• An ERS question - a contradiction in F 1.6 vs F 1.7(b) (xi)
  2 Comments
  John Ball Today 01:57
• Race Score RRS 35
  6 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar Yesterday 02:23
• REDRESS: ".....as fair an arrangement as possible...."
  18 Comments
  Catalan Benaros Tue 16:15
• Safety Regulations
  16 Comments
  Ewan McEwan Tue 11:37
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day
  31 Comments
  Ralf Weidner Sun 20:19

• REDRESS: ".....as fair an arrangement as possible...."
  I sincerely want to thank everyone for the constant support you give to all of us who participate.
  This website is an invaluable learning resource.
  THANK YOU VERY MUCH
  
  Cata
  Catalan Benaros Today 12:27
• An ERS question - a contradiction in F 1.6 vs F 1.7(b) (xi)
  There are other examples of rig controls that work in compression rather than tension. Struts to control mast bend at deck level for instance. I think there's also some hydraulic kit used on bigger craft than dinghies. 
  I'm not very familiar with the detail workings of ERS. What are the implications if there are controls that do not comply with the definition of rigging?
  
  
  Jim Champ Today 05:00
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day

  I'm not suggesting protesting a dead sailor, 

  
  Neither was I. I was suggesting the reason to enable 40.2(b) was to avoid the headline. Or at least to avoid the subsequent articles of "racer wore lifejacket during race, but took it off to sail home and then drowned"
  
  

  and I wouldn't expect an OA to want to do anything for other than an egregious breach.

  
  Neither would I. And I struggle to decide what an egregious breach is! Someone burning their lifejacket in protest perhaps!
  
  However, does that fact it is in the RRS and enabled by the SI mean the OA might be forced to investigate? I can imagine the scenario where to bitter rivals are competing at an event. The prizes come down to the final race.  The 'gold medal winner' sails home without his lifejacket on. Can silver (his bitter rival) protest?  
  
  And in my other doomsday situation. A club (the OA) has hosted the same event for 3 years. They have enabled 40.2(b) identically for 3 years.  They did so to reduce the risks of an adverse incident being attributed to their event (it might well be stated on the risk assessment for instance). In years 1 and 2, it was known that sailors then sailed without lifejackets on the way home.  No adverse incident occurs in year 1 and 2. But no actual enforcement of the rule took place because the breach wasn't felt egregious.
  
  In year 3 a sailor falls overboard without a lifejacket on, while sailing home.  At the subsequent enquiry, the OA are asked to attend and state they considered the risks, they even enabled 40.2(b) knowing that should mitigate the risks. How might failure to enforce 40.2(b) affect them¿
  
  I'm based at an inland dinghy club. We have a 100% PFD rule for on the water and on the jetty (our jetty doesn't float).  There are times it isn't enforced (it's a nice sunny day, the risks are low, the sailor is very competent and just walking along the jetty to collect something and return ashore... ...but rules are rules... ...not that I expect disqualification! 
  
  It feels like [NP] [DP] could be helpful here. 
  But it also feels like if sailors are leaving your water 40.2(b) might not be helpful even if the risk manager feels it is
  Calum Polwart Yesterday 08:44
• Race Score RRS 35
  Agreed.
  Satish Kumar Kanwar Yesterday 03:44
• Safety Regulations
  Here's one approach
  
  No Sign Off, No Sausage.
  

  

  John Allan Tue 20:53

Forums Leader Board

This Month