Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Redress request as a result of boats score being made significantly worse by the action of a drone.
Paul Kimmens
Certifications:
- National Race Officer
0
Does anyone have any experience of protests or requests for redress as the result of a photographic drone making a boats score significantly worse? Or any wording they use in SI's or NoR's if a drone is to be used at an event.
Reason for asking is that our club is considering the use of a drone to capture some race action and I am thinking ahead of the unlikely worst case scenario where the drone crashes into a boat causing damage and/or injury resulting in the boats score being made significantly worse obviously through no fault of her own.
Looking at rule 62.1 could an incident like this be classed as an improper action by the organizing authority (62.1a)?
Reason for asking is that our club is considering the use of a drone to capture some race action and I am thinking ahead of the unlikely worst case scenario where the drone crashes into a boat causing damage and/or injury resulting in the boats score being made significantly worse obviously through no fault of her own.
Looking at rule 62.1 could an incident like this be classed as an improper action by the organizing authority (62.1a)?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
FWIW, I agree that an SI preventing the granting of redress in such circumstances would be a bad idea, though probably not improper in itself. Competitors shouldn't have to worry about avoiding flying objects on the racecourse, nor should they be distracted from their duty to avoid floating objects.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drones-are-you-flying-yours-safely-and-legally
I think it’s a good idea for our sport to experiment with new technologies and methods. One never knows when some combination will help to significantly improve the sport.
That said, I don't think it is necessary to exclude a competitor from the possibility of redress when a competitor is damaged by the RC or an asset which is an extension of the RC.
I think excluding the “presence” of such assets as grounds for redress could be prudent, but I can not see the reason that physical contact between these RC assets and competitors, that results in damage, should.
PS ..maybe a mod to Peter’s suggested language...??
Consider Match Racing Rule C9.2
This rule is there because you can't play the match racing game without umpires in umpire boats and sometimes accidents will happen (don't ask me how I know).
But note the very strong limitation in the second sentence.
I can't see any necessity for drones in any form of the game and I don't think there should be any attempt to limit redress.
I'd suggest that if an OA wants to use a drone:
1 - it should be flown by an experienced pilot who knows to stay above the fray (who is also an experienced sailor that understands the view it must have to be useful),
2 - it should be the only one on the racecourse (to avoid midair collisions whose debris can fall on sailors), and
3 - the OA must take responsibility for its behavior, and if it interferes with the racing at all, that interference should be fully subject to redress requests.
Rulewise, it looks like a judge seminar question. "What is necessary for a boat to be awarded redress? What conclusions must the protest committee reach?"
I think the correct answer is: (1) the boat's score was made worse, (2) there was no (reasonable-my opinion) fault due to the boat's actions, (3) (Rule 62.1(b)) the errant vessel was required to "keep clear", (4) there was injury or damaged that was a direct result of the incident.
It really doesn't mater whether the vessel is a out-of-control party water ski boat, tug boat pushing barges, a coach boat, safety boat, mark set boat or drone. All are governed by rules that define whether the vessel was a give-way or stand on if IRPCA or similar rule, or keep clear if the RRS. (Drones in the US have required distances FAA they must keep from any person, place or thing.)
I would recommend that if the OA is considering using drones to enhance their regatta service, they would add that to the NoR and SI as 'information [that] would help competitors decide whether to attend the regatta." Beyond that, the specific rules has been tested for a long time and proven to work.
(A follow up rules study group discussion might be, "Are the redress requirements of a R/C Mark Set boat that collides with a competitor during the race causing damage and the boat to withdraw, tested under 62.1(a) or (b) or either?")
(3) (Rule 62.1(b)) the errant vessel was required to "keep clear", I don't think that this would cover a drone. The term "Vessel" has the meaning of "Any boat or ship" in the RRS Introduction
It's interesting to note that there are two drone rules for the Sailing World Cup:
https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2020HWCSNORSI12JUNE2019-[25132].pdf
So I'd say the RC boat you describe should maintain their position as a matter of convenience but is not restricted. It's just a power driven vessel underway, obligated to "keep out of the way of" (not "keep clear" of) a sailing vessel.
You can't say that a whaler, RIB or small motor launch is 'restricted in her ability to manoeuvre'.
If it worries you, anchor the pin boat and put up your black ball, or make the pin boat the starting mark in the SI.
1. As soon as 2 or more flying things (drone, helicopter, airplane) are in the sky in the vicinity of your race course, it would be ideal if they don't hit each other and fall on someone's head.
2. The FAA has a licensing program for commercial operation.
3. No flying object should be in a position to collide with or interfere with a boat that is racing.
4. If footage exists, it would be ideal if that footage could be viewed by the jury if it is useful.
5. If there is an airport nearby, flying your drone without permission from the controller is potentially a big deal.
6. If you happen to have an airport nearby, knew about a drone being used at your regatta, and it caused a plane crash, that would be a BAD day for everyone, including the OA.
I think it makes sense to have a sample framework that you could use (at least in the USA) to minimize these issues.
My thoughts:
So, how do we write rules that cover ourselves for drones? I think we have a few flavors of drone/helicopter/airplane operator that are active on race courses around the USA.
1. Someone who fits the definition of support person.
2. Professional photographer who covers sailing as part of his business.
3. Someone hired by the event.
4. "Some guy" who thinks sailboats are pretty and wants to take photos/video but has no real ties to the event.
Number 1 is easy, they are a support person.
Number 2 is not something easily regulated in the current Rules.
Number 3 is arguably RC or OA.
Number 4 is operating illegally if they are over people without permission.
As a bare minimum, it would suffice to extend rule 62.1b to include airborne objects that are required by law to keep clear (AIUI, Aviation Regulations just plain forbid any airborne aircraft from hitting anything on the ground). A SI saying that rule 62.1b is changed to include airborne objects that are required by law to keep clear should do the trick.
Where a drone controlled by a person connected with the OA or RC, interferes with a boat racing, I would be happy to take this as an improper action by the OA/RC under rule 62.1a, and I think, as discussed above, that it is highly undesirable for OA/RC to attempt to deny boats redress in this situation through an exclusionary SI.
Where a drone controlled by a competitor or a support person interferes with a boat racing other than accidentally, this might also be dealt with under rule 2 or rule 69, although redress would still be founded on rule 62.1b.