lw395
Well-known member
And then people wonder why there is so little enthusiasm for a bit of coastal racing among cruiser-racer owners.
What price Safety?
- Thread starter yoda
- Start date
awol
Well-known member
I am interested in the details of your analysis of the particular risks, probability and severity of consequences that has led you to require a lifejacket with sprayhood and light as amelioration. Would you care to share these?
Your post has encouraged me to reread the OSR and, oh dear, I need to get my marker pen out. Nothing major but .....
Your post has encouraged me to reread the OSR and, oh dear, I need to get my marker pen out. Nothing major but .....
wotayottie
New member
Its you. The issue of course is that you have to do a "risk assessment" to cover your backside in legal terms. IMO its for the skippers to take those decisions since they are in charge of their vessel and responsible for their crew.
And its pointless. There are a miriad ways in which an accident can happen at sea and all you are doing is going through the H&S motions and chosing something fairle obvious. Have you covered sea cocks for example? Or engine servicing? Or the state and condition of VHF equipment including aerials? Etc Etc.
In the same spirit my club introduced a rule about the wind not exceeding 30kn at any time during the race. Just thinkm how that could be exploited by a sharp lawyer after an accident on a windy day. Daft./ Effectively the club have exposed themselves to risk not reduced it.
Which of course brings up another point. What are you going to do about checking that they complky with your new rules. Scrutineering? And if so who checks that this actually happens? And is honest?
Last edited:
yoda
Well-known member
By your argument the OSRs become redundant. Everything you have mentioned has been considered and yes checks can be done and is quite normal on the racing scene.
Muddy32
Active member
I won't bother replying to this any more. Come into the real world.
lw395
Well-known member
Better still, stop trying to drag yacht racing into Yodaworld.
Pete54
Member
The whole point of these processes it that they are supposed to be enable transparency. Your 'risk assessment' remains unseen. You are very keen to give us your opinion and then to push it. The risk assessment if published would allow a much more informed debate. But perhaps you are not that keen on your 'judgement' being visible?
yoda
Well-known member
Anybody who has asked has been sent a copy. It's not the kind of document you can put on here. I have no problem with anybody seeing it. There is no right or wrong and we are all entitled to our opinions.
Yoda
Pete54
Member
The whole point of a risk assessment is that it is supposed to logical and repeatable - that largely reduces the 'opinion' and means it is justifiable. You decided to make a point and publish and so far have provided no justification for what looks increasingly like your opinion. A careful appraisal of whether the race is Cat 3 or 4 is the basis. Adding additional requirements on requires a justification. So if you start a thread with 'what price safety' they expect to be able to justify your 'assessment', which looks increasingly like ar$e covering.
awol
Well-known member
Having been privy to "yoda's" risk assessment I can confirm its methodology and review process have been disciplined and rigorous. One of its conclusions was that Cat 3 life jackets mitigated clearly identified risks.
It doesn't matter whether I or anyone would quibble over the probability and/or impact ratings applied. It is the organisers' game and they are able to demonstrate a considered approach. I will admit that my preference would be to leave all equipment and participation decisions in the hands of the skippers but if a caveat in the instructions to that effect cannot be relied upon then so be it.
It doesn't matter whether I or anyone would quibble over the probability and/or impact ratings applied. It is the organisers' game and they are able to demonstrate a considered approach. I will admit that my preference would be to leave all equipment and participation decisions in the hands of the skippers but if a caveat in the instructions to that effect cannot be relied upon then so be it.
yoda
Well-known member
And I would add that anybody who asks is welcome to also see the risk assessment.
lpdsn
New member
Seeing that you have read it, what was the risk that was identified that doesn't otherwise apply to Cat 4 races?
awol
Well-known member
Why don't you take Yoda up on his offer. I have read the analysis; the process was rigorous.
lpdsn
New member
But you're not able to condense out the key points after reading it?
awol
Well-known member
Of course I am. But why should I make the effort when it appears you can't even be bothered to ask to see the document?
lpdsn
New member
I accept your statement that it is a thorough, rigorous assessment, so don't feel the need to verify that for myself.
It therefore, IMHO boils down to a few key points. Please correct any of these you think are wrong.
1) The race has been run under Cat 4 in the past and this has been considered acceptable by those involved.
2) A new risk, or risks, has been identified by the OP that can't be mitigated by Cat. 4.
3) The new risk doesn't require Cat. 3 but the OP believes Cat. 3 lifejackets have to be mandated.
4) Whilst not a barrier to the wealthier owners the cost of this is likely to deter the poorer owners from wanting to take part in the race.
Of course I could obtain the assessment, the OP has offered it, and could then read it and post for everyone else what the risks identified in 2) are. But you've read the assessment already, so why is it so difficult for you to do it?
yoda
Well-known member
The one thing you haven't allowed for is the fact that the race has been run until now without a proper risk analysis being completed so although it has been run under Cat 4 that has been without full consideration of the risks. The definitions of Cat 3 and CAT 4 are open to interpretation and we didn't feel that the course was clearly a CAT 4 one. You should also be aware that the analysis came about partly because of competitor comments about the suitability of some boats taking part for the conditions being encountered. Because under CAT 4 there is no stability requirements we did look at the RCD classification of boats in order to understand what was required of modern boats in terms of stability for given wind and sea state. For your benefit, there are a number of risks where the ultimate result is that an individual can end up in the water (collision, grounding, material failure of the boat, man overboard) where the chance of survival is significantly improved by having an improved lifejacket that reduces the risk of secondary drowning. Another club local to us runs similar races and chooses to use the carrying of a liferaft as the mitigation for these risks however this is considerably more expensive and for the smaller boats far more difficult to achieve because of weight and space. Going back to my original point, I can understand the view that safety equipment comes at a cost and it has become quite clear a number of owners don't want to spend the money however from my perspective it really isn't that much compared to many of the other costs involved in running a boat. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.
Yoda
lpdsn
New member
That's the key point. There's a broad spectrum of financial ability in a fleet. As someone who races on OPBs I've been on a boat where the owner puts the crew up in hotels through to a boat where i had to resist the tempation to start refurbishing it myself. The fact that some owners are wealthy doesn't mean that others can easily find the sums involved. Is your fleet really so strong that you can drive away owners in the latter category.
What I'm trying to understand is why Cat 4 isn't suitable. The risks you mention are risks in any racing and apply to any Cat 4 race. Admittedly the risks based on actual data must be extremely small, with dangling over the side attached to a harness whilst wearing a lifejacket being the one that seems to kill most often, but even then I can think of only two cases - Lion and a crew member on an Aussie boat that broke up after grounding about ten years ago. So any figures must have huge error bands.
So is it that Cat 4 just isn't fit for purpose? That the race isn't really Cat 4? Or there are risks that don't occur elsewhere?
awol
Well-known member
I would have thought that most crew along with their Mustos, Du Barrys, Leathermen, Bollé shades, etc. could add a Cat3 life jacket (or just a visor and light) and tether to their kit. It is their life after all.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of entries to Yoda's race. If substantially reduced and the Cat 3/4 requirements are implicated, I am sure there will be a review for next year. Personally, I feel the probabilty/impact ratings are a bit OTT for a 20 mile coastal jaunt in company but then I have zero knowledge of the waters or likely entrants.
Up here the FYCA and CYCA produce their own recommendations to avoid differences between clubs for similar races and keep a level requirements playing field - are there not similar Yacht Club associations in the south?
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of entries to Yoda's race. If substantially reduced and the Cat 3/4 requirements are implicated, I am sure there will be a review for next year. Personally, I feel the probabilty/impact ratings are a bit OTT for a 20 mile coastal jaunt in company but then I have zero knowledge of the waters or likely entrants.
Up here the FYCA and CYCA produce their own recommendations to avoid differences between clubs for similar races and keep a level requirements playing field - are there not similar Yacht Club associations in the south?
lpdsn
New member
I did take the approach initially of challenging a willingness to spend other peoples money - I see that a lot in the day job and maybe it's a pet subject - but it has become apparent that the OP has put a lot of work into his position, so I'm now trying to understand the key points that have caused him to reach an unusual position. It is of course easier to just say it is Cat 4 or it is Cat 3, but you could also say that is the lazy approach and he deserves credit for not taking the lazy approach.
We can all think of cases where the owner or even individual crew can easily afford to meet the requirement. I'm just trying to think of the 4KSBs, for want of a better generic term, which are run on a lower budget and can't as easily go off and buy x new lifejackets for one race or risk alienating crew by telling them to buy a new lifejacket themselves.
And I think we all know that participation, particular outside the main yachting centres, is a threat to yacht racing.
Regarding your last question, I thought the RYA was the yacht club association for the south coast.