Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 In the herald this morning is an article about cronyism which may have some parallels here. The latest Classic Yacht Journal had an article about the Gypsy in it. My understanding is that the article had nothing to say about the accident. It was only about the yacht and its history. The article was pulled by no less than the commodore of the squadron, so as not to embarrass one of its members. If this is true it represents a new low. Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Has anyone asked the question - Was this the 1st time Gypsy has been involved in a give way incident that has been brought to the authorities attention? Actually you could ask the same about both boats. But, was not Gypsy under sail (in a race with virtually no wind, so therefore reduced ability to maneuver), and the other vessel under motor? Link to post Share on other sites
Murky 1 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Has anyone asked the question - Was this the 1st time Gypsy has been involved in a give way incident that has been brought to the authorities attention? Actually you could ask the same about both boats. Clearly you're hinting at something but I don't understand how past history - on either or both sides - would logically lead to this kind of handling of a serious injury/sinking incident. I suspect that if this was a commercial fishing boat, a tinnie, or any other boat that had hit Gypsy the captain of said vessel would probably have a new arsehole courtesy of MNZ. Would seem to be a shocker of a precedent - anyone involved in any kind of incident in future is going to be throwing this one back in their face. Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 345 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The latest Classic Yacht Journal had an article about the Gypsy in it. My understanding is that the article had nothing to say about the accident. It was only about the yacht and its history. The article was pulled by no less than the commodore of the squadron, so as not to embarrass one of its members. If this is true it represents a new low. Is this a fact? Link to post Share on other sites
PaulR 3 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Has anyone asked the question - Was this the 1st time Gypsy has been involved in a give way incident that has been brought to the authorities attention? Actually you could ask the same about both boats. Yes this would and should be on the MSA question sheet. Likewise what experience and qualifications IMHO It is a lot of damage for a "gentle touch" at a "slow" speed. The odd S34 collision(s) at full sailing speed does a lot less damage I believe. Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 345 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The odd S34 collision(s) at full sailing speed does a lot less damage I believe. Don't be so sure... ask the TWU boys... viewtopic.php?f=37&t=15870 Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Has anyone asked the question - Was this the 1st time Gypsy has been involved in a give way incident that has been brought to the authorities attention? Actually you could ask the same about both boats. Clearly you're hinting at something but I don't understand how past history - on either or both sides - would logically lead to this kind of handling of a serious injury/sinking incident. If a boat/s has a history of failing to give way and/or loose activity wouldn't you expect the investigators to take that into account when doing an investigation and deciding what, if any, penalties are dished out. They do in car crashes, aircraft crashes and Rena crashes. One could easily say, and don't get me wrong here as I'm knot implying anything about either boat, if someone continues to do something knot quite right and after that happens many times it goes bad for them, you could understand someone saying 'Oh well, it was only a matter of time before XXX so let that be a lesson to them' and then leave it at that. I believe so Meg but as mentioned above they look at the big picture to see if what happened was a SHE* or part of pattern. * - Sh*t Happens Event Link to post Share on other sites
PaulR 3 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I was thinking more S34 on S34 type events. They ARE built strong you know Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Is this a fact? yes. It is. Shame on them! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The RNZYS adding insult to injury. Maybe the CYA should look to associating itself with a club that actually cares? Link to post Share on other sites
Maca 4 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 What do you think the outcome would have been if Gypsy had sunk Antaeus and caused injury? Link to post Share on other sites
johnMi 2 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Is this a fact? yes. It is. Shame on them! Nooo, I don't believe it!! Link to post Share on other sites
Kiteroa 8 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Anyone reading this actually belong to the RNZYS? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Anyone reading this actually belong to the RNZYS? yep, and sailed on the grader as well Link to post Share on other sites
B00B00 310 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Yes I am a member. Link to post Share on other sites
John B 106 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Evidently a compromise was reached and the article will run after all. And thats a credit to all who are involved. Kind of restores ones faith and all of that. Link to post Share on other sites
johnMi 2 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 you think? The fact that the issue came up show's the true colors.. Link to post Share on other sites
B00B00 310 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Get over it John.... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.