What price Safety?

[Ingwe]

What I think has happened is that basically no one locally has looked at the categorisation of any of the local races since the OSR originally came out. The clubs have always known that the races aren't really Cat 4 so it has always been in the sailing instructions that you have to carry a liferaft - or and here is the dubious bit a partially inflated tender on deck. Obviously a partially inflated tender is about as much use as a chocolate teapot if your trying to fit 8 crew into it and there are large waves, but 20 years ago (or whenever the rules were originally written locally) the clubs thought that this would be enough for them to avoid any repercussions if there was a major incident.

Times have changed and we live in a much more litigious society. The big issue with trying to justify these races as Cat 4 is that if you have to get up in court and justify the race as being " Short races, close to shore in relatively warm or protected waters normally held in daylight." it's the protected waters bit that is the problem as on average there will be one day per week locally with over a 2 metre swell and with the prevailing wind directions we end up racing around very close in to lee shores - which you would never justify as being "protected waters" in a court of law.

So the clubs need to bite the bullet and reclassify a lot of these races as Cat 3 (which is what they always should have been) as opposed to Cat 4 with a partially inflated tender.

 

[awol]

Regarding your last question, I thought the RYA was the yacht club association for the south coast.

Apparently there is a Solent Cruising & Racing Association to co-ordinate activities in that area.

 

[lpdsn]

What I think has happened is that basically no one locally has looked at the categorisation of any of the local races since the OSR originally came out. The clubs have always known that the races aren't really Cat 4 so it has always been in the sailing instructions that you have to carry a liferaft - or and here is the dubious bit a partially inflated tender on deck. Obviously a partially inflated tender is about as much use as a chocolate teapot if your trying to fit 8 crew into it and there are large waves, but 20 years ago (or whenever the rules were originally written locally) the clubs thought that this would be enough for them to avoid any repercussions if there was a major incident.

Times have changed and we live in a much more litigious society. The big issue with trying to justify these races as Cat 4 is that if you have to get up in court and justify the race as being " Short races, close to shore in relatively warm or protected waters normally held in daylight." it's the protected waters bit that is the problem as on average there will be one day per week locally with over a 2 metre swell and with the prevailing wind directions we end up racing around very close in to lee shores - which you would never justify as being "protected waters" in a court of law.

So the clubs need to bite the bullet and reclassify a lot of these races as Cat 3 (which is what they always should have been) as opposed to Cat 4 with a partially inflated tender.

If that is the case then wouldn't it be better to make that change in liason with the RYA to get a consistent approach rather than taking unilateral action?

 

[lpdsn]

Apparently there is a Solent Cruising & Racing Association to co-ordinate activities in that area.

OK. I think the OP is from Devon though. Someone from the Solent telling them what to do could lead to an armed uprising.

 

[flaming]

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.

This is an interesting point... And it's nothing like as simple as it seems.

First off... If there was to be a safety inspection and one of the crew had forgotten their lifejacket that day, or hadn't serviced it etc, then the boat could be disqualified. Which is one reason why a lot of skippers like to provide all of the lifejackets. In addition to the duty of care the skipper has over the crew. Plus of course the old problem of how do you persuade new crew to come racing if to do so they need to spend a considerable amount of money on a lifejacket.. All of the items you mention (with the possible exception of the sunnies...) are not normally acquired by crew until they are sure that this sport is for them. Most new crew sail for a season at least in borrowed old foulies and cheap plastic boots. You'd put off a lot of people if they had to buy an expensive lifejacket just to try it...
So the owner is going to have to have lifejackets on the boat, whether or not the crew are bringing their own.

 

[doug748]

A report from the ground:

Yoda's modest proposal to run a Cat 4 regime with the provision of enhanced lifejackets.......

.......... has turned a short coastal race into Cat 3 with the provision of ... liferafts!

Once the talking starts with Health and Safety there is always a temptation to put another egg in the pudding.

 

[awol]

The proof of the pudding will be in the number of entries. Difficult to know how many, if any, will be put off by the requirements but the local scuttlebutt will produce a rumour, I'm sure.

 

[Chris 249]

I think the Fastnet '79 report noted that a significant proportion of rescues have come from other boats in the fleet. That's certainly the case where I race. I seem to recall that something like 30% of rescues are done by other competitors. Obviously, in some situations the RNLI or merchant vessels could have picked up those competitors later, but that would increase their time in the water, with all the risks that entails.

Given that, it would appear that any risk assessment has to cover the possibility if the extra safety requirements turn off competitors, then then the number of potential rescuers (ie other yachts) in the fleet will be reduced, and therefore overall risk could be increased. After all, if a liferaft and splashcover reduce the overall danger by (say) 5% but if the greatest danger is going overboard unconscious and the fleet (and therefore the effective rescue cover) is reduced by 25% or so due to the extra costs, then the race may actually becomes more dangerous due to the extra safety gear.

Down here in Australia the offshore racing scene is dire. At a time when two of the three offshore classics (Bermuda and Fastnet) are getting record fleets, the Hobart is much smaller than it was and the other races are struggling even more. We also have more stringent safety requirements. Recently one of our major races downgraded itself from Cat 2 to Cat 3+ and the fleet pretty much doubled. The only two new races to succeed in decades are also Cat 3+ but in earlier years would have been Cat 2. So even in a place where the economy is very strong it appears that upping the safety category has a major effect on fleet numbers (and therefore rescuer numbers).

I once ran some rough numbers on the chance of dying in a Cat 1/2 offshore race in Australian waters. It turned out to be basically exactly the same chance as dying over the same time if you stayed at home and encountered the normal risks of driving to work or having a heart attack. We'd probably actually improve the life expectancy of offshore racers if we sold all our safety gear and put the money into medical check-ups and exercise programmes to reduce the really significant risks, such as heart attacks. While that's obviously not going to happen, it does put the risks of sailing into some perspective.

 

[lpdsn]

+1 Very good post, Chris249.

 

[doug748]

The proof of the pudding will be in the number of entries. Difficult to know how many, if any, will be put off by the requirements but the local scuttlebutt will produce a rumour, I'm sure.

Yes, and even better the number of entries in a few years time.

At least one of the series under threat is tremendously successful and has not been encouraging entrants for at least 5 years, purely because of the pressure of numbers.
Occasional racers, those on a shoestring, those who just want to give it a try, and young sailors in particular are not going to spend £500 to £1000 for stuff which has marginal impact on the safety of the boat or event. For a small boat this can amount to a year's berthing budget.

Before this blow, I recall we sifted through this about a year ago with MissFitz:

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...ere-be-any-takers&highlight=cheapskate+racing

 

[lw395]

A report from the ground:

Yoda's modest proposal to run a Cat 4 regime with the provision of enhanced lifejackets.......

.......... has turned a short coastal race into Cat 3 with the provision of ... liferafts!

Once the talking starts with Health and Safety there is always a temptation to put another egg in the pudding.

The problem is, when you've forced boats to tool up for ocean standards, it becomes less reasonable to postpone a race due to unpleasant racing conditions.
There's a good few people who want to do a coastal race in decent weather, but are not keen to beat up themselves and their sails in half a storm.
The kind of operating model you need for the Fastnet or Hobart is not necessarily right for local club racing.

 

[doug748]

".......The kind of operating model you need for the Fastnet or Hobart is not necessarily right for local club racing.


Just so. The thinking behind this seems to be, that by shoving up the categories you make things safer but would it? Where does it leave Cat 0, in ten years maybe for short races between minor planets.

These are Offshore regulations.

To relegate Cat 4 into the realms of round the can dinghy races in Poole or Plymouth Sound, misses the point of the thing. There is a lot of stuff on the Cat 4 inspection card that makes it clear the intention is make provision for short, day, (possibly night) offshore passages where there is a chance that assistance may not be immediately available.

I don't know where this has come from, perhaps some RNSA politburo but as we are being warned that the Ullman Series might well become Cat 3 with liferaft, it may well be the work of some busy committee chappie at port level in Plymouth. Maybe the administration is less if few people turn out, I dunno.

It would be interesting to know if any similar changes are proposed elsewhere. For sure, once a precedent is set the H & S toilers will be talking about "best practice"

 

[lw395]

In the Dutch report on the Capella, there was mention of motorboats patrolling the race area in the risk assessment?

 

[yoda]

".......The kind of operating model you need for the Fastnet or Hobart is not necessarily right for local club racing.


Just so. The thinking behind this seems to be, that by shoving up the categories you make things safer but would it? Where does it leave Cat 0, in ten years maybe for short races between minor planets.

These are Offshore regulations.

To relegate Cat 4 into the realms of round the can dinghy races in Poole or Plymouth Sound, misses the point of the thing. There is a lot of stuff on the Cat 4 inspection card that makes it clear the intention is make provision for short, day, (possibly night) offshore passages where there is a chance that assistance may not be immediately available.

I don't know where this has come from, perhaps some RNSA politburo but as we are being warned that the Ullman Series might well become Cat 3 with liferaft, it may well be the work of some busy committee chappie at port level in Plymouth. Maybe the administration is less if few people turn out, I dunno.

It would be interesting to know if any similar changes are proposed elsewhere. For sure, once a precedent is set the H & S toilers will be talking about "best practice"

Really quite offensive. The exercise was carried out by myself because nobody else in the port was prepared to do a proper risk assessment. The reality is we are not trying to cut down on organisation and have actually taken on more races this year than in past years. Believe me I am no politburo and want to see more people safely racing in the area. You have to go through the mill of examining all the risks and what the categories do and don't require to understand how the answer was come to. What other clubs choose to do is up to them, there is a wide range of interpretation of the Offshore regs and you are entitled to your view.

Yoda

 

[Muddy32]

There is RRS rule 4, which seems to be forgotten.

 

[doug748]

".......The kind of operating model you need for the Fastnet or Hobart is not necessarily right for local club racing."
--------------------------------

"Just so. The thinking behind this seems to be, that by shoving up the categories you make things safer but would it? Where does it leave Cat 0, in ten years maybe for short races between minor planets.

These are Offshore regulations.

To relegate Cat 4 into the realms of round the can dinghy races in Poole or Plymouth Sound, misses the point of the thing. There is a lot of stuff on the Cat 4 inspection card that makes it clear the intention is make provision for short, day, (possibly night) offshore passages where there is a chance that assistance may not be immediately available.

I don't know where this has come from, perhaps some RNSA politburo but as we are being warned that the Ullman Series might well become Cat 3 with liferaft, it may well be the work of some busy committee chappie at port level in Plymouth. Maybe the administration is less if few people turn out, I dunno.

It would be interesting to know if any similar changes are proposed elsewhere. For sure, once a precedent is set the H & S toilers will be talking about "best practice"
----------------------------------


"Really quite offensive. The exercise was carried out by myself because nobody else in the port was prepared to do a proper risk assessment. The reality is we are not trying to cut down on organisation and have actually taken on more races this year than in past years. Believe me I am no politburo and want to see more people safely racing in the area. You have to go through the mill of examining all the risks and what the categories do and don't require to understand how the answer was come to. What other clubs choose to do is up to them, there is a wide range of interpretation of the Offshore regs and you are entitled to your view."

--------------------------------------

See post 46. My remarks were not designed to offend anyone, I was speculating on how you, or your committee, might have been influenced to change your position:

Your post 1 discusses running Cat 4 coastal races with enhanced lifejackets.

My race instructions say:

"All races will be Category THREE. Additionally you will be required to carry a liferaft"

It is not clear how the former has transformed into the latter.
Most of the excluded boats are modest with owners taking on 3 or 4 races a year, in good weather.
The one off purchase of a lifejacket is one thing on a small boat; meeting Cat 3 plus obtaining, siting and annually inspecting a liferaft is quite another.

Anyway, for good or ill it is done now.

 

[lw395]

There is RRS rule 4, which seems to be forgotten.

The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to
continue racing is hers alone

Exactly.
Once you've raised races to cat 3, you shouldn't be entering them unless you're prepared for a strong gale, and you shouldn't be cancelling them in anything short of a hundred year storm.
Which kind of alienates a lot of sailors who are looking for an enjoyable race and are quite happy for it to be canned if there's more than a 6 in the forecast.

It comes down to knowing what your punters want. And can cope with.
I have known racing which could have been made safer by being clearly labelled as 'inshore and we will cancel if the weather's nasty'.

 

[Ingwe]

The rule for this series was always that you either had to have a liferaft on board or a partially inflated tender on deck - I have never seen more than one or two boats with a partially inflated tender on deck so I had always assumed that everyone else had liferaft on board..... So insisting on the liferaft should only effect a couple of boats.

 

[lw395]

The rule for this series was always that you either had to have a liferaft on board or a partially inflated tender on deck - I have never seen more than one or two boats with a partially inflated tender on deck so I had always assumed that everyone else had liferaft on board..... So insisting on the liferaft should only effect a couple of boats.

It also affects the boats which might have entered, had a liferaft not been mandated.
Partially inflated tenders is just silly.

 

[awol]

Just being nosey!
How did the event go? Did the "enhanced" requirements get used and was the number of participants up or down on previous years?