Sydney To Hobart 2015-2016

[44'cruisingcat]

Anyway, this is a good example of the difference between racing and cruising.


If 30-40 knot southerlies are forecast, the race boats will head off for Hobart at midday boxing day.


Cruisers would wait and leave in 15 knot NE'lies.

[44'cruisingcat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat
So you reckon that on entering a race, a skipper's responsibilities are passed on to someone else?

If your replying to me, where on earth did I suggest that?


Here:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

'it's up to each vessels captain to decide'.. well, not when it's an organised race, no! theres a duty of care which was ignored.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat
So you reckon that on entering a race, a skipper's responsibilities are passed on to someone else?

If your replying to me, where on earth did I suggest that?
Here:

YOU can be quite dishonest 44 at times Here is my entire post which you took that from.

You should read the coroners report - these deaths did not need to happen. They occured because of incompetence on the organisers who stuck their head in the sand and responded, 'it's up to each vessels captain to decide'.. well, not when it's an organised race, no! theres a duty of care which was ignored.

And the following post adds to it. Post 208

Whilst a skipper on a boat has the ultimate responsibility for his boat and crew, a skipper needs to rely on sound information coming to them. That didn't happen. In addition, information from the bureau of meteorology was also not passed on. Information that warned of a catasrophy building. The very true saying that the 'skipper has the ultimate call' is still true, but in a 'race' there is a duty of care and in 1998 the organisers did not recognise that duty of care at all.

You cannot possibly deduce your accusation "So you reckon that on entering a race, a skipper's responsibilities are passed on to someone else?" from either of these two posts!

When in an organised 'race', there IS a duty of care by the race organisers YES. And that duty of care CAN and DOES now overide the competitors. Under the new rules the organisers can even withdraw a yacht, postpone the race or even cancel the race. And they have a legal responsibility to do so. YES.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I can't disagree more with your post Ann, and I don't normally find my self disagreeig with you

The Coroners report into that race was a very sensible finding, despite the fact that one of the key organisers was lieing throughout his testimoney. Whilst a skipper on a boat has the ultimate responsibility for his boat and crew, a skipper needs to rely on sound information coming to them. That didn't happen. In addition, information from the bureau of meteorology was also not passed on. Information that warned of a catasrophy building. The very true saying that the 'skipper has the ultimate call' is still true, but in a 'race' there is a duty of care and in 1998 the organisers did not recognise that duty of care at all.

RC, I sorta understand your POV, but to say that skipper needs to rely on "sound information coming to them" seems wrong to me. The duty of the skipper is to be sure that he has indeed got sound info... this implies an active role in getting the info not a passive one in getting it fed to him by anyone, race organizers or legislators or whoever. HIS responsibility to get and t hen act upon good info. This is what skippers have been held to for generations; it is only recently that the idea of delegating some or all of that responsibility to an outside entity has arisen. This responsibility is what we cruisers must exercise each time we put to sea. I do not agree that the race committee has a "duty of care" to take up the responsibility.

And interestingly, it seems that the "duty of care" that they HAVE taken on is to place a whole lot of new regs on race participants, things involving mandatory training for crew and master, equipment, design. This shifts responsibility away from the committee, not to them.

Finally, they have not reduced the dependence upon media coverage for income supplement, and thus are reluctant to abandon a start, or even to delay it. To me, doing so would indicate that they were interested in overall safety of participants and less interested in publicity.

Many years ago when I was an active racer in San Francisco, I did abandon a race when I (singlehand racing in the ocean) felt that conditions were beyond my competence. No one told me to do so, and I didn't have crew to worry about. I still feel that this is the correct delegation of responsibility. YMMV.

Jim

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

RC, I sorta understand your POV, but to say that skipper needs to rely on "sound information coming to them" seems wrong to me. The duty of the skipper is to be sure that he has indeed got sound info... this implies an active role in getting the info not a passive one in getting it fed to him by anyone, race organizers or legislators or whoever. HIS responsibility to get and t hen act upon good info. This is what skippers have been held to for generations; it is only recently that the idea of delegating some or all of that responsibility to an outside entity has arisen. This responsibility is what we cruisers must exercise each time we put to sea. I do not agree that the race committee has a "duty of care" to take up the responsibility.

And interestingly, it seems that the "duty of care" that they HAVE taken on is to place a whole lot of new regs on race participants, things involving mandatory training for crew and master, equipment, design. This shifts responsibility away from the committee, not to them.

Finally, they have not reduced the dependence upon media coverage for income supplement, and thus are reluctant to abandon a start, or even to delay it. To me, doing so would indicate that they were interested in overall safety of participants and less interested in publicity.

Many years ago when I was an active racer in San Francisco, I did abandon a race when I (singlehand racing in the ocean) felt that conditions were beyond my competence. No one told me to do so, and I didn't have crew to worry about. I still feel that this is the correct delegation of responsibility. YMMV.

Jim

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The Ultimate delegation on a vessel is with the skipper. That's still remaining. No one can force a skipper to continue on. But whether you like it or not, the organisers do understand since 1998, that the organisers of a race have the ultimate delegation over the race and over individuals.

And there is a huge difference in 'cruising' and 'racing'. For a start there is NO duty of care if your solo cruising that I can think of. Now, if your 'solo racing' in an event that's an organised event, then there is a duty of care on those who organise the race.

People can disagree all they like with this, but it's come from a coroners court and it's been put into race rules.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

YOU can be quite dishonest 44 at times Here is my entire post which you took that from.

It would be nice if you could manage without personal attacks. Unlikely, but nice.

I simply edited your post for brevity. Your entire post:

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You should read the coroners report - these deaths did not need to happen. They occured because of incompetence on the organisers who stuck their head in the sand and responded, 'it's up to each vessels captain to decide'.. well, not when it's an organised race, no! theres a duty of care which was ignored.

SUGGESTED (or stated) that when it's an organised race, some responsibility for vessel safety is passed on to the race organisers.
Which is exactly what I questioned.

Funnily enough your later post, the one with the personal attack, simply reinforces that.

[JPA Cate]

Rustic Charm,

I agree, we have a very basic difference of opinion here, and I think we'll just be better off accepting that it is there, and not expect either one of us to change their mind.

I see this fitting in with all the legislative "care taking" that robs people of their initiative by teaching, by encouraging dependence on others for their decision making processes. It is not that governments should not care for their constituents, but how that care is expressed in the world, and its unanticipated results, for me, that is the issue. I think what happened is that the real reason for the race committee not passing along the weather issue probably had to do with fearing to lose sponsorship dollars, and that what was done fails to address that issue, which seems to me to be key. They may not have believed that their failure could have had such terrible results.

Ann

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It would be nice if you could manage without personal attacks. Unlikely, but nice.

I simply edited your post for brevity. Your entire post:



SUGGESTED (or stated) that when it's an organised race, some responsibility for vessel safety is passed on to the race organisers.
Which is exactly what I questioned.

Funnily enough your later post, the one with the personal attack, simply reinforces that.

A fair point. I apologize

[Mirage Gecko]

No personal dig here RC and maybe I don't fully get what your writing but you have referred to Coroners reports in a couple of different threads as though they should be treated as fact.When infact they are only personal opinion based on some facts and other non factual evidence.
In your prior life you likely had far more involvement with Coroners than me and it is like laws and regulations they need to be adhered to or you pay the penalty but they are not always right or appropriate .I spent a fair amount of time in my prior life among other things campaigning to and often successfully having the regulators make changes to outdated and inefficient govt requirements that affected my industry and I had enough inter reaction with the Coroners Dept to realise that often their department and people are not qualified or well informed enough in some of the areas they get into to make judgement and their powers often outweighed their abilities.

[donradcliffe]

In 1998, the general weather conditions for the race were know well enough in advance that I stopped trying to get a ride on the Sydney-Hobart and went on the Pittwater-Coffs Harbor race instead. However, just a couple of hours after the start the Met office upgraded from gale warnings to storm warnings. If I were the race committee I would have informed the boats at the next radio check in that the race was abandoned and if they wanted to sail to Hobart they were on their own. Far better to restart the next day than have six lost souls on your conscience. There will be the necessary whinging and chest thumping about the abandonment, but the vast majority of the racers would be relieved that they weren't playing chicken with mother nature.

I can understand Ian Murray's point of view--I've seen the pictures of the recent surgery on Wild Oats, and I'd be worried about the bow falling off too. However, the latest forecast I've seen shows boatbreaking conditions for only 6 hours or so.

[ben373]

A big part of the problem is that a storm was forecast. The understanding of the word storm was not the same for everybody.

Sent from my G630-U251 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Rustic Charm,

I agree, we have a very basic difference of opinion here, and I think we'll just be better off accepting that it is there, and not expect either one of us to change their mind.

I see this fitting in with all the legislative "care taking" that robs people of their initiative by teaching, by encouraging dependence on others for their decision making processes. It is not that governments should not care for their constituents, but how that care is expressed in the world, and its unanticipated results, for me, that is the issue. I think what happened is that the real reason for the race committee not passing along the weather issue probably had to do with fearing to lose sponsorship dollars, and that what was done fails to address that issue, which seems to me to be key. They may not have believed that their failure could have had such terrible results.

Ann

This bit in bold I agree with. I think that is undoubtably what was happening and as a result people lost their lives.

See we can agree

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Anyway, this is a good example of the difference between racing and cruising.


If 30-40 knot southerlies are forecast, the race boats will head off for Hobart at midday boxing day.


Cruisers would wait and leave in 15 knot NE'lies.

very true

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Mirage Gecko

No personal dig here RC and maybe I don't fully get what your writing but you have referred to Coroners reports in a couple of different threads as though they should be treated as fact.When infact they are only personal opinion based on some facts and other non factual evidence.
In your prior life you likely had far more involvement with Coroners than me and it is like laws and regulations they need to be adhered to or you pay the penalty but they are not always right or appropriate .I spent a fair amount of time in my prior life among other things campaigning to and often successfully having the regulators make changes to outdated and inefficient govt requirements that affected my industry and I had enough inter reaction with the Coroners Dept to realise that often their department and people are not qualified or well informed enough in some of the areas they get into to make judgement and their powers often outweighed their abilities.

Your expressing your personal opinion of the Coroners office here, which is fair enough, it's your personal opinion.

But I'll point out that the Coroners office is the highest court in the land (at least in Australia) to determine 'the facts' on how a person died, or what led to the death, both in Australia and overseas in relation to it's citizens. It is a court of law and therefore it's findings are, when able to be determined considered 'fact' in law.

As to their abilities and qualifications. Here in Australia the Coroners office is often staffed with seconded police officers who work as the coroners assistant. There is no other organisation with the skills, training, experience in which to carry out such an investigation. I'd be interested if you could suggest one or any for that matter?

There are other such enquiries, such as Parliamentry Committee's of Enquiry, which in Australia has a dismal record for their political bias. And it's certainly true, a PC frequently doens't have any experienced members. Then there are Royal Commissions, which do have the powers and authorities of courts and are always led by the judiciary. But, unlike PC's, Royal Commissions are led from the judiciary and thus it's safer to be without the bias of mere political commissions.

You are correct though that a Coroners findings don't make laws. They only determine the facts if able, and then make recommendations to the parliament or to other organisations like the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia in whom runs the race. The Coroners findings are however, accepted as the 'facts' of how a person died and what led to that death or disappearance.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You should read the coroners report .

I have