Jump to content

YNZ Race Regulations Cat1-Cat5; Anomalies and concerns


Recommended Posts

Heres a serious suggestion. Drop cat one for cruising boats leaving NZ. Instead a single requirement that the crew have total accumulated experience of x ocean miles. Id suggest around 15,000 but happy to hear it discussed.

My concern is that your are replacing one set or arbitrary requirements with a new set of arbitrary requirements. And these ones are likely to have a number of unintended consequences (more so than the current lot). Firstly the obvious question around a pathway for gaining experience. Then, the likelihood of taking large numbers of semi competent crew just to meet the criteria, as opposed to crew who work well together and can actually deal with problems. And the obvious disadvantage of solo and short handed crew (i.e. the majority of cruisers, going as couples etc).

 

I believe the fundamental problem is a prescriptive list of requirements. If you applied modern risk management protocols to it, the regs and outcomes would be entirely different. People have commented that the inspection itself is of value (i.e. an independent separate set of eyes). The complaints are around costs, the arbitrary nature of the requirements, and often the lack of relevance to a particular situation.

 

An effective risk based approach would look something like the following -

YNZ outline topic headings that must be addressed. The skipper can address them in any way they see fit. The overall boat / skipper / crew combo has an assessment via the current inspector arrangements.

 

Example risk topics are:

Fire

Lost comms

Damaged rudder

Sudden ingress of water

Lost mast

MoB

Navigation competency 

etc.

 

The onus is put on the skipper to determine what is required, and then demonstrate that. I initially envisaged a written type document (similar to a Standard operating procedures manual or an H&S risk assessment) but to be honest, it is probably more value with the inspector doing it verbally, on the basis that topic headings are known beforehand, and there is a clearly identified outcomes. This way better solutions can be arrived at by interaction with the inspector and skipper.

 

Examples of this could be "skipper has considered night nav, including with boat wide power outage", instead of "thou shall carry a hand held compass"...This option gives the viking in you the opportunity to state that you will just steer by the Pole Star, as you do anyway, or your tablet based digital accelerometer compass unit on your smart phone, if your a tech geek kind of guy. i.e. solutions that suit the type of skipper and type of boat, and closely match the specific situation.

 

The key advantage here is it forces the skipper to consider their own set up, what they would do, and take ownership of it. It allows for situation specific outcomes, and allows for innovation and accommodates advancing tech. It will probably scare the crap out of bureaucrats, because it doesn't give a nice prescriptive arse covering but invisible protective coat.

 

In short, YNZ prescribe the outcomes required, not the gear carried etc. The trick will be in avoiding too much paperwork to make the system work. Ideally, YNZ's topic headings wouldn't be more than 1 page or risk areas on a boat.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is that your are replacing one set or arbitrary requirements with a new set of arbitrary requirements. And these ones are likely to have a number of unintended consequences (more so than the current lot). Firstly the obvious question around a pathway for gaining experience. Then, the likelihood of taking large numbers of semi competent crew just to meet the criteria, as opposed to crew who work well together and can actually deal with problems. And the obvious disadvantage of solo and short handed crew (i.e. the majority of cruisers, going as couples etc).

 

I believe the fundamental problem is a prescriptive list of requirements. If you applied modern risk management protocols to it, the regs and outcomes would be entirely different. People have commented that the inspection itself is of value (i.e. an independent separate set of eyes). The complaints are around costs, the arbitrary nature of the requirements, and often the lack of relevance to a particular situation.

 

An effective risk based approach would look something like the following -

YNZ outline topic headings that must be addressed. The skipper can address them in any way they see fit. The overall boat / skipper / crew combo has an assessment via the current inspector arrangements.

 

Example risk topics are:

Fire

Lost comms

Damaged rudder

Sudden ingress of water

Lost mast

MoB

Navigation competency 

etc.

 

The onus is put on the skipper to determine what is required, and then demonstrate that. I initially envisaged a written type document (similar to a Standard operating procedures manual or an H&S risk assessment) but to be honest, it is probably more value with the inspector doing it verbally, on the basis that topic headings are known beforehand, and there is a clearly identified outcomes. This way better solutions can be arrived at by interaction with the inspector and skipper.

 

Examples of this could be "skipper has considered night nav, including with boat wide power outage", instead of "thou shall carry a hand held compass"...This option gives the viking in you the opportunity to state that you will just steer by the Pole Star, as you do anyway, or your tablet based digital accelerometer compass unit on your smart phone, if your a tech geek kind of guy. i.e. solutions that suit the type of skipper and type of boat, and closely match the specific situation.

 

The key advantage here is it forces the skipper to consider their own set up, what they would do, and take ownership of it. It allows for situation specific outcomes, and allows for innovation and accommodates advancing tech. It will probably scare the crap out of bureaucrats, because it doesn't give a nice prescriptive arse covering but invisible protective coat.

 

In short, YNZ prescribe the outcomes required, not the gear carried etc. The trick will be in avoiding too much paperwork to make the system work. Ideally, YNZ's topic headings wouldn't be more than 1 page or risk areas on a boat.

 

I find it very hard to fault this post.   So.... +1

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First let's answer the concerns over my suggestion:

 

My concern is that your are replacing one set or arbitrary requirements with a new set of arbitrary requirements.

 

Not quite. I suggest replacing a raft of arbitrary requirements wa single arbitrary requirement.

 

And these ones are likely to have a number of unintended consequences (more so than the current lot).

Firstly the obvious question around a pathway for gaining experience.

 

Easy, you go with someone else first or find a crew to come with you until you have reached the requirement for going unassisted.

 

Then, the likelihood of taking large numbers of semi competent crew just to meet the criteria, as opposed to crew who work well together and can actually deal with problems.

 

Dont really see that becoming an issue, most cruisers want as small a crew as possible.

And the obvious disadvantage of solo and short handed crew (i.e. the majority of cruisers, going as couples etc).

The mileage requirement suggested would mean a couple would achieve it after two round trips north. A single hander four.

 

 

 

Having said that your approach is well worth consideration and almost certainly an improvement. (I like mine coz it is simpler, but thats ok).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main issue with a certain number of miles is that it, in itself, doesn't make a skipper competent, or a boat safe. I believe there is an expectation that if someone has considerable miles they are both experienced and competent. Some people sail around in the tropics and go the whole way around the world without every going to windward, let alone encountering a storm. In the US there are places where the prevailing wind is very light. They think anything over 15 knots is windy, and 20 knts is a full on gale. So miles doesn't necessarily equate to experince.

 

Then there are other aspects like temperament and judgement. There is a certain personality type that is well suited to solo sailing, but would be a complete abomination when having to lead and communicate with crew, and / or would find the responsibility of other people onboard as extremely stressful (not all solo sailors).

 

I think there is also the type of person that is a very capable, logical and forward thinking type, has no mileage, but is able to set up, plan very well and equip a yacht for a safe ocean passage. I'm thinking of an adventurer type here, who perhaps has successfully completed other dangerous challenges (climbed an 8,000m mountain perhaps) and would be perfectly capable sailing offshore with minimal direct experience, on the basis they have no shortage of the necessary skills (planning, risk assessment, perseverance, resourcefulness etc). A common demographic that fits this example would be a successful business owner who retires and wants to sail the world. Plenty of money, but ample experience (from running the business) in risk management, planning, leadership etc.

 

Some of the advantages of the risk based approach is it sits the ownership with the risk owner, and also gives flexibility for solutions to fit the situation. The basic model of a risk assessment approach is well establish across many industries, including building and construction etc, so there is a reasonable knowledge within the community already. And that brings an interesting anecdote. Under no circumstances will Worksafe sign off anyones H&S plan. They wont take liability for it. They regularly require one be submitted, but they will never sign it off (including in high risk industries such as Tunnelling and Mining). Where as YNZ effectively certify something is 'safe' - however - the liability still sits with the skipper. This is not logical.

 

Under a risk based system, the decision making and risk mitigation sit with the skipper, the person that has the liability for it.

 

It would be interesting to understand the insurance aspects of all of this. I understand offshore insurance is becoming a much bigger issue than CAT 1. The same principals of risk management can be applied to mitigate insurance losses as to personal safety. There is a risk of excessive paperwork in all this, but there could be advantages with the approach to insurance.

 

I am sure, with the way cruisers swap info, that good well written risk management templates will start doing the rounds, and the work to produce one from scratch will be minimal. But the skipper still gets to plan and shape what he needs for his situation. YNZ could even take the lead and produce a document template, and example risk management for common situations, i.e. modern cruiser fully crewed, modern multihull, solo sailor on a monohull, vaka moana etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish - I am sure, with the way cruisers swap info, that good well written risk management templates will start doing the rounds, and the work to produce one from scratch will be minimal. But the skipper still gets to plan and shape what he needs for his situation. YNZ could even take the lead and produce a document template, and example risk management for common situations, i.e. modern cruiser fully crewed, modern multihull, solo sailor on a monohull, vaka moana etc.

 

it is requirement of cat 1, following the Platino investigation, to produce a set of procedures. I had a discussion with Angus about how far to take these - being an engineer,  mine were heading for War and Peace proportions - eventually distilled down to about 20 pages including addressing all issues Fish previously listed.

 

I had no trouble getting insurance for my 30yr old GRP yacht, had to jump through a couple of hoops - boat builders report, riggers report and crew CV's but not difficult.

My biggest issue, like many other cruisers, is crew for the long passages. Finding people available these days, let alone with offshore experience, is a real challenge. I am due to return from New Caledonia late October and have already started the search. If anyone is interested please send me PM. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish - I am sure, with the way cruisers swap info, that good well written risk management templates will start doing the rounds, and the work to produce one from scratch will be minimal. But the skipper still gets to plan and shape what he needs for his situation. YNZ could even take the lead and produce a document template, and example risk management for common situations, i.e. modern cruiser fully crewed, modern multihull, solo sailor on a monohull, vaka moana etc.

 

it is requirement of cat 1, following the Platino investigation, to produce a set of procedures. I had a discussion with Angus about how far to take these - being an engineer,  mine were heading for War and Peace proportions - eventually distilled down to about 20 pages including addressing all issues Fish previously listed.

 

I had no trouble getting insurance for my 30yr old GRP yacht, had to jump through a couple of hoops - boat builders report, riggers report and crew CV's but not difficult.

My biggest issue, like many other cruisers, is crew for the long passages. Finding people available these days, let alone with offshore experience, is a real challenge. I am due to return from New Caledonia late October and have already started the search. If anyone is interested please send me PM. 

As stated above this is now a reality

People get hung up on needing something that doesn’t fit their situation but is in the regs

If you have a valid reason why you don’t need something and you have the experience to back this up then this will be accepted

Experience is a big one for me, I don’t give a fart if they have dived with sharks, done ten coastal or run Fletchers Building, you never know how people will react until your out of sight of land and the sea state and wind gets up. In my experience about half at this point no longer want to be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds about right Jon. I've said before on this site, my opinion of the cat one regs is that they are more flexible in practice than they look in writing, the inspectors are normally reasonable, and there is little in the regs that I wouldn't comply with if left to my own devices.

I think the ongoing, sometimes heated discussion complaining about them are mostly just people don't like being dictated to. Some parts are outdated, and updates are very slow, again IMO, because no officials or organizations want to be first to accept new stuff, and therefore potentially have some liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds about right Jon. I've said before on this site, my opinion of the cat one regs is that they are more flexible in practice than they look in writing, the inspectors are normally reasonable, and there is little in the regs that I wouldn't comply with if left to my own devices.

I think the ongoing, sometimes heated discussion complaining about them are mostly just people don't like being dictated to. Some parts are outdated, and updates are very slow, again IMO, because no officials or organizations want to be first to accept new stuff, and therefore potentially have some liability.

Looking around at the international cruising fleet I would say better than 95% of yachts from other countries are voluntarily carrying the same gear Cat 1 requires, give or take the odd horsehoe or extra bucket with a lanyard.

The reality for NZ boats is Cat 1 is here to stay and better we support the current system of "voluntary" inspectors who have the knowledge to make a practical and qualitative judgement of a boat and its crew's capability to make the voyage. Rather that than some bureaucrat with a clip board carrying a full check list of the regulations - it would be like dealing with the current building inspectorate from Auckland Council, zero flexibility and just keep clipping the ticket. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated above this is now a reality

People get hung up on needing something that doesn’t fit their situation but is in the regs

If you have a valid reason why you don’t need something and you have the experience to back this up then this will be accepted

Experience is a big one for me, I don’t give a fart if they have dived with sharks, done ten coastal or run Fletchers Building, you never know how people will react until your out of sight of land and the sea state and wind gets up. In my experience about half at this point no longer want to be there.

 

 

Sounds about right Jon. I've said before on this site, my opinion of the cat one regs is that they are more flexible in practice than they look in writing, the inspectors are normally reasonable, and there is little in the regs that I wouldn't comply with if left to my own devices.

I think the ongoing, sometimes heated discussion complaining about them are mostly just people don't like being dictated to. Some parts are outdated, and updates are very slow, again IMO, because no officials or organizations want to be first to accept new stuff, and therefore potentially have some liability.

I agree with both the posts above, accept that, given current track record, I wouldn't use Fletchers as an example of a successful business.

But specifically I agree that, when discussed with an inspector, there is flexibility in the current regs. The main issue is that this is not conveyed by the current inspection system. Its an exception rather than the norm.

I think pulling apart some of IT's comments gives some insights into how the overall system can be improved. Specifically that some parts are outdated, and updates are very slow. But that many parts are valuable and do work well.

 

I'm kind of struggling to verbalise how to explain it, but its basically to do with the 'culture' of the system. When you first read the safety requirements, they come across as a prescriptive list. This is a 'compliance culture', being, if you do all of this (tick box list) then you shall comply.

By having a risk based system, the message is "the skipper must think about and address all of these issues in order to be safe". The culture change is from 'compliance culture' to 'risk management culture'.

 

Possibly the best example of this in action is again in industry. Construction companies (successful ones, not Fletchers) do not have H&S reps writing up SoP's in isolation in their office anymore. They ask the guys doing the work (the guys in the trenches, driving the cranes or fabricating on a motorway bridge pile) how they do their job, how they could do their job better, and what it is they need to do it better and safely. Sure, there is still mandatory requirements, like drug and alcohol policies, but otherwise the ownership is given collectively to the guys doing the work. It empowers the workers to think and also take ownership and pride in what they are doing. This is how strong and effective safety cultures are created.

 

The parallel here is effectively getting YNZ to ask the skipper how they are going to manage the risks, but mandating the risk topics to be addressed. It sounds like, with the Platino documents requirements they are most of the way there. If the enthuses is removed from the list of requirements, the focus then shifts to the risk management documents. In reality, I'd expect the existing list of requirements becomes a reference document. And for those confused that what I am saying sounds like what is already there, the fundamental change in the system is the placement of ownership and a change in the culture around the system. I hope that makes sense.

 

I'd be curious to know how this all lines up with the processes used for risk management of race organisation, i.e. the risk management protocols for the SSANZ racing etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the start of the SSANZ safety plan

I won’t bore you with the whole doc.

By the way I was taking the piss with F. Was thinking Fonterra but that’s maybe a bridge too far, my point was people get to the point the believe their own BS and think they can’t fail

 

 

 

 

SSANZ Triple Series 2019 – Safety Plan

This safety plan has been written to assist with managing competitor, volunteer, and third party safety during the SSANZ Triple Series races.

 

The Race Officer, and the members of the Race Committee are the people responsible for executing this plan.

 

This plan will be published on the event notice board, and its general tenor will be explained to competitors at the event briefing.

 

 

In scope:

- Long Haul, Short Haul, Multihull, and Small Boat divisions competing in SSANZ Triple Series races

- On-the water competitor safety

- Safety of the general public interacting with competitors or volunteers on the water

 

 

 

 

Out-of-Scope:

- All other yacht racing (separate safety plans)

- On-shore safety of competitors, volunteers and the public, other than those performing a race management function

- Safety of competitors while rigging and de-rigging yachts

- Safety of competitors while delivering yachts to or from local marina’s on race day

- Safety of competitors while delivering yachts to or from Auckland to compete in any race in the SSANZ Triple Series.

This plan recognises the difference between (a) safety and (B) compliance with safety regulations. A person who complies with safety regulations may not be safe, while a person who does not comply with safety regulations may be safe. This plan will compensate where the safety regulations do not adequately address a safety issue.

 

Reference Documents:

-

- Notice of race

- Sailing instructions

- Appendix 1 – Risk analysis and treatment

- Appendix 2 – Safety equipment

- Appendix 3 – Safety inspections

- Appendix 4 – CAT 4 Monohull Safety inspection worksheet

- Appendix 5 – Multihull Safety inspection worksheet

- Appendix 6 – Mitigation tasks

- Appendix 7 – Briefing notes

- Appendix 8 – Failed communications plan

- Appendix 9 – Crisis Management Plan

 

-

Abbreviations:

 

RCCNZ – Rescue Co-Ordination Centre NZ​​RO – Race Officer​​RC – Race Committee

APPENDIX 1 – RISK ANALYSIS AND TREATMENT

 

 

Severity of Harm

 

1 – Little or No Harm

 

2 – Some Harm

 

3 – Moderate Harm

 

4 – Significant Harm

 

5 – Extensive Harm

 

Likelihood of Harm

 

A – Very Unlikely

 

B – Possible

 

C – Even chance

 

D – Likely

 

E – Almost certain

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way I was taking the piss with F. Was thinking Fonterra but that’s maybe a bridge too far, my point was people get to the point the believe their own BS and think they can’t fail

 

That is a salient and very valid point.

 

And this bit in the safety plan is gold

This plan recognises the difference between (a) safety and (b compliance with safety regulations. A person who complies with safety regulations may not be safe, while a person who does not comply with safety regulations may be safe. This plan will compensate where the safety regulations do not adequately address a safety issue.

This line above, the bit that people may comply with all the regulations but not be safe, is why I believe a refreshed appraoch is needed to the cat regulations.

 

What I was expecting from the SSANZ safety plan (and not having cheated and gone had a look on the SSANZ website, where I've seen it located before) is that you are using a risk based model, the cornerstone of which is risk (severity) and likelihood. That gives the platform for managing everything else through the process. This is a good example of the type of approach I believe the YNZ processes would benefit from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me we haven’t included this on our new website.

 

Just because we have a plan doesn’t mean we run safer races, in someways it allows us to run closer to the edge

However if or when sh*t happens, because it will, we have a document that states we will do a,b,c then d

The other thing we do is document decision making, just a pad on the committee boat (something I need to get better at) this was done for the last race

 

0700 hrs forecast has remain the same strength over night and is likely to last longer, decision made to drop Gannet Rk from the following divisions Pied Piper, Baltic 1 and 2

And drop Cow Is and Black Rks from Doyle’s and PIC divisions

 

0730 NTC posted on website as per decision above.etc.....

 

I do the same type of thing as skipper offshore

Pad on chart table, first thing before departure I put down a safe water waypoint, so if we had to go to a handheld gps then we have a position that we know we can head for, that will be within sight of destination but in plenty of water, often 10+nm off

Many times I won’t add anything else but something I’ll record our position at noon and distance covered over last 24hrs.

But generally even though we have two chartplotters running everyone onboard uses my iPad with a route showing all details that are required, USB socket in cockpit table is very useful

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A word of caution around qualitative risk scoring systems, like the probability consequence model above.

 

Watch for the high consequence/low probability events as under some scoring systems they are not given much weight due to the low probability. If it does happen, its a catastrophe so its worth giving them due regard.

 

I might be telling people here to suck eggs, apologies if I am but it bears repeating. 

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...