Jump to content

Sailing Crash


Recommended Posts

What are the rules when a heavy leaner dordles around the start line before thier race and  a lightweight cat is charging at the line at speed. One day it may end badly and turn a cat into splinters. I asume the leaner has no rights at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No boa, lean or plump, should be in start box b4 its divisional preparatory signal.

Was - may still be - a common issue at Westhaven with start box very close to marina access

Having said that even freight train drivers are required to put brain into action.

As i understand it, generally speaking, RRS do not let off the hook of colregs

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the leaner is awaiting a different start, then she should keep out of the start box. If she is not racing, then colregs apply. Racing vessels and clubs do not have exclusive rights to any peices of water. Remember, if this is some clown not racing, that with colregs, you cannot pass closer than 50m to them at over 5 knots...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaners awaiting a different start.in the start box during our start is common. Good answer.

 

I've even been yelled at on a multi to get out off the way by leaners hoisting their mains in the start box while we were trying to line up for a start. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a response back from one of the Judges I sent the OP to. Most interesting but I did have to tell him he's flirting with being removed from the list of protest panel candidates we use or he should have gone to Spec Savers.  He completely missed the fact they weren't racing :)

Good to know you have so little faith in your own judgement you need to get expert opinions.

 

How many of your expert opinions agreed with you, and how many didn't?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to be a stalker this is not the thread, please start a new one.

Its the thread you made defamatory accusations toward me in, so this thread is more relevant than any.

You seem to be very quiet when asked for any facts or substance behind your accusations. Classic tactic going for the stalker diversion KM, but why don't you try either backing up some of your calls, or just say you are wrong? then we could move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a response back from one of the Judges I sent the OP to. Most interesting but I did have to tell him he's flirting with being removed from the list of protest panel candidates we use or he should have gone to Spec Savers.  He completely missed the fact they weren't racing :)

Hey KM,

Are you 100% certain you are right and your protest panel judge mate is wrong?

Would you be at all concerned if you were found to be shooting your mouth off again, and the RRS did infact apply to this situation?

 

The very first para of the RRS 'Part 2, When Boats Meet' may suggest otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Says something along the lines of

Part 2 rules apply between boats that are sailing in or near the sailing area and intend to race, are racing or have been racing.

 

The definitions say ‘racing’ is from prep signal to finish. No definition for ‘intending to race’ or when that starts / stops, so I’d assume the above scenario would be included, and therefore the rrs are applicable, not irpcas, as both boats were near the racing area and intended to race.

 

At least, according the the old rule book I have at home, my current version is on the boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem IT,

Your understanding wouldn't have been unreasonable, the warning signal sounds like a logical point for the RRS's to apply from.

But you wouldn't get stuck in and attack people based on your own understanding of something, which is why I have an issue with KM getting stuck into me without having his own facts straight.

 

The first para of the RRS, Part 2, states

"The rules of part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing or have racing.... (and some other stuff)"

 

Which would mean the RRS's did apply in this situation. Looks like KM's Judge was correct and doesn't need to go to spec savers.

It doesn't change the crux of the discussion around the collision, I believe. But it does show that you need to be 100% certain of a point if you are going to criticise someone. Alternatively, you could exchange opinions in a constructive and respectful way, which would be a whole lot more pleasant and beneficial for the site.

 

Page 16 of this link, which fyi, I found easily on the YNZ site...

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingRRS20172020new-[24067].pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think that changes things. RRS section 2;

Section A: the right‐of‐way rules 10. opposite tacks: port keep clear of starboard

BUT also A should have called "Starboard" and B should have kept clear. A is obliged to give B room to do so. Neither avoided collision, both likely would be disqualified in a protest room. 

 

Any issues with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

B is obligated to keep clear, and that began after tacking onto port.

The main difference in the colregs and the RRS, is a change of obligations for A. A does not have an obligation to stand on (as per the colregs), and, under the RRS can change course, however, under rule 16.1, 'when the right of way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear'. 

 

16.1 is similar in essence to the stand on requirement, in that if the right of way boat changes course, she can't cause issues with the boat obligated to keep clear (or, in other language, boats on starboard can't do crazy Ivans near boats on port and expect them to still keep clear).

 

So, all that said, we are back to the same questions in order to determine who is (most) at fault. Mainly, 1) who turned down first, and 2) what were the specific timings.

 

On the face of it, my primary arguement still stands, which goes like this:

After the tack B is required to keep clear of A, so turns down

A also turns down (which she is entitled to do under the RRS), and by changing course, is then required to give B room to keep clear

Both boats approach, and both continue to turn down, a collision occurs.

 

B was obligated to keep clear.

Because A changed course, she was obligated to give B room to keep clear

 

B is at fault for not keeping clear.

A is at fault for not giving B room to keep clear (because she was changing course)

 

Its not possible to say who was most at fault with the information provided. Did B make clear and early maneuvers to avoid a collision?

Did A turn down first, and as such have rights and expect B to keep clear?

Did A give B sufficient room to keep clear after altering course?

 

Of note is rule 14.1 (a) - "A boat shall avoid contact... However a right of way boat (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear the other boat is not keeping clear"

This could be taken that a right of way boat can sail in a straight line (not change course, or to stand on) and if there is contact, she wouldn't be at fault. Under 16.1, if she changes course, she incurs the obligation to give the 'keep clear' boat room to keep clear. This is a round about way of saying the right of way boat should stand on. Its just not written explicitly as in the colregs.

 

I'm still going with A didn't give B room to keep clear, but I will acknowledge that it is a weaker arguement than under the colregs 'stand on' requirement, and that specific details around exactly who did what and when would change the arguement.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about timing. These are dinghies and can likely tack or gybe on a dime. If A had time to make multiple moves to "avoid" then likely their first move was unnecessary, and maybe their 2nd move. A needs to hold course until imminent danger (but not actual danger). Everyone has a different limit. 

A must stand on but not until the point of collision. Given they in dinghies A can stand on until about 3 seconds out...

 

In the absence of any timing info, the whole discussion is basically pissing into the wind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

KM, several people have mentioned time and distance in this thread from the start. Much angst would be avoided here if you just put your point of view in English, rather than cryptic references and innuendo.

This is a form of trolling, and I damn nearly deleted the post above.

Play the topic everyone, not the person.

Thinking of locking this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not concerned at all, his reading skills appear to clearly exceed yours.

 

Read what is written, do not read stuff that is not and cease with the silly over reactions when someone does do what you ask them too Buttercup. 3 of your last 4 posts does have a very strong Alex Forrest thing happening, that is a tad icky.

 

 

Correct Doc, it's all about the timing and a couple of key moments we do not have the info on.

KM, what is our point of view of what happened?

And even if you want, could you explain your point of view as to why you disagree with mine?

It'll be really handy if you communicate it in English, then maybe we could understand what your point is...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...