• Zone and RRS 18 in a HC fleet with boats of different lengths
  6 Comments
  Andrew Lesslie Today 01:37
• Portsmouth Yardstick
  26 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar Sun 13:19
• An ERS question - a contradiction in F 1.6 vs F 1.7(b) (xi)
  3 Comments
  John Ball Thu 01:57
• Race Score RRS 35
  6 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar 26-Feb-25 02:23
• REDRESS: ".....as fair an arrangement as possible...."
  18 Comments
  Catalan Benaros 26-Feb-24 16:15

• Zone and RRS 18 in a HC fleet with boats of different lengths
  I agree that jumping back in time would be a bit of a 'Quantum Leap' in applying the rules.  But sometimes RRS 18 does have a 'memory'.  I think I could go with any interpretation without much heartache.
  
  This is where you want the sailors to focus on what is important, which is not to be stuck on the outside of another boat and to get into an orderly line so that you have all your options open after the rounding.
  John Christman Today 04:48
• Portsmouth Yardstick
  Sorry. poppy is oppy but my phone spelling corrector won't let me write it. Oppy is short for optimist dinghy.
  
  Just found it works with a capital O.
  Richard Jones Mon 21:58
• Safety Regulations
  Roger, et al,  Could you provide some more detail about how Seagulls work please.
  
  Is a Seagull different from a Beach Maeshall/Master?
  
  What exactly are the duties and tasks of the Seagulls?
  
  What documents/lists do they use?
  
  How do they interact with the CRO?
  John Allan Sun 23:01
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day
  Calum Polwart said

  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"

  
  I don't think OA/RC should be doing things 'to avoid headlines'.  I think the quite legitimate reason for displaying flag Y ashore would be to reduce the risk to sailors.
  
  

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

  
  Neither would I.

  
  

  I think it would be almost inconceivable for committee or OA to protest against a competitor who had been the subject of a rescue at sea.
  
  

   And I struggle to decide what an egregious breach is! Someone burning their lifejacket in protest perhaps!

  
  It might be that a race committee observing a careless and foolhardy breach of the requirement might choose to protest, particularly if the risk was a well publicised matter of concern.
  
  

  However, does that fact it is in the RRS and enabled by the SI mean the OA might be forced to investigate?

  
  

  The local maritime authority requires us to report and investigate incidents and provide reports, but absent any such regulatory requirement why should it?
  
  Did you perhaps mean 'forced to protest a boat?
  
  The answer to that is:  certainly not.
  
  Case 39 

  
  A race committee is not required to protest a boat.

  
  

  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? 

  
  

  Absolutely they can.
  
  In my opinion (20673 above),  if the event has ended and the protest committee has left the event the Organising Authority has a discretion whether or not to appoint the old or a new protest committee to hear the 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¿

  
  Who knows what some officious safety authority will decide.
  
  

  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. 

  
  I don't like the idea of NP for a safety rule. That is discouraging competitors from taking safety seriously.  DP O could cope with.
  
  

  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

  
  That's an OA governance issue.  Brave OA that appoints a Risk Manager then refuses to implement his considered advice. 
  
  
  John Allan Fri 05:45
• An ERS question - a contradiction in F 1.6 vs F 1.7(b) (xi)
  Jim - Rig controls is not the same as rigging - but rigging can be part of the rig controls. Rigging can be split into standing and running rigging, Standing is line/rope/wire/composite in tension to keep mast(s) in position and/or bend of same. running rigging is control lines for a variety of controls (including controls for standing rigging). 
  Christian Jensen Fri 00:16

Forums Leader Board

This Month