The Future of Corporate Sailing

[ QUOTE ]
Or should the organisers start insiting that corporate charter boats have a minimum number of competent crew on board?

[/ QUOTE ] Since it is on charter it will be coded and therefore already have minimum crewing requirements, perhaps these need looking at by the MCA. Huge difference between a skipper and novice crew sailing around the Solent with white sails mid week to entering RTIR. Does the qualified skipper tend to helm the boat or stand back and manage the whole show?

Pete
 
[ QUOTE ]
Definitely a red flag. I know a protest committee is a PITA but once corporates find their days out have been marred by disqualifications maybe the charter skippers will learn to comply.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand since the vessels concerned are clearly not fully under control perhaps a short report to these people may encourage better behaviour in future.

http://www.chirp.co.uk/reporting-report.asp

As I said above the only answer is to report them to some one otherwise next year or even next week they will do it again, because they are getting away with. Also if one is prepared to keep in in the club so as to speak protesting for unsportsmanlike conduct does attract attention, attention the charter company may not wish to get.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rules of racing override IRPCS

[/ QUOTE ] but only as between the participants, as I'm sure you meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I wouldn't expect non-participants to sign on!

[/ QUOTE ]

So wrong.

IRPCS is what will govern you in a court of law.
Your local sailing instructions are legal confetti.
 
[ QUOTE ]


So wrong.

IRPCS is what will govern you in a court of law.
Your local sailing instructions are legal confetti.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the rules? Rule 3:

"3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b) to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under
the rules; and
(c) with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or any tribunal."

You sign to say you will follow that rule. You explicitly give up your right to take it to court.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You sign to say you will follow that rule. You explicitly give up your right to take it to court.

[/ QUOTE ] In relation to a dispute about the race, yes I expect you do. But I wouldn't rely on it if a pig-headed adherence to the racing rules leads to a serious accident or fatality if I were you; it will be IRPCS that prevails..........
 
[ QUOTE ]
Does the qualified skipper tend to helm the boat or stand back and manage the whole show?



[/ QUOTE ]

Depends, if it's flat water and light winds I would expect the guests to be helming. But in the conditions found off st Cats on Saturday I would expect the skipper to be helming.

Totally agree with the rest of your post btw.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So wrong.

IRPCS is what will govern you in a court of law.
Your local sailing instructions are legal confetti.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the rules? Rule 3:

"3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b) to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under
the rules; and
(c) with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or any tribunal."

You sign to say you will follow that rule. You explicitly give up your right to take it to court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the other boat is NOT racing! And while you may give up your right to take things to court, your next of kin might wish to sue if another racer kills you while following racing rules. They haven't signed anything! And finally, if you were shown to be criminally negligent - even if following racing rules - then it would be IRPCS that would be the basis of the court case.

Basically, racing rules are a gentleman's agreement between consenting parties, and I think FullCircle is quite right to dismiss them as legal confetti in any situation where the law got involved. Racing Rules have no legal standing; the law of the sea is the IRPCS.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You sign to say you will follow that rule. You explicitly give up your right to take it to court.

[/ QUOTE ] In relation to a dispute about the race, yes I expect you do. But I wouldn't rely on it if a pig-headed adherence to the racing rules leads to a serious accident or fatality if I were you; it will be IRPCS that prevails..........

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting way off topic, but no it won't. The reason is simple, the COLREGs are designed to keep boats apart, the RRS are designed to explicitly state who has precidence in close quaters manouvering. Most situations that develop at marks etc would not be covered by COLREGs, which is why the RRS were developed in the first place.

By entering a race you agree to abide by those rules, and there is precidence of the RRS being used in investigating serious accidents between two or more racing yachts involving injury or death.
And by the way, "a pig-headed adherence to the racing rules" would NOT be the cause of any incident for the simple reason that the rules specifically prevent contact, and forcing contact, even when you are the "right of way" boat (and that is the technically correct term in RRS) breaks rule 14. It is not at all uncommon to find a ROW boat penalised under this rule, even if the other boat is also penalised.
 
Also true in COLREGS. You have a duty to keep clear or avoid, even if you are 'in the right', even if it looks like you about to bang into something or somebody.

Or is this the old Solent call, 'We're Racing!!!!'
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So wrong.

IRPCS is what will govern you in a court of law.
Your local sailing instructions are legal confetti.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the rules? Rule 3:

"3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b) to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under
the rules; and
(c) with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or any tribunal."

You sign to say you will follow that rule. You explicitly give up your right to take it to court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the other boat is NOT racing! And while you may give up your right to take things to court, your next of kin might wish to sue if another racer kills you while following racing rules. They haven't signed anything! And finally, if you were shown to be criminally negligent - even if following racing rules - then it would be IRPCS that would be the basis of the court case.

Basically, racing rules are a gentleman's agreement between consenting parties, and I think FullCircle is quite right to dismiss them as legal confetti in any situation where the law got involved. Racing Rules have no legal standing; the law of the sea is the IRPCS.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the other boat is not racing, then of course COLREGs apply, but that is not what we're talking about.

You are however wrong in your main assertion that in a serious incident between 2 racing boats anything other than RRS would be used to describe fault.
If a next of kin did sue, then they would have to prove liability based on the RRS, as that is what the boats were using. How on earth could it possibly be anything else?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also true in COLREGS. You have a duty to keep clear or avoid, even if you are 'in the right', even if it looks like you about to bang into something or somebody.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly true, but there seems to be a perception that the racing rules somehow allow you to crash into people.

ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.

It should be remembered that the RRS are based on Colregs, but with every situation prescribed. The only actual difference I can think of is the removal of the requirement of the overtaken boat to maintain course. But even then the overtaken boat has limits on how they can respond.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The only actual difference I can think of is the removal of the requirement of the overtaken boat to maintain course. But even then the overtaken boat has limits on how they can respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

The RRS has no concept of over taking (except for windsurfers, peculiarly), you are either clear astern (and required to keep clear) or you have an overlap (and may have rights to force the other boat into a course of action).

At a mark, you can be on port with rights over a starboard boat (e.g. approaching a downwind mark with an inside overlap by the three boat length circle), you can be windward boat with rights to room over the leeward boat etc.

There are loads of situations where one boat following IRPCS and another the RRS would come in to conflict.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In the instancxes mentioned above the vessels involved were clearly 'not under control' and should thus be reported to the race authorities for both the rules they infringed and the rule on sportsmanship. I would go further and suggest that there may even be grounds for reporting the vessels to the Coastguard for being NUC and not displaying the appropriate marlks.


[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the NUC complaint would be a bit unfair as they could probably have reacted in time in a ColRegs situation (I presume). However the distances involved in RRS situations are much less and it can be annoying when people race when they can't manouvre in a prompt and seamanlike manner.

It's not just (some) corporate and charter boats boats, there are some cruisers who wouldn't dare take part in a thirty boat race that quite happily do the RTIR.

Perhaps they'd be better off splitting it into a real IRC-only race and a round the island rally for cruisers.
 
I'd be interested to hear if there are any legal judgements regarding the RRS. I've been told that if a collision between two boats racing actually goes to court the ColRegs can be used to establish liability. In practice insurance companies do seem to settle on the basis of the RRS but it does seem to be a bit of a grey area.
 
http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/

Mary Pera: Defining Liability Between Racing Yachts
Provided by Graeme Hayward, International Judge

The authority of the racing rules in deciding liability between boats that are racing is based on legal precedents in English law over the last hundred years.

These precedents were reviewed and supported by an important decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1995 which firmly entrenched the Racing Rules Of Sailing (in those days the International Yacht Racing Rules) as the authority on which fault is determined.

The case in question was a protest heard by an International Jury in France involving Charles Jourdain v Endeavour in the Mediterranean in October 1992. The damages claimed by Charles Jourdain were large, involving a claim of US $15.4 million for neck whiplash and other injuries plus US $600,000 for physical damage to the yacht.

The findings in this case were reviewed in an article written by the late British International Judge Mary Pera for the IYRU Judge's Forum in August 1995. Unfortunately this article is not available in an electronic form and it has therefore been re-typed and revised to include the references to ISAF and the Racing Rules of Sailing - since the 1995 document refers to the IYRU and the International Yacht Racing Rules - i.e. to the 'old' rules. The article is as follows:

CHARLES JOURDAIN vs. ENDEAVOUR
(Extract of a report by Mary Pera published in the IYRU Judges' Forum # 17 of August 1995)

An important case which will affect judgements of law courts in all countries, and certainly those whose systems are based on English law, has recently been decided in the United States. It sets the International Yacht Racing Rules (now the Racing Rules of Sailing) firmly in place, greatly strengthening the earlier decisions of a hundred years ago.

In October 1992 the 72 ft Charles Jourdain (formerly Juno) and the 120 ft ex-J class Endeavour were sailing in separate races in the same event in the Mediterranean. Charles Jourdain established an overlap from clear astern at least 60 ft to leeward of Endeavour. In spite of having ample room and opportunity to keep clear [the wording of the International Yacht Racing Rules, rule 37.3], Endeavour held her course until her boom hit Charles Jourdain's backstay. Serious damage resulted from their collision. The protest was heard by an International Jury and Endeavour was disqualified under the International Yacht Racing Rules, rule 37.1 [now the Racing Rules of Sailing rule 11].

Charles Jourdain then took the matter to the courts in an effort to get damages. The case was heard by the US District Court of Maine in September 1994.

In a worrying decision the court stated: 'There is no dispute that the COLREGS [IRPCAS] provide the rules which govern the behaviour of these particular boats. Although they were both involved in races which were governed by The International Yacht Racing Rules [now the Racing Rules of Sailing], the rules of a private racing organisation do not and cannot pre-empt the application of COLREGS which have been adopted by treaty to govern world-wide. Thus we look to COLREGS for the controlling rules in this case.

Thus this court ignored the International Jury's findings, and turned to the COLREGS: Charles Jourdain was the overtaking yacht and obliged to keep clear, though the court found both yachts at fault (60% Charles Jourdain and 40% Endeavour).

All this seemed to lead to the conclusion that we might as well scrap the racing rules, at least at sea; for no insurance company could be expected to insure yachts that obeyed different rules from those that the courts would apply. However, the decision was appealed and heard earlier this year in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit before three judges, the Chief Judge being Juan R Torruella, who, at that time, was also an IJ representing Puerto Rico.

The courts decision, reversing the issue of liability, is worth quoting at some length for it is of great importance to anyone interested in the legal framework within which our sport takes place.

'The history of the COLREGS shows that they were enacted because of the need to establish a code of international rules of the road for maritime traffic through out the world. However, nothing in their historyŠindicates that they were meant to regulate voluntary private sports activity in which the participants have waived their application and in which no interference with non-participating maritime traffic is implicated.

'Surprisingly, considering the extent and history of maritime and yachting traditions there is a dearth of applicable jurisprudence, although older reported English cases reveal that these questions have not altogether avoided judicial scrutiny over the years.

'The cases we have found however, are helpful to the extent that they establish the principle that when one voluntarily enters a yacht race for which published sailing instructions set out the conditions of participation, a private contract results between the participants requiring their compliance therewith.

'The legally binding nature of the obligations created by the International Yacht Racing Rules [now the Racing Rules of Sailing] and the Sailing Instructions is not altogether a new or revolutionary concept. In 1897, in The Santanita, a case involving a collision between two racing yachts sailing under the rules of the Yacht Racing Association (of Great Britain), the House of Lords concluded that the owners were bound by the Association's rule making one yacht liable for all damages notwithstanding the liability limitation provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. In Clarke v Thayer [a US case of the same date, 1897] the court held that a yacht club's racing rule bound a member of the club participating in a club regatta notwithstanding a conflicting navigation law of the United States.'

Later cases to the same end are cited and the decision then outlines Part VI of the International Yacht Racing Rules [now Part 2 of the Racing Rules of Sailing] and continues: 'These mechanisms were agreed to by the parties. [They] agreed to the substantive rules for determining fault, they agreed to the adjudicating forum and they were appraised of the procedures. They appeared before the forum, submitted to its jurisdiction, presented evidence and argument and thereafter were served with that body's findings and final decision. Thus [both yachts] were contractually bound to race by the rules of the road contained in the International Yacht Racing Rules [now the Racing Rules of Sailing] and to resolve issues related to fault according to these rulesŠ Furthermore, the procedures established by the International Yacht Racing Rules [now the Racing Rules of Sailing] meet the requirements of due process; there is appropriate written notification of their allegations, notice is given of the hearing; the parties are allowed to appear and present evidence and witness testimony; They may also cross-examine opposing witnesses and argue orally; and generally, engage in all those accepted activities held so dear by common law lawyers. Finally, a written decision, in which findings of fact are made and fault apportioned, is issued to all interested parties. Equally important, the evidence is heard soon after the events take place by a panel of experts who are fully versed in the niceties of the activity in question. It is hard to find fault with such a process, particularly when it is exactly what the participants agreed to.

'Insistence on blind application of COLREGS to the facts of this case is not only unsupported by any historical imperative in this legislation and contrary to the weight of the sparse relevant authority, it is logically unsound. Such application would turn on its head and render rife with uncertainty the thousands of private yacht races that take place throughout the United States and world-wide in which participants voluntarily agree to be bound by the International Yacht Racing Rules [now the Racing Rules of Sailing]. The decision could even have a serious negative impact on such international races as the America's Cup or the yachting events of the forthcoming Olympic Games in Atlanta. Under such logic, notwithstanding agreement by Olympic participants to abide by the International Yacht Racing Rules [now the Racing Rules of Sailing] and to have protests decided by International Juries, they could thereafter regurgitate any issues in the courts under the COLREGS. Such absurdity is difficult to countenance, and cannot have been contemplated by Congress or the treaty negotiating authorities when the COLREGS were adopted.'

Coming to the question of damages, the court quoted the International Yacht Racing Rules, rule 76.1 [now the Racing Rules of Sailing, rule 68] and approved of an interpretation in an earlier case '[The] courts are the rightful location of litigation over yacht racing damages unless [national] racing authorities provide in essence, for private resolution'. There being no agreement about the determination of the damages, the court decided that Charles Jourdain was entitled to claim and prove that the damages caused by Endeavour based upon the determination of fault by the International Jury. The outcome of all this should be a firm base for solving future problems.

Revised to include references to the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing for 2000-2004. - Graeme Hayward
 
[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just (some) corporate and charter boats boats, there are some cruisers who wouldn't dare take part in a thirty boat race that quite happily do the RTIR.

Perhaps they'd be better off splitting it into a real IRC-only race and a round the island rally for cruisers.

[/ QUOTE ]

and then it wouldn't be the RTIR race.

Think you all need to remember the ethos of this race and chill out a little. I had a great great day and yes that included avoiding a few people who might not completely understand the rules, but they seemed to be enjoying themselves and this is RTIR not the America's Cup.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The future of corporate sailing is in Scotland on the west coast where you can go out and enjoy a day on the water without being hampered by a lot of other people doing the same as you.



[/ QUOTE ]

Dont agree. Just sailed up to Oban and was amazed (first visit) how crowded it was up there. Only once did we manage an anchorage with just ourselves in it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Think you all need to remember the ethos of this race and chill out a little. I had a great great day and yes that included avoiding a few people who might not completely understand the rules, but they seemed to be enjoying themselves and this is RTIR not the America's Cup.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes - however, deliberately failing to follow rules because your "crew" can't gybe the kite is plain wrong - corporate or not ... if you are that handicapped then you should sail accordingly
 
If you enter RTI you know that among the 1800 boats will be those who don't know the rules and sometimes don't have a clue! it is part of the fun of going round, if you can't accept this (or the ISC rating system) don't enter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

W
Those were the days……Back in 1972
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Wansworth
W
S
Sailing to the USA. Do I need a special visa?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Roberto
Roberto
R
Moving on.
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Greg2
Greg2

Share this page

Top