Wet Wednesday Crash T Bone Video

[Canal Bottom]

Back to my question two individual bowmen at each pulpit. What should they have done. Next week maybe you are on the bow. What would you shout out? Or would you just freeze or run for your life?

Cat got your......?

 

[Tunnel Rat]

Back to my question two individual bowmen at each pulpit. What should they have done. Next week maybe you are on the bow. What would you shout out? Or would you just freeze or run for your life?

Cat got your......?

As bowman I take it as my responsibility to make sure the helm knows about every boat that he can't see below the genny, on the same tack and opposite tack, BEFORE they ever become a problem. Also minor things like overlaps, distance to line etc etc.

 

[floating dutchman]

Just out of curiousity .... Why are there so many boats on port tack during the start sequence?

Port tack boat DSQ - Should not have been there

Starboard boat DSQ - The collision was avoidable

Both at fault. Pay for your own damage

+1

Avoid collision, Remeber that little red flag on the back of your boat, thats what it for, If you have to avoid colision as the right of way boat use the little red flag, the other boat can do turns and if they don't want to the take it to the room, why someone would ram another boat to avoid the room is beyond me.

 

[Delta Blues]

For those of you who think this is simple Starboard vs. Port and Starboard is always right, and Port is always wrong, need to study the rules a bit harder.

Listen up, if Port is failing in its obligation to keep clear of Starboard, how much sense does it make that Starboard should just crash into Port causing damage, possible sinking, and possible injury to crew? The rules are designed with safety in mind. This is not a contact sport. When Port is not taking care of its obligation clearly Port is wrong, but at a point, the burden shifts to Starboard to avoid the collision in the name of Safety.

Have you studied the IRPCAS rules? They are no different. One boat is the right-of-way boat, the other is the give-away boat. When the right-of-way boat does not keep clear, then the give-away boat has the burden of avoiding the collision. One does not exonerate the other when there is a collision. Both are found to have done wrong.

Port DSQ'd for failure of P vs. S.

Starboard DSQ'd for failure to avoid.

 

[Squalamax]

Just out of curiousity .... Why are there so many boats on port tack during the start sequence?

Port tack boat DSQ - Should not have been there

Starboard boat DSQ - The collision was avoidable

Both at fault. Pay for your own damage

+1

Avoid collision, Remeber that little red flag on the back of your boat, thats what it for, If you have to avoid colision as the right of way boat use the little red flag, the other boat can do turns and if they don't want to the take it to the room, why someone would ram another boat to avoid the room is beyond me.

I can guarantee you that collision was not intentional. Inattention to course and boats around them was to blame on both Port and Starboards fault. The red tape and hassle of a collision like that is definately NOT worth it.

In the past year, I have been on two boats that were involved in collisions, both with a decent amount of damage.

Both times, we were the ROW boat and won the protest hearing. The first one happened in the states and the owner of the other boat offered to pay for the damage done. It still took 6 months to sort out, and the boat was not repaired fully for one year. The other happened at the Heineken regatta. The other owner had NO insurance and has refused to pay for the damages, meanwhile the boat I was on is back in the states still unrepaired.

I bet that 109 is all done for this season, while the insurance companies battle it out. A shame.

 

[Dog Watch]

When the right-of-way boat does not keep clear, then the give-away boat has the burden of avoiding the collision.
Port DSQ'd for failure of P vs. S.

Starboard DSQ'd for failure to avoid.

Tell me that line was a typo!

As for your ruling, if the facts are found that Stbd failed to avoid, and Port broke Rule 10 then spot on!

I don't know how you can tell that from the video though. (It did look like it was not the 52's start though. Was she racing? In fact, judging by the size of the boats, the smaller boats started first, and the bigger boats second!)

23 INTERFERING WITH ANOTHER BOAT

23.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a

boat that is racing.

Ouch for the 52!!

In fact there's so little we know about the situation and the collision!

So no more hypothesising and theorising on the collision! It's pointless. (Similar to arguing about Conspiricy Theories!)

-----------------------------------------------------------

On to a much more interesting subject....

The Race Officer / Timer was doing a great job. He's totally in control, counting down, giving information out etc..etc...

The horns are loud and strong.

But that 'start' gun needs to be shot!

More to the point, was the individual recall sound signal compliant with Rule 29.1?

At T6:00:26, the start signal is made, some 4 seconds AFTER the countdown and the visual signals (class flags down)! Not a major problem there.

Then there is a mad panic as they reload their pop gun to sound the individual recall signal. The second 'fut' is heard at T6:00:31, some six seconds after the start signal.

Boats that day seemed to travel about 6kts that day. The first boat if OCS was about 7 seconds away from the committee boat at the time the OCS sound signal was sounded. Additionally, her vision of the committee boat may have been obscured by the near boat.

My calculation is that the OCS boat was 21 meters / 70 feet away from the committee boat.

When at a boat’s starting signal any part of her hull, crew or equipment

is on the course side of the starting line or she must comply

with rule 30.1, the race committee shall promptly display flag X with

one sound.

If she had not returned, would a PC have given her redress? I would!

Case 31 is interesting.

 

[maxtrim]

the boats were in the same class, Wet Wednesdays at LBYC only have one PH class, the rest are one design starts.

 

[Dog Watch]

the boats were in the same class, Wet Wednesdays at LBYC only have one PH class, the rest are one design starts.

Thanks...that rules Rule 23 out then... shows how little we all know! I guess the next class was 'Catalina 37' right?...I spotted the class flag after reviewing the vid.

Back to the 'Individual recall'!

Was '77580' (Olsen 30 - Shadow) entitled to redress if she didn't return to the line?

 

[us7070]

i've watched it a few times, and i really don't see either boat doing much to avoid a collision.

maybe the 52 bears away a bit..., when it's already too late..., but it's not much of a bear away.

 

[walterbshaffer]

+1

Avoid collision, Remeber that little red flag on the back of your boat, thats what it for, If you have to avoid colision as the right of way boat use the little red flag, the other boat can do turns and if they don't want to the take it to the room, why someone would ram another boat to avoid the room is beyond me.

Stop being silly. The 52 did not intentionally ram the 109.

For those of you who think this is simple Starboard vs. Port and Starboard is always right, and Port is always wrong, need to study the rules a bit harder.

Listen up, if Port is failing in its obligation to keep clear of Starboard, how much sense does it make that Starboard should just crash into Port causing damage, possible sinking, and possible injury to crew? The rules are designed with safety in mind. This is not a contact sport. When Port is not taking care of its obligation clearly Port is wrong, but at a point, the burden shifts to Starboard to avoid the collision in the name of Safety.

Have you studied the IRPCAS rules? They are no different. One boat is the right-of-way boat, the other is the give-away boat. When the right-of-way boat does not keep clear, then the give-away boat has the burden of avoiding the collision. One does not exonerate the other when there is a collision. Both are found to have done wrong.

Port DSQ'd for failure of P vs. S.

Starboard DSQ'd for failure to avoid.

Your're assuming that the 52 was able to avoid; someone said the 109 was weaving and thier intentions of duck / cross uncertain. I'd say that 1/2 the time the ROW boat finds themselves unable to avoid because the burdened boat is behaving way out of expectations and 100% against the rules, probably more like 75% in pure P/S situations.

 

[wabbiteer]

For those of you who think this is simple Starboard vs. Port and Starboard is always right, and Port is always wrong, need to study the rules a bit harder.

Listen up, if Port is failing in its obligation to keep clear of Starboard, how much sense does it make that Starboard should just crash into Port causing damage, possible sinking, and possible injury to crew? The rules are designed with safety in mind. This is not a contact sport. When Port is not taking care of its obligation clearly Port is wrong, but at a point, the burden shifts to Starboard to avoid the collision in the name of Safety.

Have you studied the IRPCAS rules? They are no different. One boat is the right-of-way boat, the other is the give-away boat. When the right-of-way boat does not keep clear, then the give-away boat has the burden of avoiding the collision. One does not exonerate the other when there is a collision. Both are found to have done wrong.

Port DSQ'd for failure of P vs. S.

Starboard DSQ'd for failure to avoid.

The burden NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER "shifts to Starboard." The burden is always on the Port tack boat. Period.

Once again, for those who are apparently trying to opine on this without actually looking at the rule, here is Rule 14:

14 AVOIDING CONTACTA boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.

However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room

(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat

is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and

(b ) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact

that causes damage or injury.

Note that it says that the ROW boat doesn't need to take action until it is clear that other boat is not keeping clear.

It does not say that the ROW has to take action while ROW can still avoid contact.

This is a big problem for little boats playing chicken with big boats. If you are the little boat on port playing chicken with the big boat on Starboard, by the time that the Starboard boat sees that you're not going to keep clear, it may well be too late for the big boat to avoid hitting you. It's easy to see if you take the extreme case of an oil tanker and a J24 on converging courses. The J24 can sail pretty close to the tanker and still safely tack away. (If C= collision time, say the J24 can change course at C-minus-3 seconds) But if the J24 isn't going to change course, the tanker is going to have start changing course a lot earlier (say C-15 seconds or even earlier). The same principle applies to the J109 and the SC52. If the J109 can still safely tack away from the 52 at C-3 seconds, then according to the RRS there is no need for the SC52 to take action until after that point in time, but the SC52 might not be able to maneuver quickly enough to avoid collision at C-2 seconds. It's further complicated by the fact that if the ROW acts too early and dips, the boats can get into the "dance of death" and the ROW boat can be found guilty of violating 16.1.

As long as the ROW boat takes action at the moment in time it becomes clear that the other boat is not keeping clear, the ROW has not broken Rule 14, whether there is a collision or not, whether there is damage or not. Just because the ROW boat shall not be penalized if there is no damage does not mean that the inverse is true (that the ROW boat shall be penalized if there is damage). If that's what the powers that be intended, they would have written it that way.

Playing chicken with bigger boats is a bad, bad idea, and counting on the bigger boat to bail you out if you screw up is an even worse idea.

i've watched it a few times, and i really don't see either boat doing much to avoid a collision.

maybe the 52 bears away a bit..., when it's already too late..., but it's not much of a bear away.

It's a really lousy angle for trying to determine that.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a reason that umpire boats trail directly behind.

 

[jhc]

Years ago,I was aboard a 62' yacht, on stbd. that was hit in pre-start by an 80' on port tack. both boats reaching below the line. Both bow watch gave a signal to the helmsmen there is a boat "down there" behind the jib and both helmsmen thinking the bow watch's signal was to turn down.

A bad wreck ensued with the 80' yacht raking the windward side of our 62' taking out the windward stanchions, genoa track and cars, and stern pulpit while we got up off the rail and ran for our lives to the lee side. Our owner's son was hanging on the backstay, spinning around and around, with his body and legs horizontal, just missed getting taken out by the departing damaged bow of the 80'er. There was a shark bite out of the 80'er's bow and bits of bondo, with blue paint, all over the deck of our yacht.

No injuries, and both boats continued the race, while the port tack boat retired after finish.

Lessons learned:

1) Bow watch is there to communicate the presence of another boat(s), and distance from the line, not to tell the helm where to go.

2) When you are crew on the rail, be aware of what is going on, and be ready to move...fast.

3) Big boats mean big momentum, letting out the sails does not immediately stop the boat(s).

4) Attempting to avoid a collision does not always show in the result.

5) Even with large yachts most wrecks are slow motion, and there is time to react, communication is key. From "there is a boat down under our genoa" to "jump and run!"

6) Even with small yachts there is enough mass and momentum to cause serious damage and injury, so don't make an effort to push the other boat, get the **** out of the way.

7) Most damage is repairable, and even would not cause the boats to retire. On the other hand you and your crew will most likely go into "shock" and not know it, causing a string of poor decisions to be made.

 

[Delta Blues]

For those of you who think this is simple Starboard vs. Port and Starboard is always right, and Port is always wrong, need to study the rules a bit harder.

Listen up, if Port is failing in its obligation to keep clear of Starboard, how much sense does it make that Starboard should just crash into Port causing damage, possible sinking, and possible injury to crew? The rules are designed with safety in mind. This is not a contact sport. When Port is not taking care of its obligation clearly Port is wrong, but at a point, the burden shifts to Starboard to avoid the collision in the name of Safety.

Have you studied the IRPCAS rules? They are no different. One boat is the right-of-way boat, the other is the give-away boat. When the right-of-way boat does not keep clear, then the give-away boat has the burden of avoiding the collision. One does not exonerate the other when there is a collision. Both are found to have done wrong.

Port DSQ'd for failure of P vs. S.

Starboard DSQ'd for failure to avoid.

The burden NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER "shifts to Starboard." The burden is always on the Port tack boat. Period.

Once again, for those who are apparently trying to opine on this without actually looking at the rule, here is Rule 14:

14 AVOIDING CONTACTA boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.

However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room

(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat

is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and

(b ) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact

that causes damage or injury.

Note that it says that the ROW boat doesn't need to take action until it is clear that other boat is not keeping clear.

It does not say that the ROW has to take action while ROW can still avoid contact.

This is a big problem for little boats playing chicken with big boats. If you are the little boat on port playing chicken with the big boat on Starboard, by the time that the Starboard boat sees that you're not going to keep clear, it may well be too late for the big boat to avoid hitting you. It's easy to see if you take the extreme case of an oil tanker and a J24 on converging courses. The J24 can sail pretty close to the tanker and still safely tack away. (If C= collision time, say the J24 can change course at C-minus-3 seconds) But if the J24 isn't going to change course, the tanker is going to have start changing course a lot earlier (say C-15 seconds or even earlier). The same principle applies to the J109 and the SC52. If the J109 can still safely tack away from the 52 at C-3 seconds, then according to the RRS there is no need for the SC52 to take action until after that point in time, but the SC52 might not be able to maneuver quickly enough to avoid collision at C-2 seconds. It's further complicated by the fact that if the ROW acts too early and dips, the boats can get into the "dance of death" and the ROW boat can be found guilty of violating 16.1.

As long as the ROW boat takes action at the moment in time it becomes clear that the other boat is not keeping clear, the ROW has not broken Rule 14, whether there is a collision or not, whether there is damage or not. Just because the ROW boat shall not be penalized if there is no damage does not mean that the inverse is true (that the ROW boat shall be penalized if there is damage). If that's what the powers that be intended, they would have written it that way.

Playing chicken with bigger boats is a bad, bad idea, and counting on the bigger boat to bail you out if you screw up is an even worse idea.

i've watched it a few times, and i really don't see either boat doing much to avoid a collision.

maybe the 52 bears away a bit..., when it's already too late..., but it's not much of a bear away.

It's a really lousy angle for trying to determine that.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a reason that umpire boats trail directly behind.

There are too many rules interpreters who are myopic. Do not look at just the point of collision. Prior to the collision, the 52 had clear room to weather of her position and clear room to leeward of her position. There was not a rock pile on one side and an aircraft carrier on the other side limiting her course. She did not take avoiding action once it became clear that the J was not going to keep clear. If she had, this collision would not have occured. There is no excuse on the 52's part. Guilty!

 

[wabbiteer]

There are too many rules interpreters who are myopic. Do not look at just the point of collision. Prior to the collision, the 52 had clear room to weather of her position and clear room to leeward of her position. There was not a rock pile on one side and an aircraft carrier on the other side limiting her course. She did not take avoiding action once it became clear that the J was not going to keep clear. If she had, this collision would not have occured. There is no excuse on the 52's part. Guilty!

Five minutes prior to the collision, I'm sure the SC52 could have avoided collision.

Three minutes prior to the collision, I'm sure the SC52 could have avoided collision.

One minute prior to the collision, I'm sure the SC52 could have avoided collision.

At what point would you have her take action?

The rule is clear. The SC52 was not required to take action until it became clear that the J109 was not keeping clear.

From that video there is absolutely no way to tell when that moment in time was, and what the SC52 did or didn't do.

It is absolutely possible for a boat to take action at the required point in time and still be unable to avoid contact. You are mistaken in assuming that the collision is evidence that the SC52 took no action. One does not necessarily follow the other.

 

[Moonduster]

Wow, they should charge money to post on this one.

For what it's worth, I've never seen a decent committee toss a starboard tack boat for a port-starboard collision during a starting sequence unless it's a rule 15 or 16 violation. Wabbiteer is all over this one - the SC52's mandate to avoid collision never begins because the J109 could have taken evasive action until nearly the time of impact.

 

[Arcas]

Both boats are at fault - the 52 should have made a course correction in ample time and consistent with good seamenship to avoid a collision, even as the stand on vessel.

 

[Dog Watch]

There are too many rules interpreters who are myopic. Do not look at just the point of collision. Prior to the collision, the 52 had clear room to weather of her position and clear room to leeward of her position. There was not a rock pile on one side and an aircraft carrier on the other side limiting her course. She did not take avoiding action once it became clear that the J was not going to keep clear. If she had, this collision would not have occured. There is no excuse on the 52's part. Guilty!

Hypothetical for all those 'myopics' who presume that the 52 could have done much more to avoid contact.

 

Stbd: Bow to helm...there's a port boat below you.

Stbd: Helm to bow...we're on starboard don't worry.

Stbd: Bow to Port..."Starboard! Starboard! Starboard!"

 

Port: Bow to helm...Watch out for that SC52 below you.

Port: Helm to bow...do you think we can cross!

Port: Bow to helm...its going to be close. No. I'd duck.

 

Port: Helm to crew...Ok ducking...ease sheets for bear away!

(whilst at same time)

Stbd: Helm to crew...Shit! They're not doing anything. Ducking, ease sheets for bear away!

(both boats bear off at same time)

 

Port: Bow to helm...Oh crap. They've just put their bow down...come up!

(whilst at same time)

Stbd: Bow to helm...Oh crap. They've just put their bow down...come up.

 

Crunch!

Did the 52 take action to avoid? Yes! 'Hailing' is an action to avoid collision. (See Case 107).

 

Other acceptable actions to avoid contact are changing course, and keeping a proper lookout. Both boats acted to avoid contact in this hypothetical scenario.

-------------------------------------

Again, we cannot know from the video the facts. So no point in discussing them.

We should get the rules right though. The rules are simple:

S did not have to take action until it was CLEAR that P was not. Case 87 is interesting. I have reversed it to see if the same concept applies. I think it does.

 

[tls]

There are too many rules interpreters who are myopic. Do not look at just the point of collision. Prior to the collision, the 52 had clear room to weather of her position and clear room to leeward of her position. There was not a rock pile on one side and an aircraft carrier on the other side limiting her course. She did not take avoiding action once it became clear that the J was not going to keep clear. If she had, this collision would not have occured. There is no excuse on the 52's part. Guilty!

Do you ever feel foolish giving advice about rules interpretation when you have obviously never served on a jury?

STBD is NOT required to take evasive action until such time that it is clear that PORT cannot keep clear -- indeed she could be explicitly penalized for taking many "evasive" actions. Unfortunately, when PORT is a smaller and much more agile boat, that point will not occur until STBD is out of avoidance options. There is nothing in that video that would ever result in a penalty against STBD (or a judgment against STBD under maritime law, for that matter).

You might, in hindsight, say STBD could have avoided the collision because YOU know that PORT was never going to take evasive action. But at the time an avoidance decision needed to be made, STBD had no way of knowing whether PORT was going to head up, head down, or carry on. Without knowing which way PORT was going to turn, STBD had no way of knowing what the correct avoidance decision would be.

 

[Canal Bottom]

Can "retards" do this with a crew in extreme hiking positions?

"When you are crew on the rail, be aware of what is going on, and be ready to move...fast."

Years ago,I was aboard a 62' yacht, on stbd. that was hit in pre-start by an 80' on port tack. both boats reaching below the line. Both bow watch gave a signal to the helmsmen there is a boat "down there" behind the jib and both helmsmen thinking the bow watch's signal was to turn down.

A bad wreck ensued with the 80' yacht raking the windward side of our 62' taking out the windward stanchions, genoa track and cars, and stern pulpit while we got up off the rail and ran for our lives to the lee side. Our owner's son was hanging on the backstay, spinning around and around, with his body and legs horizontal, just missed getting taken out by the departing damaged bow of the 80'er. There was a shark bite out of the 80'er's bow and bits of bondo, with blue paint, all over the deck of our yacht.

No injuries, and both boats continued the race, while the port tack boat retired after finish.

Lessons learned:

1) Bow watch is there to communicate the presence of another boat(s), and distance from the line, not to tell the helm where to go.

2) When you are crew on the rail, be aware of what is going on, and be ready to move...fast.

3) Big boats mean big momentum, letting out the sails does not immediately stop the boat(s).

4) Attempting to avoid a collision does not always show in the result.

5) Even with large yachts most wrecks are slow motion, and there is time to react, communication is key. From "there is a boat down under our genoa" to "jump and run!"

6) Even with small yachts there is enough mass and momentum to cause serious damage and injury, so don't make an effort to push the other boat, get the **** out of the way.

7) Most damage is repairable, and even would not cause the boats to retire. On the other hand you and your crew will most likely go into "shock" and not know it, causing a string of poor decisions to be made.

 

[SamLowry]

Recorded aboard the SC52:

Mainsheet: "1 minute to go."

Helm: "Grind it in, we're goin' for the line."

Mainsheet: "Trim on, 1 kn below numbers and climbing. 45 seconds."

Helm: "Did you hear something?"

Mainsheet: "Speed still down. Are you doing something?"

Helm: "Is there some extra white on the bow? I don't recall that being there before."

Mainsheet: "Speed is dropping. We're going to be late."

Helm: "The helm is a little sluggish. Is the main sheeted in?"

Mainsheet: "Main is trimmed. Speed has leveled off. We're still slow. 15 seconds."

Helm: "The mast man is waving and yelling in my direction but he's too far away for me to hear. Have him come back here so I can hear what he's talking about."

--10 seconds pass while Mast comes back to cockpit--

Mast: "We T-boned a boat!"

Mainsheet: "Really?!?"

Helm: "Dammit! Did he scratch my anchor?"