Only a matter of time?

DannyBoy wrote:
And two of them were girlies!

Ouch

Jen

Stefan Lloyd wrote:

> "Pete Styles" <pstyles@bioch.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:40EE58F7.5112FE95@bioch.ox.ac.uk...
> >
> > The problem is that the S skipper will be expecting the P boat to bear
> away at the
> > last minute. If the P skipper knows what he's doing and the S boat itself
> bears
> > away, then the S boat is guilty of creating the accident. If you're the
> stand on
> > boat, then its dangerous to not stand on. However, if your racing (and
> therefore
> > doing things at very close quarters) and the P boat makes a mistake, then
> in many
> > situations the S boat has got nowhere to go.
> >
>
> I've done a lot of big-fleet keelboat racing and I can't agree with this.
> There would be an awful
> lot of broken boats if S always carried on regardless.

I'm not suggesting that S should carry on regardless - quite the opposite, as
required by the post 1997 rules. All I'm saying is that there are some
situations when the S boat has very little chance of avoiding the P boat.

>

>
>
> If S believes P has not seen them, S should hail. If it is too lack for
> that, crash-tack and protest. S should
> not attempt to duck P since, as you say, that may cause confusion. As S, I
> would only attempt to duck if
> there was a boat on my windward hip I would hit if I tacked.

>
> If P is trying to cross ahead but not making it, S should bear away and
> protest.

Quite right. And I made the same point in my first post.

>
> By that point it is not going to cause confusion, P is already committed to
> crossing ahead and has nowhere else to go. Since P is presumably only
> failing to cross by a small
> margin, only a slight duck is needed and this can be left until late.

We are completely agreed.

>
>
> Almost anything is better than a port/starboard collision. Damage to the
> boat whose side is hit is almost always serious.

The point about this whole episode is that the P boat was hit, presumably at or
below the waterline, and probably by one of the sharper bits of the S boat.
Most P/S T-bones are when the P boat runs into the S boat, the opposite to what
we have here. As we are agreed that if P was crossing S and failed to make it,
the S boat should have been able to take avoiding action with little of no
trouble, particularly as the qualified skipper was on the S boat. Furthermore,
the ahead (P) boat would be heeled towards the S boat and the damage would have
been at deck level - hard to miss, and unlikely to cause a sinking.
Therefore something else must have happened, probably with the P boat heeled to
port to expose the waterline. Hence my broach suggestion. In this situation,
it wouldn't be exceptional for the S boat to be unable to miss the P boat.

John Allan wrote:

>
> > The problem is that the S skipper will be expecting the P boat to bear away at the
> > last minute.
>
> If they're cutting it that fine, S should be asking:
>
> Have I had eye contact? Do the cues tell me that P intends to duck?
>
> Do I know the opposing skipper? Am I confident he can do a duck this
> close?
>
> Do I know the opposing mainsheet hand?
>
> Does the body language tell me they are set up for a duck?
>
> If not all of the above, then be afraid, if P is wearing a Sunsail flag,
> be very afraid.
>
> > If the P skipper knows what he's doing and the S boat itself bears
> > away, then the S boat is guilty of creating the accident.
>
> ITYM (if P actually is keeping clear) "S infringes RRS 16.2"
>
> > If you're the stand on
> > boat, then its dangerous to not stand on.
>
> RRS does use the concept of 'stand on vessel' The RRS expect sailing
> boats to change course even when they have right of way. RRS 16.1
> obliges a right of way boat which changes course to give the other boat
> room to keep clear.

>
>
> > However, if your racing (and therefore
> > doing things at very close quarters)
>
> The point I'm making is that even when you're racing, you shouldn't be
> going into "very close quarters" in keelboats, with boats and skippers
> that you don't know and/or don't have confidence in.
>

I take your point. Unfortunately, this means that you can't really "race" in any of these
fleets because you would forever be tacking away from collision course boats even when
you were on starboard.

>
> > and the P boat makes a mistake, then in many
> > situations the S boat has got nowhere to go.
>
> Yup, although I believe that there will nearly always be an option that
> will minimise impact/damage (and I tend to think that this option will
> usually be to luff hard)
>

Not if someone is not quite going to make a 'duck' - then you should bear away to pivot
your stern away from the ducking boat. To tack when the port boat is trying to duck is a
disaster - not only do you swing your stern towards him, but you also slow down which
means he has got even further to go.

>
> snip
>
> > In these boats you can broach right up to head to wind, sometimes even beyond,
> > presenting your starboard side to the close hauled S boat.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you exactly.
>

>
> If P and S are close hauled, then P will be presenting her starboard side
> to S all the time, and if P rounds up past head to wind she will have
> tacked (or be tacking) thus (more or less) moving away from S.
>

Ah, but she will have probably have slowed down dramatically - its an extreme case of
tacking in someones water.

>
> Only way I can see a broach presenting a starboard side that wasn't
> already presented would be for P and to be broad reaching towards one
> another.
>
> Or haven't I grasped it?

Perhaps its me!
I'll rejoin the debate in reply to Stefan's post

Stefan Lloyd wrote:

> "Pete Styles" <pstyles@bioch.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:40EE9FFE.AAD71D54@bioch.ox.ac.uk...
> > The point about this whole episode is that the P boat was hit, presumably
> at or
> > below the waterline, and probably by one of the sharper bits of the S
> boat.
> > Most P/S T-bones are when the P boat runs into the S boat, the opposite to
> what
> > we have here. As we are agreed that if P was crossing S and failed to make
> it,
> > the S boat should have been able to take avoiding action with little of no
> > trouble, particularly as the qualified skipper was on the S boat.
> Furthermore,
> > the ahead (P) boat would be heeled towards the S boat and the damage would
> have
> > been at deck level - hard to miss, and unlikely to cause a sinking.
> > Therefore something else must have happened, probably with the P boat
> heeled to
> > port to expose the waterline. Hence my broach suggestion. In this
> situation,
> > it wouldn't be exceptional for the S boat to be unable to miss the P boat.
> >
>
> That is your surmise and you may be right. Mine is simpler: P was holed in
> the usual way for a P/S a foot or two above the waterline but failed to take
> the proper action of sailing to keep the hole above the water until
> matresses etc had been stuffed in the hole then dropping sail to motor home.
> They carried on sailing and were surprised to find themselves filling up
> with water. The report says they sailed for some time after the incident
> before noticing they were sinking. Actually that last bit sounds a lot like
> some accountants I know.

We may never know the truth, but at least its kept us amused for a while!
Cheers,

P.

Accidents
> happen when you are trying to win races and shaving margins.
>

Yep. Even in manoeuvrable dinghies, bumps like this happen every weekend all
over the country. The difference is that here we are dealing with large and
expensive yachts which don't handle as well as a dinghy ( I know they don't,
I've sailed two of them, the 36 and the 37), and that a collision which will
result in dinghies losing paint, in this scenario results in sinkings.
That's racing and presumably that's why we pay extra for racing cover.

The first year I raced with Sunsail (Solent fleet) one boat had a collision
resulting in a holed boat and a broken arm, while the second year a mast
broke on a brand new 37, narrowly missing the crew. The skipper had the good
sense to observe the failed forestay fitting and gather the crew round the
base of the mast until it broke. It smashed the binnacle and wheel. Good
skipper - I hope I'd have that sort of foresight. The skipper was an NHS
consultant I believe.

TonyB

In article <40EE9826.39EF08CB@bioch.ox.ac.uk>, pstyles@bioch.ox.ac.uk
says...
>
>
> John Allan wrote:
>

snip

> > I can't speak about Sunsail on the Solent, but I do know that these
> > Corporate team-building "races" often put people on and in charge of big
> > keelboats who are absolute menances, and, by my observation, have little
> > or no knowledge of either the IRPCAS or the RRS, and even less skill or
> > inclination to apply them, once the 'adrenelin gets pumping' (their
> > phrase not mine).
> >
>
> There's certainly an element of this.
> However, what's the alternative? If you simply didn't do it, then I think we would be
> sacrificing an activity which gives a great many people the opportunity to experience a
> truly wonderfull sport.

You certainly have a point: I find it hard to argue with anything that
increases participation in the sport

Although this may sound pompous, I guess my issue is about maintaining
the culture. Corinthian does not mean amateurish. If we go much further
in accepting champagne cowboys charging around our waterways with big
yellow flags on their backstays and all the rest of us getting out of
their way, then the sport won't be 'wonderful' for much longer.

> Sadly, in any activity, people start off iwith very limited
> skills and only later get better.

But most people other than the Ernst & Young champagne set get their
skills either in a boat they can afford, (not a charter insured to the
hilt) or by earning a place in a racing crew and _working_ to improve
their skills.

> If boats were sinking every other week, then clearly
> the risk would outstrip the benefits. That this doesn't happen suggests that there is
> some semblance of ability amongst the skippers and encourages me to argue for the
> positive aspects of what Sunsail offer.

Indeed hard to argue against.

But I think its probably useful for the rest of us to say it like it is,
and say it loud and clear that poor seamanship is very frequently
observable on charter fleet boats, and we think that this is a 'very bad
thing'.

John

John Allan wrote:

> In article <40EEA0B0.9C0A9130@bioch.ox.ac.uk>, pstyles@bioch.ox.ac.uk
> says...
> >
> >
> > John Allan wrote:
> >
> snip
>
> > > > However, if your racing (and therefore
> > > > doing things at very close quarters)
> > >
> > > The point I'm making is that even when you're racing, you shouldn't be
> > > going into "very close quarters" in keelboats, with boats and skippers
> > > that you don't know and/or don't have confidence in.
> > >
> >
> > I take your point. Unfortunately, this means that you can't really "race" in any of these
> > fleets because you would forever be tacking away from collision course boats even when
> > you were on starboard.
>
> If it wasn't possible that we each mean different things by 'very close
> quarters', I would be saying "With respect, Peter, bollocks".

I'm pleased to see that you're warming to the debate :-)

> You seem
> to be endorsing the 'risk-taking', 'thrill seeking' approach.

No, in fact not at all! I absolutely subscribe to the philosophy of keeping out of trouble as
the best way to do well. I am not a thrill seeker at all, although I do enjoy close but
courteous racing. However, my point was that sometimes its really very difficult to guarantee
staying out of trouble without being hopelessly cautious. The obvious case in point is being on
S with a boat on P that is on course to thump your shrouds, or a bit in front. Assuming a
completely unknown skipper on the P boat, and taking somewhat arbitrary values for a typical
non-racy cruiser, the options develops something like:
1) 3 boat lengths away. You could tack. Speed drops from 6kts to 3.5. About half a minute later
you're back to 6 kts having sacrificed around half a dozen boat lengths.
2) 2 boat lengths away. You could tack now, but depending on exactly where the 2 boats are, the
P skipper could claim that you were tacking in his water. Options now are a 720 or a ruined
apre-sail in the protest room.
3) Now down to 1 boat length away. P boat sailed well would still manage to duck your stern, so
for you to tack would be a disaster as it would turn your stern into him.

We can argue about the details of all this, but provided that the P skipper has seen you and
you believe that he will try to duck, you are almost bound to hang on in there. If he isn't
quite going to make it, then you might swing your stern round at the very last minute, but if
he broaches, you're both in the proverbial despite your best intentions of avoiding conflict.
In a dinghy, its a bit different because contact is less expensive, and you can usually pump
the rig and wriggle up to wind and out of trouble if a collision seems imminent, but its very
different in several tons of floating caravan.
As I said, my point was that even a careful racer sometimes has to put his trust in the other
guy (bit like driving on the roads really).

Otherwise, we seem to be in complete agreement.

Cheers,

P.

In article <40F28DE0.98F6FBE1@bioch.ox.ac.uk>, pstyles@bioch.ox.ac.uk
says...
>
>
> John Allan wrote:
>

snip
> >
> > If it wasn't possible that we each mean different things by 'very close
> > quarters', I would be saying "With respect, Peter, bollocks".
>
> I'm pleased to see that you're warming to the debate :-)
>
> > You seem to be endorsing the 'risk-taking', 'thrill seeking' approach
>
> No, in fact not at all! I absolutely subscribe to the philosophy of keeping out of trouble as
> the best way to do well. I am not a thrill seeker at all, although I do enjoy close but
> courteous racing. However, my point was that sometimes its really very difficult to guarantee
> staying out of trouble without being hopelessly cautious.

That's trite, even though you are exaggerating the position by using
words like 'guarantee' and 'hopelessly'.

> The obvious case in point is being on
> S with a boat on P that is on course to thump your shrouds, or a bit in front.

snip

> 3) Now down to 1 boat length away. P boat sailed well would still manage to duck your stern, so
> for you to tack would be a disaster as it would turn your stern into him.
>
> We can argue about the details of all this, but provided that the P skipper has seen you and
> you believe that he will try to duck, you are almost bound to hang on in there.

No you are not. If P is not well and truly altering course at 1 BL then
S will surely have a 'reasonable apprehension of contact' (Case 50
'Decision') and should act to avoid contact under RRS 14 and may protest
P under RRS 10. RRS 16.2 applies _only_ when P is _keeping clear_, that
is when P is, at least, altering course so as to dispel the 'reasonable
apprehension of contact' on the part of S.

IMHO, at 1 BL, if you can't see that P will not hit you, then you must
act to avoid contact (RRS 14), and you are probably under this obligation
from the 2 or 3 boatlengths distance.

snip
> As I said, my point was that even a careful racer sometimes has to put his trust in the other
> guy (bit like driving on the roads really).

Yes, of course you do, but what I'm emphasising is that you can and
should be selective about who, and how much trust you allow, and you can
do lots of things to reduce the amount of blind reliance on other
skippers.

> Otherwise, we seem to be in complete agreement.

Yup, and we should probably leave it here.

John

"Foxy" <tuckertunstalls@flatroofingcontractors1.freeserve .co.uk> wrote in message news:<ccbstt$k35$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> DannyBoy wrote:
> And two of them were girlies!

On average lesser physical strengh, lesser spatial awareness and
poorer night vision!

Have no fear, plenty of things women do better on average...

Sandy Morton <sandy@millport.net> wrote in message news:<4ccdfdf4b5sandy@millport.net>...
> In article <9457514a.0407130426.441c9f34@com >,
> DannyBoy <danny_deever2000.uk> wrote:

> If you were on the HIDB Moorings at the Old Pier you can't see my
> shop - if you came ashore at the Leck Jetty - the one with the
> ginormous Crocodile Rock - then you were very adjacent.

We were on moorings by the big slab of rock that's covered with seals
sometimes. I could clearly see a bike hire place with the Binos so if
it aint yours there must be two!

> Maybe next time the weather will be more friendly!

Hope so. It's a ideal last night stop if you charter out of Largs.