The SS Varvassi claims yet another victim

  • Thread starter Thread starter TQA
  • Start date Start date
capnsensible said:
It has been in the past. A big yellow inflatable buoy. Cant place the year but 1990's. That was before the system that now seems to have caught on......
Click to expand...

Last year they parked a lifeboat next to it. If you were seward of the lifeboat you were safe. Still didn't stop a few people cutting in and hoping they would miss it.

As it happens I went far to wide and hit the odd breaker near bridge, got away with that and it put me in good tide and clear space to st cats. We made up a few places on that stretch.

We didn't make it this year and I know I wouldn't have got away with getting too close to bridge in this years conditions.

I am suprised that there wasn't a lifeboat near by this year. Perhaps there was, and they ignored the warnings.

Intersting that it's sombody else's boat. If it was because they wanted competitive edge, I wonder if the skipper would have been so 'brave' with his own pride and joy.
 
Sorry I don't get this "competitive edge" bit. That wreck is a known hazard well out of the way of normal navigation routes. For the RTI it should be routed out of the race course. It strikes me that the organisers and more importantly the rescue services have their work cut out enough with the natural hazards without having to deal with plonkers chancing it (I would actually go so far as to say cheating) by cutting corners via known hazards.
 
VO5 said:
I have listened to discussions that it is not "prudent" or "feasible" to blow it up to get rid of it. But surely it can be done away with once and for all with modern underwater cutting gear, or not ?
Click to expand...
Who is going to pay for this operation?

A much cheaper option would be an AIS virtual buoy set each year after a quick survey.
 
Hadenough said:
Sorry I don't get this "competitive edge" bit. That wreck is a known hazard well out of the way of normal navigation routes. For the RTI it should be routed out of the race course. It strikes me that the organisers and more importantly the rescue services have their work cut out enough with the natural hazards without having to deal with plonkers chancing it (I would actually go so far as to say cheating) by cutting corners via known hazards.
Click to expand...

I agree. I didn't say I throught it was a good idea to cut the corner. Just that last year you would have had a hard job hitting the boilers without hitting the life boat that was sitting next to them. I can only assume that the life boat wasn't there this year.

Ryde sands is also a trap, but it doesn't stop one or two people cutting it fine and getting caught out.
 
Hadenough said:
Sorry I don't get this "competitive edge" bit. That wreck is a known hazard well out of the way of normal navigation routes. For the RTI it should be routed out of the race course. It strikes me that the organisers and more importantly the rescue services have their work cut out enough with the natural hazards without having to deal with plonkers chancing it (I would actually go so far as to say cheating) by cutting corners via known hazards.
Click to expand...

What part of "competitive" do you not understand? The RTIR is a race after all, and even if a number of participants are really only in it for fun, a very substantial number are racing as hard as they can. The wreck is not a mark of the course, so there is no need for competitors to leave it to port. Cutting inside the wreck can save 10 to 15 minutes over the longer route outside, an enormous difference in keenly fought classes.

As for describing this as plonkers chancing it or even cheating, you might consider withdrawing your remark?
 
Resolution said:
What part of "competitive" do you not understand? ...
As for describing this as plonkers chancing it or even cheating, you might consider withdrawing your remark?
Click to expand...
Just enjoy the post race festivities if you were competing this year, I am listening to the distant sounds of the live band. Suggest you adopt my view of such posts, threads like this smoke out the plonker posters and lunatic fringe of the forum.
 
Hadenough said:
It strikes me that the organisers and more importantly the rescue services have their work cut out enough with the natural hazards without having to deal with plonkers chancing it (I would actually go so far as to say cheating) by cutting corners via known hazards.
Click to expand...

You call it cheating to follow the course? If the organisers wanted to avoid anyone hitting the wreck they could put a mark of the course there then it would be cheating to cut inside. Without that, the idea of cheating is of your own invention. Clearly the organisers find it fun to see who will chance cutting the corner fine to get an advantage and who will be more conservative and lose out to keep their keel. Almost all boats that chance it get away with it.
 
jonjo5 said:
Just enjoy the post race festivities if you were competing this year, I am listening to the distant sounds of the live band. Suggest you adopt my view of such posts, threads like this smoke out the plonker posters and lunatic fringe of the forum.
Click to expand...

Good advice! Time for another glass of 12 year old malt medicine......
 
Tidewaiter2 said:
Peter Bruce(in one of his excellent guides- Solent Hazards?) even gives you a safe transit-top of lt house hello platform 'buried' in the ex-Coastguard/searchlight battery thingy behind it.
Its worked for me in the days when I raced:encouragement:
Click to expand...

The race organisers send just such a diagram and safety booklet to every skipper.
 
As the casualty in question this year is owned by the commodore of the Island Sailing Club (who help to organise the race) there may well be a "change" next year! :)
 
Piss poor navigation and seamanship to gain a few minutes advantage in a race. Same reason that many (not all!), racers seem to think they're exempt from the IRPCS.

PW.
 
PilotWolf said:
Piss poor navigation and seamanship to gain a few minutes advantage in a race. Same reason that many (not all!), racers seem to think they're exempt from the IRPCS.

PW.
Click to expand...

The IRPCS is irrelevant in this case. Sailing in shallow water is quite a common experience for a significant number of UKs racing fleets and cruising yachts. In this case he made a call and messed up, lost the race and lost the boat. HSE I hear people call, but racing is all about pushing all aspects of the boat in order to win, by it's very nature racing increases the probability of risk. Assuming that the controls are in place to manage the risk if it happens (lifejackets, quick rescue arrangements etc) then that would actually be a case for good seamanship.

It is not the only place racers hit things, in the deep water of the Clyde, the few hard bits that are well known hazards have all been hit numerous times with keel crunching consequences.
 
The wreck is like the "wall of champions" at the Canadian F1 circuit; it catches out those who push the envelope too far; for heaven's sake chaps it's a race, racers push the limits. And those demanding it be removed would perhaps like everything in the Solent to be just smoothed out and regularly cleaned for the benefit of the yachties?
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
The IRPCS is irrelevant in this case. Sailing in shallow water is quite a common experience for a significant number of UKs racing fleets and cruising yachts. In this case he made a call and messed up, lost the race and lost the boat. HSE I hear people call, but racing is all about pushing all aspects of the boat in order to win, by it's very nature racing increases the probability of risk. Assuming that the controls are in place to manage the risk if it happens (lifejackets, quick rescue arrangements etc) then that would actually be a case for good seamanship.

It is not the only place racers hit things, in the deep water of the Clyde, the few hard bits that are well known hazards have all been hit numerous times with keel crunching consequences.
Click to expand...

So if a commercial fisherman wrecked his vessel taking short cuts to make the market or a merchant vessel grounded trying to make a tide/pilot/etc. you'd have the same response?

The IRPCS comment was a comparison to the lack of care about anything other than making race times in this and other incidents involving racers so actually it is very relevant.

Anything that endangers the vessel and/or crew (and of course those who have to rescue them from their screw up), IS BAD seamanship in my opinion.

PW
 
PilotWolf said:
...... Anything that endangers the vessel and/or crew (and of course those who have to rescue them from their screw up), IS BAD seamanship in my opinion. .... Anything that endangers the vessel and/or crew (and of course those who have to rescue them from their screw up), IS BAD seamanship in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thats fine, your views that determine your opinion is valid as far as I am concerned, because seamanship is objective. To go to one extreme the Volvo Ocean 65 and individuals that race could be considered to have questionable seamanship: little resilience in the hull design to failure and single handing. Yet in my opinion the seamanship to execute such an adventure is of the highest standard; with associated mitigation being managed at the highest level.

In response to your fishing boat / commercial examples, no, I would not have the same response.

I would suggest that your comment 'anything that endangers your vessel or crew' is rather lame to be frank and demonstrates that you really don't understand that risk is ever present and how we deal with the probability of that risk happening is really what defines seamanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top