race I’d be saying no start. 

As for Q1. All the RC can do is immediately protest, they don't have any DSQ powers. They could notify authorities, who do have the power to intervene, providing the safety equipment was one that fell within within their jurisdiction. There are many safety equipment inclusions in racing that do not. A life-raft is one.

7. Should a Jury when making a determination have "any regard" for evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make a proper determination, BUT that evidence wasn't presented and or withheld and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No

3-7. Yes

So all Yes 3 - 7.

Noting Yes to 7 where Jury when making a determination can "have regard" for missing evidence from both parties that is easily obtained and it believes is necessary for it to make  a proper determination. In this case the obvious things would be if they weren't presented would be:

Protestee (vessel) - Skippers Declaration and contents relating to the life-raft and actions taken to be in compliance with the race documents for the duration of the race.

Protestor (RC) - Evidence of their life-raft inspection and at the hearing evidence on their interrogation of the Skippers Declaration and views if that not the subject of their protest.

This missing evidence obviously attaches to the weight of the evidence being presented to the Jury by both parties and where the Jury rules accordingly. The Jury is entitled if not has a duty to seek that evidence, not just ignore it, whether it does or not is up to them.

8. If there is any missing evidence a Jury would normally be expecting to be presented with by the RC for it to make a proper determination on their protest; should the Jury DISMISS the RC protest and clearly state that in Facts Found? Yes or No.

8. This is another can of worms, the Jury / PC can only deal with the evidence bought before them. The Q is did the RC seek to have a hearing merely to assuage their own fear that other boats knew about the issue and were demanding answers and so accidentally or deliberately failed to provide the evidence that the jury needed to have?

It is not up to the Jury to assess the motivation behind any protest. Be it as you suggest for a RC to assuage their own fears or even engineering a protest for the purposes of having it dismissed etc.

You are dead right it is not up to theJury to make a case for the Protestor (RC) or the Protestee.

However for this and Q8 their determination is being made on the weight of the evidence and where it is their duty to rule accordingly. That duty does extend to seeking that evidence, not just ignoring it, whether they do or not is up to them.

For instance if the RC didn't present evidence of their life-raft inspection or their interrogation of the Skippers Declaration, then in the absence of anything else, a dismissal of their protest would almost be automatic. 

So as you can see 9/9 Yes IMO is the correct answer.

If you wanted to take this life-raft example and draw parallels to recent and notable AIS RC protests, then clearly those protests should have been dismissed.

It could be argued they were lodged by RC's and designed to be dismissed with little or no regard for the actual operation of safety equipment their own rules mandate.

If those Protestees and Jurys were aware of this intent or not, draw your own conclusions. You can however clearly regard the Protestees as beneficiaries in the silverware department.

 

[Factor]

Not sure what planet RQYS and its Commodore lives on.  And as for MR Willis.  Well - the laws of defamation and all that.  

 

[LB 15]

Up here at ABRW there was some chap being very rude about the RC, and the Commadore of RQYS and the club itself on VHF during race 1. The person identified themselves over the radio. The term ‘69’ is trending amongst the chattering classes. Doing the Molles race right now and very pleasant it is. Anyway I better get back to navigating.

over.

 

[TheUltimateSockPuppet]

Up here at ABRW there was some chap being very rude about the RC, and the Commadore of RQYS and the club itself on VHF during race 1. The person identified themselves over the radio. The term ‘69’ is trending amongst the chattering classes. Doing the Molles race right now and very pleasant it is. Anyway I better get back to navigating.

over.

Anyone we know?

 

[LB 15]

Anyone we know?

Yep.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

Up here at ABRW there was some chap being very rude about the RC, and the Commadore of RQYS and the club itself on VHF during race 1. The person identified themselves over the radio. The term ‘69’ is trending amongst the chattering classes. Doing the Molles race right now and very pleasant it is. Anyway I better get back to navigating.

over.

Has the tide risen enough to actually allow sailing up there?

FKT

 

[shanghaisailor]

WTF.

ONE protest hearing but TWO seperate hearing outcomes, where the current and one standing DELETES paragraph 4 in Facts Found and some words in Conclusion...and with NO explanation for the deletion???

"Seems to change everything.." it changes COMPLETLY what occured at the hearing, by way of the record and expunges COMPLETLY from the record ALL evidence submitted by the protestee. They might as well not have been in attendance now according to the record. 

So post hearing and 1st hearing outcome, is it the Protestor (RC), the Protestee (Envy) and or the Jury thinking that paragraph 4 and words, "and app intermittently" were suddenly unwanted or unpleasant things??? Someone thought so, but who?

Are these people for fucking real. 

@shanghaisailor to the white phone.

Thanks Jack :-( I'm not the font of all knowledge.

A few observations that some above have failed to realise. Perhaps never used an AIS or even a VHF.

There are a number of reasons why a boat will not be identified on AIS much less Marine Traffic. Firstly the AIS ident is provided via VHF which is already a weak signal from a racing yacht and entirely dependant first of all on the transmission circuit. AIS was, after all, initially designed for vessels of over 300 tons which are an infinitely more stable transmission platform and being generally built in steel provide a much greater ground plane for radio transmission (read the books)

During my mi-spent youth (a long time ago) i was part of the CB Radio crazy that swept the UK. In fact i was secretary of a club of 4,800 - i was right into it.

If your 'rig' - the radio and antenna was tuned badly you would be lucky to be heard a few blocks away but get it right, particularly the SWR of the antenna and you could speak to the USA from the middle of England and I have done so. 

The AIS set up on most yachts uses a splitter to enable the same antenna to be used for both AIS and VHF transmissions. That in itself reduces the effectiveness (read reliability and range) of the signal of both transmissions and i bet like most yacht installations it has never had an SWR meter within half a mile of it.

On my own boat i eschew this set up and have a dedicated antenna for each system - a bit more clutter but a lot more reliability.

One also has to realise that it is all operating in a marine environment. Were the cable junctions secure and damp and salt free, the GPS and VHF connections on the AIS, the splitter (in and out).

I cannot see the NoR or SIs so cannot comment on the exact wording but there are a number of reasons why an AIS is ACTUALLY SWITCHED ON and the information not getting out through to Marine Traffic

Regarding the case in point, the boat radioed in pre-race that they seemed to have a problem and the fact that the Race Committee statement quoted as a fact found that they appeared intermittently would perhaps point to a fault somewhere in the antenna circuit. I seem to remember a 100 footer in a much longer race last year that was reportedly not transmitting AIS details correctly due to a claimed circuit fault.

The change in the published decision with point 4 being removed as hiding something is a wonderful but (I believe) completely pointless conspiracy theory. Point 4 appeared in the "Facts Found" part of the decision and in my opinion it was correctly removed because it wasn't a fact, it was an opinion.

It was also erroneous in that is it relatively easy to discover how efficient an antenna system is using a Sine Wave Ratio (SWR) Meter. To measure the SWR using a sound system you key the mike, to measure the AIS you just switch it on to transmit. Also if on switching on the AIS the SWR meter didn't deflect you would know instantly you had a problem (no signal coming down the coax) . Whether it was transmitting the position and other information  would be easy to check on another AIS receiver.

That said, these would be dockside checks and unlikely to be performed on the fly, especially when racing and a yacht is likely to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are "AIS invisible" unless specifically told so.

I use as a point of reference for this multiple conversations and advice over the years from my closest UK sailing buddy (and excellent mainsheet trimmer) who has spent his entire working career (40 years - he's an old bugger like me) with mobile communications all the way up to satellite dependant yacht telematics. (Look it up) AIS is a puppy by comparison.

My final comment i would direct to Shaggybaxter. I dare you to tell Nev Willis to his face that you have zero respect for him. I have worked with him and found him to be straight arrow. Apart from anything else he was only one of 4 Judges in this case, all of which hold various levels of Judge certification.

The actual decision? Well the RC are quoted as saying that the AIS reception from the yacht in question was intermittent. Does that not mean that they could be seen sometimes and not others? That points very strongly to a faulty system unless they were flicking it on and off which sounds pretty doubtful to me.

I may have missed something and the above is just some thoughts FROM A DISTANCE.

It's an absolute bugger being a judge or umpire. One party in the room is always going to be happy and the other party pissed off.

Come back at me if you think i am wrong - it is how we learn after all.

See ya on the water (soon i hope - bloody virus)

SS